2. COVERING TODAY
WHY CHANGE RESPONDING TO NEW EFSA SCORING CRITERIA
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR SCHOOLS AND CONSULTANTS?
HOW THIS CHANGES THE CLIENT/ CONSULTANT DYNAMIC
HOW I CAN HELP
3. WHY CHANGE?
ESFA GUIDANCE PAPER:
VALUE FOR MONEY INCREASED
FROM 15-25%
NEED REDUCED FROM 70-60%
PROJECT PLANNING 15% (NO
CHANGE)
4. IMPACT
ON
SCORING
CRITERIA
ELEMENT OUTPUT NEED PROJECT
PLANNING
VALUE FOR
MONEY
THRESHOLD
Weight
60%
1 Mark
= 3%
Score
Weight
15%
1 Mark =
1%
Score
Weight
25%
1 Mark
=1.66%
Score
77%
Scenario 1 15 45 13 58 10 16.6 74.6%
Scenario 2 15 45 13 58 11 18.26 76.26%
Scenario 3 16 48 12 60 10 16.6 76.6%
Scenario 4 16 48 12 60 11 18.26 78.26%
Scenario 5 17 51 12 63 9 14.94 77.94%
5. EVIDENCE
ESFA Feedback (Quotes from 2018/19)
The lack of school contribution
reduced the score for this section.
Higher marks would have been
awarded had the school
contributed.
Maximum marks would have been
awarded had the school made a
greater financial contribution.
Need was clearly evident,
however there was no
contribution from the school
An inability to contribute
resulted in a lower mark.
6. WHAT DOES
THIS MEAN?
FOR CIF CONSULTANTS
TARGET LIKELY WINS (HIGH NEED/
HIGH CONTRIBUTION)
PRIORITISE BIDS WITH CONTRIBUTION
EVEN IF NEED IS GREATER
MAY CHANGE NO WIN / NO FEE
MODEL
7. WHAT DOES
THIS MEAN?
FOR SCHOOLS
EMPHASIS ON CONTRIBUTION
NO CONTRIBUTION? - PLAN TO
GENERATE REVENUE/ ACCESS TO
FUNDING
THEREFORE; A RENEWED FOCUS ON
ESTATE MANAGEMENT
8. CHANGES CLIENT / CONSULTANT
RELATIONSHIP?
CONSULTANTS TO PROVIDE HOLISTIC
SERVICE:
ASSIST WITH ESTATE STRATEGY
FUNDING AND INWARD REVENUE
SEEK LONGER TERM PARTNERING
9. CHANGES
CONSULTANT /
SUPPLY CHAIN
RELATIONSHIP?
EXTENDING PARTNERING TO SUPPLY
CHAIN TO ADD VALUE:
BACK TO BACK PARTNERNG
RELATIONSHIP WITH SUPPLY CHAIN
BETTER VISIBILITY / WORK CERTAINTY =
BETTER PRICE.
WILLING TO SPONSOR SCHOOL IF
WORK IS OVER MULTIPLE YEARS
POTENTIAL FOR FRAMEWORK