Invitation 98/50

Improving poor estates: invitation to bid

This circular is also available in Word and RTF formats.

Executive summary

1. Purpose

2. This document invites bids for funding in the financial year 1999-2000 to improve poor estates.

   Key points

3. This is the second year of the poor estates initiative which is directed towards major refurbishments, projects to make more efficient use of space and new build. The initiative will provide at least £105 million over the first three years.
4. We will normally fund 50 per cent of project costs, although exceptionally we may agree higher levels of funding.

   Action required

5. There will be a single-stage bidding process. Submissions, using the project definition form at Annex A, should be returned by midday on 23 November 1998.

    

   Background

6. In order to help institutions improve poor estates, we are providing at least £105 million over the three years from 1998-2000. Details of the initiative were given in HEFCE 97/3, and the 54 projects that were successful in the first round were announced in HEFCE 98/26. The first year of the initiative provided a number of useful lessons. In HEFCE 98/37 we gave feedback on the first round, and consulted institutions on how to improve the process. Responses provided valuable comment on the initiative, and influenced the bidding criteria for the second round.

   Eligible projects

7. Poor estates funding is directed towards major refurbishments, projects to make more efficient use of space, and new build.
8. We will give priority to large-scale projects which will make a real difference in enabling institutions to develop. We are not looking to fund small-scale marginal developments. We will therefore not fund work on residences; and would not normally support projects that only ensure compliance with legislation, are predominantly maintenance works or are self-financing, such as projects to improve energy efficiency.
9. Projects must have started on site after 1 April 1998 and usually before 30 September 2000.
10. We will normally fund 50 per cent of project costs, although a higher level of funding may be agreed in exceptional circumstances. Matched funds can be drawn from any source and external funding is encouraged. We may require some institutions to repay grants over a period of up to 10 years. Repayment provisions may be included within the terms of any grant.

    Bids

11. A maximum of two bids may be submitted.
12. To ensure that the initiative is directed at key projects that cannot readily be funded from elsewhere, the value of the overall project should be no less than £500,000 or 5 per cent of 1996-7 recurrent income, whichever is lower. Grants to an individual institution are unlikely to exceed £4 million in any single round of the initiative.
13. Institutions should submit six copies of their bids using the project definition form at Annex A and, if they wish, up to four A4 sheets of location and floor plans. Any additional material will be disregarded. This document and the form are available on the Internet at http://www.hefce.ac.uk under 'Publications'
14. In assessing bids, we will take account of previous grant allocations under the poor estates initiative.

     

    Assessment criteria

15. Bids will be assessed against the following criteria:
    • impact on the estate measured in terms of the number of students and the floor area affected by the project relative to the institution as a whole, or, where appropriate, to an individual campus
    • overall condition of the estate, favouring institutions with the worst estates and projects which significantly improve the condition of affected buildings
    • coherence with the institutional and estate strategies, and the significance of the project in enabling the institution to achieve its mission
    • overall value for money of the project
    • the level of previous institutional investment in the estate, with priority given where such investment has been high
    • achievements in estate management
    • additional criteria that support the project (see Annex 1 paragraph 17).
16. An advisory panel drawn from the HEFCE Board and the sector's representative bodies (CVCP and SCOP) review the project.

    Successful projects

17. We will announce the outcome of bids in March 1999. Offers will be made subject to confirmation that:
    • an investment appraisal has been conducted conforming to criteria specified by the Council
    • procurement will be undertaken in accordance with good practice
    • project funding is in place, and details of financing and expenditure cash flows are provided.
18. In certain cases, grants may also be conditional on a site visit.
19. We will fund successful bids on the basis of cash flow projections and known contract sums. At the end of the project, institutions must submit audited statements that all funding has been used for the approved purpose.

    Timetable

20. The timetable for bidding is:

    midday on 23 November 1998	Deadline for submissions
    December 1998	Short-listing of bids
    January 1999	Announcement of short-listed bids
    February 1999	Panel assessment of short-listed bids
    March 1999	Announcement of grant awards.

    Date of return

21. Six copies of the project definition form should be returned by midday on 23 November 1998 to:

    Nikki Sutton
    HEFCE
    Northavon House
    Coldharbour Lane
    Bristol
    BS16 1QD

22. We will not consider late bids, but bids posted first class and postmarked on or before 21 November 1998 will be eligible.

Annex A

Project definition form

Please complete the form in clear dark typescript using a minimum of 10-point type. Up to four A4 sheets of location and floor plans may be added; these should be firmly attached.

The original, and five double-sided unbound photocopies of the completed application form and annexes, must be returned by midday on 23 November 1998 to:

Nikki Sutton
HEFCE
Northavon House
Coldharbour Lane
Bristol BS16 1QD

Institution __________________________________ Date of submission ________________

Contact name _________________ Telephone ________________ e-mail_______________

Title of project ______________________________________________________________

Bid value___________________________________________________________________

Synopsis of the project (maximum 20 words) ______________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

1. Brief description of the project. (Maximum 200 words.)
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. Please confirm that a preliminary option appraisal has been undertaken. As a minimum this should compare the costs and benefits of the proposal with doing nothing, and show that the proposed project produces a net present value (NPV) which is positive or at least more favourable than the do nothing option.

   	Undertaken (ü )	Positive NPV (ü )	More favourable than do nothing (ü )
   Preliminary option appraisal

    

3. Please summarise the benefits and returns indicated by the preliminary option appraisal. We would expect this to cover items such as lower energy and maintenance costs, higher utilisation rates, improved condition, and other benefits, quantified wherever possible. Institutions unable to quantify likely changes in annual running costs are unlikely to receive funding. (Maximum 200 words.)
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

   Impact

4. We will assess the impact of the project on the campus which it is situated on. Where a project is not situated on a particular campus, it should be treated as if it is part of the nearest campus. The primary measures of impact will be the number of students and floor area affected by the project. Other impacts should be identified as part of Other benefits, paragraph 17.

   	Gross m²	Net usable m²
   Total area of institution excluding residences
   Total area of relevant campus excluding residences
   Project
   Adaptation
   New build
   Total for project

    

5. Number of clearly distinct campuses:          ________

    

6. Name of relevant campus

    

7. Please state which departments are affected by the project.

   Department	Proportion of the institution's total net usable space this department occupies	Proportion of departmental space this project affects

    

8. Who will benefit from the project? Please complete using full-time equivalent numbers.

   	Numbers who use existing facility	Numbers who will use completed project facility	Total numbers attending institution	Total numbers attending distinct campus
   Undergraduate
   Postgraduate research
   Postgraduate taught
   Staff
   Total

   Condition

9. Please give your best estimate of the condition of the estate, using the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Building Maintenance Information standard definitions; grades A, B, C and D. Please state when the last comprehensive condition assessment was carried out. We will weight categories A B C D as 1:2:4:6, to reflect the greater negative impact of category D space.

   Condition	A	B	C	D	Total
   % of estate					100%
   Current % of project building					100%
   % of project building after completion					100%

   Date of last formal, comprehensive condition survey ____________________

   Undertaken by__________________________________________________

   Coherence with institutional and estate strategies

10. How does this project help to deliver key quantified institutional aims and objectives as set out in the institution's corporate strategy, annual operating statement, estates strategy and academic strategy? (Maximum 200 words.)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
11. Set out below relevant extracts, with references to the document, demonstrating that the project is consistent with institutional planning. Where the project has not previously been referred to in institutional planning documents but is desirable because of an unexpected set of circumstances, please demonstrate that the project is in keeping with the strategic direction of the institution (Maximum 200 words.)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

     

12. With respect to the estate strategy:

    a. Please give the date the current strategy was approved by Governors	____________________
    b. Please give the expected date for agreeing an updated strategy	____________________

     

    Value for money

13. To assess the value for money delivered by the project, we would like an analysis of your estimated component costs. We have simplified the RICS Building Cost Information Services standard analysis to help us make consistent judgements; these will take into account cost per m² and cost per person affected.

    Element	Cost *	Cost/m2 gross floor area
    Substructure
    Frame and upper floors
    Roof
    Stairs
    Windows and external walls and doors
    Internal walls, partitions and doors
    Finishes
    Fittings
    Sanitary appliances
    Mechanical services
    Electrical installations
    Lifts
    Site works and drainage
    External services
    External works
    Enabling works
    Total (less contingencies)
    Contingencies
    Total building cost
    Other specialist works (please state)
    VAT
    Professional fees (inc VAT)
    Fitting out (inc VAT)
    Any allowance for increased costs between the bid and letting the contract
    Total project cost

    * At prices current on or around 1 November 1998.

14. Please list any special factors that will affect building costs, such as site conditions, restricted access, town planning constraints and special requirements. (Maximum 150 words.)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Previous investment in the estate

15. We will take into account the level of previous institutional investment in the estate, with priority given where such investment has been high. We will use the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) finance data (on repairs and maintenance, major and minor works and total income) as a basis to determine how much institutions have spent on their estate over the previous three financial years 1995-97. However, the HESA record has difficulty in capturing some of the more innovative forms of investment. If this applies to your institution, please provide supplementary information on additional estate investment not captured through HESA. (Maximum 150 words.)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Estate management

16. We are keen to ensure that effective estate management is rewarded. Please provide data indicated (if readily available) If data are not available please show this rather than any estimates

    a. Changes in the level of space utilisation achieved during 1998, expressed as a percentage of 1993 performance.		Utilisation %	Percentage change (+ or -)
    	1993
    	1998

     

    b. Changes in energy consumption per m² in 1998, expressed as a percentage of 1993 performance.		Energy consumption kJ/m²	Percentage change (+ or -)
    	1993
    	1998

     

    c. Change in total estate management costs per m² since 1993		Total estate management costs £/m²	Percentage change (+ or -)
    	1993
    	1998

     

    d. Reduction in backlog maintenance as shown by reductions in the percentage of the estate in conditions C and D since 1993.		1993 %	1998 %	Percentage change (+ or -)
    	Condition C
    	Condition D

      e. A list and brief description of the five most significant successful projects or initiatives since 1993. (Maximum 150 words.)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    f. Progress since 1993 in developing estate records and other systems to promote efficiency. (Maximum 150 words.)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Further criteria

17. We will also support projects that deliver the following benefits:
    • improved student access
    • stronger ties with the local community
    • a small impact but critical effect, for example by providing a much needed facility
    • high strategic value, for example enabling a new course to be set up
    • scope for collaboration
    • funds levered from other sources
    • environmental benefits
    • better use of a building poorly suited to HE use
    • improved cohesion of a geographically dispersed institution.

    Please focus on the three most relevant issues and describe how any of these benefits are delivered, quantified where possible. (Maximum 150 words.)

18. We also need to establish the likely call on our funds. At this stage, this is only indicative and will not form part of the project assessment.

    Source of funds	Total project cost £000	Expenditure between 1.4.98 and 31.3.99	Qtr 1 Apr- Jun 1999 £000	Qtr 2 Jul- Sep 1999 £000	Qtr 3 Oct- Dec 1999 £000	Qtr 4 Jan- Mar 2000 £000	2nd year 2000- 2001 £000	3rd year 2001- 2002 £000	4th year 2002- 2003 £000
    Institution
    HEFCE
    Total

     

    Estimated project start date
    Estimated completion date
    Total project cost as a proportion of 1998-99 recurrent institutional income	%
    Please indicate the source of the institution's funding:		£000
    	Reserves
    	Additional borrowing
    	Donation
    	Lottery
    	Other (please specify):
    	Total