Overview of Education Authority's Minor Works Service

1. The purpose of this paper is to provide some background and detail to the Education Authority’s (EA) minor works service, and in particular to the replacement of a 3G pitch at Lisneal College, Derry / Londonderry.

2. Typically, in relation to schools, there are four types of works undertaken in terms of buildings and grounds:

a)      Major Works

Major works covers new build or full refurbishment projects. These are generally announced by a Minister after an open application process and EA is provided with earmarked funding from DE to deliver them.

b)      School Enhancement

The Department of Education’s (DE) School Enhancement Programme (SEP) provides financial support for capital projects that make targeted investment to meet immediate and pressing enhancement needs. These are also generally announced by a Minister after an application process and EA is provided with earmarked funding from DE to deliver them.

c)      Minor Works

A very useful definition of minor capital works was set out in the NIAO Report, published in November 2024 - “Minor Works Projects range from traditional maintenance schemes such as replacing doors and windows to Disability Discrimination Act upgrades, and typically cost from £1,000 up to £1 million, which can be exceeded with Departmental approval.”  Importantly, in the context of recent confusion about the upper limit on minor works schemes, this clarifies that such schemes typically reach £1 million (and indeed they can go above £1 million).

As indicated above, DE has delegated authority to EA for minor works projects valued up to £1 million, with business cases for work above this threshold requiring departmental approval.  This delegation level has been operational practice since October 2017.

d)      Maintenance

Maintenance is typically funded out of the recurrent (as opposed to capital) budget and covers the repair and maintenance of assets.  Repairs to school buildings such as a leaking roof or a faulty boiler are deemed to be emergency maintenance works and are dealt with as a priority by EA.

3. The focus of this paper is only on minor works projects.

4. As the owner of the controlled school estate, EA is responsible for asset management, including minor works, in controlled schools; and is the decision-maker for prioritising and allocating minor capital works funding in this sector.  For the non-controlled sector, decision making responsibility for these issues sits with DE – although EA may undertake operational delivery work on behalf of DE.  One key outworking of this is that the EA does not consider the relative prioritisation of the need for minor works between controlled and non-controlled schools. To reiterate, it has no role in deciding on the competing merits of proposed minor works across different sectors – it only has authority for such projects in the controlled sector.

5. The focus of this paper is on the controlled sector.

6. Historically, minor works projects have fallen into one of three categories.

a) Priority 1
Projects that meet inescapable statutory requirements such as health and safety, fire protection and statutory obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act.

b) Priority 2
Projects to ensure the integrity and suitability of the estate.

c) Priority 3
Curriculum based projects that would meet currently unmet needs in schools.

7. As reported in the NIAO November 2024 Report, priority 2 and 3 projects have not been taken forward in recent years, due to funding constraints, and only priority 1 projects are being progressed.  In terms of priority 1 projects:

• These do not need to follow a prescribed application process but are typically identified in other ways – for example the school reaching out to EA with a concern, by grounds or maintenance teams, routine or emergency site visits, or health & safety inspection/reports.
• There is no ranking process within the priority 1 categorisation - there are two main reasons for this.  Firstly, and of most significance, EA is committed to delivering all projects within this highest classification in as timely a manner as possible.  Secondly, there is simply no robust way unique projects that are all a high risk can be compared against each other.  For example, works to support an individual child with a physical disability, such as installing a lift, cannot reasonably be compared to a high-risk traffic management project or replacing a fire alarm system.
• Typically, projects are taken forward on the basis of:
  • their state of readiness (for example, taking account of planning approvals and other areas of infrastructure like roads / water);
  • the logistics of delivery (for example, some projects can only be delivered when pupils are not on site, limiting the window to the summer months); and
  • and the availability of funding (for example some small projects can be “mopped up” at the end of the financial year if late funding becomes available).

8. The individual approved Business Case sets out and evaluates the options available to address the need.  It will identify the prioritised need, estimate the associated costs across the lifetime of the project, and the anticipated programme/ timescale to deliver the project to hand over for use by the school. It is important to emphasise that the costs in the business case are before any market testing and thus carry a potentially material health warning as regards accuracy.

9. Ongoing internal review of funding availability of Priority 1 projects is undertaken by the Minor Capital Delivery (MiCD) Team within EA, based on factors such as the delivery progress of all minor capital projects and the availability of funding within the relevant financial year.  The MiCD delivery programme is updated regularly for each project.

10. Typically, it takes a MiCD minor capital project, a minimum of 3 years to progress from project initiation to being available for use by the school. 

11. Some projects by their scope (simple/ limited capital works) can progress faster.  For more complex projects, the process tends to be slower as it requires detailed design, development or statutory approvals to secure the optimum project delivery outcome. 

12. A project’s in-year funding need largely reflects its state of readiness to progress to the construction stage where most of the financial cost occurs (circa 80%).  This also means that while preparatory work can be done at relatively low cost for many projects to take them to the pre-construction stage, the lack of availability of funding means that those projects can sometimes stall there for a period.

13. MiCD reviews its delivery programme, which spans multiple financial years, to profile out both its in-year and future funding needs based on the actual readiness stage of each project.

14. There were five other projects at the same readiness stage as Lisneal (i.e. six projects in total) that were included in EA’s bid for 2024/25 funding to DE in January 2024.  All six projects have been commenced, with one already handed over to the school and the other five currently on site.

15. The table below summarises the DE to EA ‘Other Capital / Minor Works’ allocations for the current year to date and the previous four financial years.  In addition to buildings and grounds issues, this funding covers issues such as such as catering, cleaning, ICT, transport, etc.

* as of 31/12/2024

16. Individual projects may span several financial years.  The number of controlled minor capital projects completed annually is detailed below:

17. Rather than set out the details in abstract form, the approval process for the various stages of minor works projects are best understood by reference to the Lisneal project, which reflect normal practice.  Full details are set out below.

18. Lisneal College was built in 2007 and included one 3G pitch with a design life of approximately 10 years, depending on use and extent of maintenance.  The pitch is now 18 years old.

19. In 2019 the school principal contacted the EA to raise concerns about the safety of the surface, citing several injuries over the course of the preceding two academic years, including a serious leg break.  A pitch inspection was carried out by EA’s Grounds Maintenance on 12 December 2019.  The findings of this pitch inspection were that the pitch was ‘very poor condition and must be replaced’.

20. Based on this recommendation, the project was categorised as Priority 1 due to the risk to user safety.  A minor works project was then initiated by the MiCD Team.

21. Lisneal College and other third parties continued to make use of the pitch.  A visual inspection was carried out prior to each use by the PE teacher / referee / person responsible from the school before each game to assess the level of local risk.  EA supported the school in the continuing use of the pitch by undertaking small minor repairs when reported by the school. This low level of maintenance did not undermine the original assessment that the pitch represented a health and safety risk and needed to be replaced as it did not improve the condition of the pitch surface.  It only enabled it to continue to be used with care. 

22. EA tendered for and appointed an external Integrated Design Team in 2021.  This design team carried out a pitch inspection and subsequently commissioned an independent ground investigation report, which was received in late 2021.  The design team independently confirmed that the surface needed to be replaced and in May 2022 the Feasibility Report was completed and approved to progress into Business Case preparation.

23. In 2022, EA officers prepared a business case using the agreed template from DE. 

This explored three options:

• Option 1:  Do Nothing.
• Option 2:  Do Minimum – replace the existing 3G pitch as is (53x94m=4982 m/sq.), to include for new fixed goals and ball stop fencing.  Estimated cost £695k.
• Option 3:  Replace the existing 3G pitch and adjust proportion/size to IFA and DE Handbook standard (55x90m=4950 m/sq.), to include for run off area, three sets of mobile goals, 1200mm high perimeter fencing (as a spectator barrier), 4.5m high perimeter fencing and 9m high ball stop fencing. Estimated cost £760k.

24. Following evaluation, the Business Case identified Option 3 as the preferred option.

25. To address the commentary regarding IFA standard, this refers only to pitch dimensions.   The specification of the replacement 3G surface at Lisneal College is the same as EA now specifies for other 3G surfaces.  The preferred option includes a very slightly adjusted pitch proportion (although it should be noted that in total, the pitch area for the preferred option is less than for option 2); run-off and dug outs in line with the requirements of DE’s Building Handbook for Post Primary Schools; and additional fencing.  Whilst the Building Handbook is primarily for new builds, it is good practice for EA to meet the requirements when carrying out minor works, when possible. To be clear, there is no difference in pitch surface specifications between option 2 and option 3 of the business case.

26. Whilst the children and young people at Lisneal College are the core beneficiary of this replacement pitch surface and associated works, in line with EA’s statutory responsibility to promote and encourage community use of school facilities, a licence agreement between EA and Maiden City Football Club was signed in September 2023. This put in place formal arrangements for the joint management of the facility, including shared operating and maintenance costs and access to club facilities at no additional cost to the school.

27. The price differential in the business case between the ‘do minimum’ replacement option and the preferred option is £65k, of which approximately £10k is optimism bias and risk for market uncertainty.  This was deemed to provide value for money.

28. In June 2022, the business case recommending Option 3 was approved in line with the standard approach – this involved three different individuals to ensure objectivity (EA Business Case Officer, EA Service Manager and EA Head of Service).

29. The externally appointed design team then proceeded to design Option 3 and planning permission from Derry City and Strabane District Council was applied for in February 2023.  This was for the elements of this minor work project that require approval, namely the ball stop netting and perimeter fencing.  EA’s external designer advised that as the surface is simply a replacement of the existing synthetic surface, the pitch itself did not require planning consent.  Planning permission was granted in November 2023. 

30. In January 2024 the expected cost of this project was included in EA’s capital requirement budget build for minor capital works projects in 2024/25.  Throughout Q1 and Q2 of 2024/25, the minor capital budget was monitored closely and reported to DE through the established Capital Monthly Monitoring Returns process. Information in monthly reports is at a high level and does not get into the specific detail of individual projects.

31. By August 2024 there was considerably more certainty about budget availability and a formal Procurement Needs Request form was completed, again signed by 3 separate officers (EA Project Manager, EA Service Manager and EA Assistant Director) and submitted to EA’s Commercial Procurement Service.  A below threshold secondary tender competition was carried out in September 2024. In October 2024 the availability of budget was confirmed and following the outcome of the successful tender process, the contract was awarded in November 2024.  The value of the contract award was such that officers could approve, again with a 3-signature process, (EA Senior Procurement Category Manager, EA Head of Service and EA Assistant Director).  In line with EA’s established procedures, contracts that are awarded through the tender process are reported to the Resources and People Committee.

32. Whilst the actual total cost of this project will not be known until it is finally handed over from the contractor and the final account agreed, EA estimates that the total cost will be approximately £600k.  This has changed as the procurement process delivered a contract that was materially lower than the earlier estimate.  However, until very recently this was deemed to be a commercially sensitive figure and could not be disclosed openly.