What Schools Should Know Before Appointing a CIF Consultant

Preparing a strong Condition Improvement Fund application involves far more than filling in a form.

Schools may need condition surveys, technical reports, cost plans, scopes of work, procurement evidence and a clear case showing why a project should be prioritised for funding.

For many schools, particularly those without an in-house estates team, this is where external support becomes valuable.

A CIF consultant or technical adviser can help develop the project, coordinate the evidence and support the preparation of the application. However, appointing one is not simply a case of choosing the first company offering CIF bid support.

The Department for Education has strengthened its expectations around the use and procurement of technical advisers for the 2027-28 Condition Improvement Fund round. Applications must now clearly explain and evidence the process used to appoint technical advice, and schools remain responsible for the application even where an external adviser is involved.

So what should a school look for before appointing a CIF consultant, and what does the procurement process now need to demonstrate?

The Department for Education does not require schools to use a technical adviser when preparing a CIF application.

Eligible schools can manage the project and application internally if they have the necessary expertise and resources.

However, the current guidance places clear expectations on the person responsible for the project if no external adviser is appointed.

The DfE says that an internal project lead should be suitably qualified, understand their statutory responsibilities and the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, be capable of providing an appropriate health and safety file at the end of the project and ensure adequate indemnity insurance is in place.

That can make external support particularly valuable for smaller trusts and standalone academies where estates expertise may be limited. The decision should therefore not simply be whether a consultant is mandatory.

It should be whether the school has the internal technical knowledge, time and project-management capability needed to develop the project and manage the application properly.

The role can vary depending on the project and the consultant being appointed. At its most useful, a CIF consultant should help develop the project rather than simply write the final application.

That can involve reviewing the condition of the school estate, identifying potential funding priorities, organising technical surveys, helping define the proposed solution and developing the evidence required to support the bid.

They may also help with:

• Condition assessments
• Technical reports
• Project specifications
• Cost planning
• Contractor quotations
• Risk information
• Programme development
• Application preparation
• Supporting documentation
• Project delivery after funding is secured

For schools with limited estate capacity, bringing these activities together can make the process easier to manage. It can also help ensure that the written application reflects a project that has been properly investigated and developed.

The procurement of technical advice has become a much more visible part of the CIF process.

The DfE's 2027-28 guidance states that applications must clearly set out and evidence the process undertaken when appointing technical advice. That means the school should be able to show how the adviser was selected rather than simply naming the company involved.

Technical advice must be procured in accordance with the organisation's own procurement policy and any applicable statutory or regulatory requirements, including relevant requirements within the Academy Trust Handbook or College Financial Handbook.

This applies to the full appointment. The DfE makes clear that the procurement exercise should account for the adviser supporting the project from the application stage through to delivery, rather than treating the initial bid-writing work as a completely separate appointment.

This is an important point for schools to consider before any consultant starts work.

The procurement process is not simply an administrative exercise. The DfE warns that failure to adequately evidence a compliant procurement process for technical advice may result in an application being disqualified.

That makes the appointment itself part of the strength of the application. Schools need to be able to demonstrate that the consultant was selected through an appropriate and transparent process and that the appointment represents good value for money.

If the school uses an approved procurement framework, it must still follow the award process set out by that framework.

For example, a framework may allow a direct award in certain circumstances, while another may require a mini competition.

The school remains responsible for checking which process applies rather than assuming that using a framework automatically makes every appointment compliant.

Price matters, but it should not be the only factor. A consultant supporting a CIF project is likely to have an influence on the project long after the original application has been submitted.

Schools should therefore consider the adviser's technical capability as well as their experience with the funding process. The DfE recommends researching prospective firms and considering whether they understand the school's technical requirements.

It also recommends considering advisers who are registered with an appropriate professional body, such as RICS, CIOB or RIBA.

In practical terms, schools may want to ask:

• What experience do you have with school condition projects?
• Who will actually manage our project?
• What professional qualifications does the team hold?
• How will you assess whether the proposed project is suitable for CIF?
• What surveys and technical evidence are likely to be needed?
• How will project costs be developed?
• What happens if our application is successful?
• Will the same team remain involved during delivery?
• How are your professional fees calculated?
• How will the procurement and appointment process be evidenced?

The aim is to understand exactly what the school is appointing rather than relying purely on a headline success rate or sales message.

Success rates can be useful, but they need context. A headline percentage does not necessarily tell you how many applications were submitted, what types of projects were involved or how complex those projects were.

Schools should therefore look beyond the figure itself. It may be more useful to ask about the consultant's experience with projects similar to your own.

A company that regularly works on roofing projects, heating systems or structural repairs in education environments may bring more relevant technical experience than one simply quoting a high overall success rate.

Schools should also ask how the consultant decides whether a project is suitable for CIF in the first place.

A strong adviser should be prepared to say when a project is not yet sufficiently developed or does not appear to present a strong funding case.

Professional qualifications are not the only factor, but they can provide useful reassurance. CIF projects involve construction, procurement, health and safety and technical decision-making.

The DfE therefore recommends considering advisers registered with appropriate professional organisations such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Chartered Institute of Building or the Royal Institute of British Architects.

The most relevant qualification will depend on the project. A roof replacement, heating upgrade and major structural scheme may each require different technical expertise.

Schools should therefore look at the people who will actually work on the project rather than simply checking the credentials listed on the consultancy's website.

Professional fees need to be proportionate to the scale and complexity of the project.

The current DfE guidance states that schools should make sure the fees being charged are appropriate and represent good value for money. For straightforward CIF projects, percentage-based fees are not necessarily considered appropriate.

Where percentage fees are used, the guidance says they should generally be no more than 10% of the total project value, including all professional fees, disbursements and one-off bid-writing fees. Importantly, 10% should not be treated as an automatic allowance or standard fee.

The DfE describes it as a maximum in normal circumstances rather than a target.

More technically complex projects may justify higher professional costs in some circumstances, for example where additional specialist surveys or professional input is required, but those costs need to be clearly justified within the application.

A no-win, no-fee arrangement can reduce the upfront financial risk for a school, but it does not remove the school's procurement responsibilities.

The DfE specifically says that firms appointed through a no-win, no-fee arrangement must still be procured in compliance with the relevant procurement requirements.

The guidance also warns schools not to assume that a no-win, no-fee model automatically represents good value for money.

Schools should still understand:

• How the adviser will be paid if the application succeeds
• What percentage or fee will ultimately be charged
• What services are included
• Whether additional fees could arise
• Whether the adviser remains involved during project delivery
• Whether the total professional fees represent value for money

The commercial model should therefore be evaluated alongside the quality and suitability of the adviser.

Conflicts of interest are another area the DfE treats seriously. A conflict could result in an application being placed on hold, its score being reduced or, in some cases, the application being disqualified.

Schools should consider whether anyone involved in the procurement has a personal or financial interest that could influence the appointment.

They also need to consider whether the technical adviser has relationships with other parties involved in the project. For example, the DfE states that condition surveys should come from an independent source.

A survey may not be considered independent if it was carried out by a company that has also quoted or tendered for the works, or by a manufacturer of the proposed solution.

Schools therefore need a clear separation between independent technical evidence and commercial interests wherever required.

The school or responsible body remains accountable. Appointing a consultant does not transfer responsibility for the application to them.

The DfE explicitly states that technical advisers cannot apply on behalf of a school and that the applicant remains responsible for the information submitted.

The accounting officer, or the relevant senior management representative for a sixth-form college or voluntary-aided school, is responsible for the application and its supporting evidence.

Schools should therefore review the final submission carefully. That includes checking the accuracy of surveys, costs, project information and evidence supplied by external advisers. Errors can affect the application's score, funding award or, in more serious cases, eligibility.

There can be advantages to continuity. A consultant that has helped investigate the condition issue, develop the scope and prepare the funding application will already understand the background to the project.

That can reduce the amount of information that needs to be transferred when the project moves into delivery.

The DfE guidance also makes clear that procurement for technical advice should account for the application stage through to project delivery. Schools should therefore think about the complete service when making the original appointment.

Questions about project management, contract administration, procurement of the works and post-award support should ideally be answered before the consultant is appointed rather than after funding has already been secured.

Start by defining what support you actually need. Some schools may need a consultant to manage almost the entire process.

Others may already have significant estates expertise internally and only require specialist technical support for particular elements of the project.

Once the requirement is clear, the school can run an appropriate procurement process and compare potential advisers on more than price alone.

Experience, professional competence, understanding of the school estate, fee structure, proposed service and ability to support the project through delivery can all be considered. Most importantly, keep evidence of how the decision was made.

For the current CIF process, being able to demonstrate a compliant and considered appointment is part of the application itself.