To consider a presentation on the successes and lessons learnt from the project.

The Chairman informed the Panel that he had asked for this item to be considered as it was a good example of effective project management; it was a large project undertaken quickly.

Ann Pfeiffer gave a presentation on the Oldfield School expansion project.

The Panel were informed that the projects education objective was to expand Oldfield Primary School in Maidenhead from 210 pupils to 420 pupils to accommodate growing numbers of pupils in the local area.  The project was on a new site, had to be within the existing designated area and without diminishing the high standards of the ‘Outstanding’ school.

The construction objectives were to have the new school building built on time by September 2015, within budget and have good quality build that provided suitable spaces for teaching and learning.

The Panel were shown a list of key approval dates from the initial in principle project approval in November 2011 to completion with the school opening September 2015.

The project had a number of key constraints; these were:

·         The need to be open for Sept 2015, with sufficient time for school to move in.

·         Appropriate time of year for moving slow worms.

·         Planning issues; designing for flood plain, environment agency approval, traffic management.

·         Objections from vocal local residents and risk of Judicial Review.

·         Waterway adjacent to school site.

·         Logistics of moving a whole school within a few days.

·         Forest Bridge School needing to move into old school site for September 2015.

The Panel were informed that the original budget estimate was had been £10 million with the final budget expected to come in at £8.2 million. 

The Panel were informed that all the project objectives were met with the following successes being highlighted:

·         Achieved handover in time for moving in and starting in Sept 2015.

·         The procurement route for this Design and Build scheme via iESE framework.

·         Overall design: feasibility scheme developed well into full design, including for the flood zone.

·         Co-operation between RBWM, school, and design team.

·         Budget planning - risk allowances built in from the start.

·         Traffic management and pupil drop-off - even with Stafferton Way works still taking place.

There were an number of areas that could have gone better and lessons learnt; these were:

·         Finding slow-worms resulted in delays and consequential cost increases.

·         Greater continuity of personnel - architectural team, construction team and internal building services team. 

·         Closer liaison with school and client on detailed design and Value Engineering.

·         A longer period for the final stage, to reduce the list of snagging issues.

·         Less stressful handover for the school.

·         Playing field drainage.

The Panel noted that about 85% of pupils walked to school, that the project was managed by officers with the contractors project managing on the ground.

The Chairman recommended that a ‘implementation report’ should be held so lessons can be learnt for any future builds.  It was recommended that Internal Audit could review the lessons learnt to inform new projects.

It was questioned why drainage for the playing fields had not been factored into the original design and the Panel were informed that the contractor had said that the playing field would be usable.  Officers accepted this professional opinion but were now challenging this. It was recommended that for future projects professional opinion should be given in writing.

The Chairman thanked officers for the presentation and congratulated them on the successful project.