Decision Maker: Cabinet Member Signing

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: December 18, 2025

Purpose:

Content: DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST FOR THIS ITEM:   None   RESOLVED:   That the Cabinet Member for Children, Education and Families, pursuant to Contract Standing Orders 0.08 and 2.01(b):   1.    Approved the commencement of a tendering process for a construction works contractor to deliver condition works on the west site at Coleridge Primary School.   Reasons for decision   The school had suffered from a historical shortfall of investment and subsequently the roof covering of the building had deteriorated. The structure of the roof was predominantly constructed with wood wool, a deleterious material, which could lose its structural integrity if it became wet. Therefore, it was essential to engage a construction works delivery contractor to undertake the roof works.   Replacing the leaking roof at the school was essential to ensure the safety and well-being of students, staff, and visitors. A roof constructed with wood wool, while initially cost-effective and environmentally friendly, could deteriorate over time, especially when exposed to moisture. The leaks not only compromised the structural integrity of the building but also posed significant health risks, such as mould growth and potential respiratory issues. Additionally, a well-maintained roof was crucial for preserving the school's infrastructure, preventing further damage, and ensuring a conducive learning environment. Investing in a new roof ultimately saved on long-term repair costs and demonstrated the council's commitment to providing a safe and supportive educational setting.   It was proposed to procure a contractor on a single-stage, JCT traditional form of contract using the London Construction Programme Education Framework or DPS. Soft market engagement had been undertaken to ascertain interest and availability within the market, with positive feedback on the proposed approach.   Alternative options considered   Do nothing – The council could have decided not to tender the scheme and continued repairing the leaking roof instead. This might have seemed cost-effective in the short term, but it was not a sustainable solution. The ongoing repairs were unlikely to fully resolve the underlying issues, especially given the roof's construction with wood wool, which was prone to deterioration when exposed to moisture. This approach risked recurring leaks and further damage, leading to escalating repair costs over time. Ultimately, the repeated repairs might have proved to be more expensive than investing in a comprehensive roof replacement. By not addressing the root cause, the council potentially compromised the safety and integrity of the building, which could have had more serious financial and operational implications in the future. In-house – There was currently no resource within the Council that had the capacity, specialist expertise or qualifications to deliver this service. Invite open tenders via Contracts Finder – This would have resulted in a protracted tender period and would have delayed delivery of the project. Use an alternative public sector DPS – This would not have been compliant with CSO 8.02, given the LCP Framework or DPS had been deemed suitable for the requirements being sought.