PFI contracts and school estates: who really knows what is happening on site?
By Chris Coyle, NASPM
There is a phrase I have heard many times in schools with PFI contracts:
“We pay them to do that.”
On the face of it, that sounds reasonable. If a school has a contract in place for elements of its estate management, maintenance or facilities provision, it is natural to assume those areas are being dealt with.
But that is where I think some of the risk sits.
PFI contracts can make estate management look clear on paper, but in practice they can cause confusion as to where legal duties for statutory compliance lie. The school may assume the provider is managing a particular area safely and can provide evidence of compliance. The provider may be working to the contract as written, without necessarily having a complete understanding of every statutory requirement. There can be gaps in understanding, evidence and assurance – and indeed we find this is often the case.
PFI arrangements can bring structure, defined services and dedicated support, allowing the school to focus on other matters. But they do not remove the need for schools to understand what is happening across their estate, and to have full assurance of compliance.
With the summer holidays upon us, schools are anything but quiet. Contractors are coming and going. Maintenance works are taking place. Access arrangements change. Fire routes may be affected. Vehicles may be moving through areas they would not normally use. Cleaning teams, premises staff, holiday clubs, lettings and visitors may still be on site.
In that context, “we pay them to do that” is not enough.
School leaders, premises teams, governors and trustees still need to know that health and safety across the site is being effectively managed. This includes understanding what work is planned, whether risk assessments are suitable and sufficient, whether the agreed controls are being implemented, whether contractors are competent and whether completed work and remedial actions have been properly recorded. This requires close cooperation and ongoing open communication between the school and the PFI company.
For me, the question is not so much whether a provider is in place. The question is whether the school knows what meaningful assurance looks like, and do they have it?
All works on the school estate have health and safety implications, for which the Employer is ultimately responsible, and for which the Headteacher is typically the Responsible Person.
The Education Estates Strategy is pushing the sector towards more proactive estate management. That direction matters here. Proactive management is not about doing everything yourself. It is about knowing your estate, understanding each party’s roles and responsibilities, and maintaining sufficient oversight.
For schools with PFI arrangements, that means being clear about who is responsible for what, how risks are being managed and what evidence is available to demonstrate compliance. For instance, how does the school know that weekly water flushing is taking place? How does it know that fire doors and evacuation routes are being regularly inspected? How does it know that gas systems are being serviced and that any remedial actions are being addressed? Or is it simply assuming these things are being done?
The school may not be carrying out the work directly, but it still has a clear duty to meet it’s health and safety legal obligations – these cannot be delegated to a third party.
In my view, now is a sensible time for schools to look again at any PFI arrangement, because the sector is moving towards greater visibility, stronger evidence and clearer accountability.
If your school is relying on a PFI contract, ask what assurance you actually have.
Not just what is being paid for.
Not just what is written in the contract.
But what you can see, evidence and understand.
Because safe estate management cannot rely on assumptions.