As an independent roofing consultant with over 40 years’ experience in the waterproofing industry, I find myself compelled to address a critical issue surrounding public funding in the education sector, particularly in the context of CIF (Condition Improvement Fund) roofing projects. My career includes decades spent working for leading waterproofing manufacturers, so I understand first-hand the important role they play. This is not a critique of manufacturers themselves, who do a great job; instead, it’s a call for greater accountability and objectivity when taxpayer money is at stake.

Background: CIF Funding and the Need for Independence

We are currently in the 2024/25 CIF funding phase, and last week I received a call from a client – a governor at his child’s school – who also works within the roofing industry. The school had recently received a waterproofing manufacturer’s survey; however, they were seeking a second, independent opinion on the condition of their roofs. This raised my first concern, or “red flag,” as CIF guidelines mandate that roof surveys for CIF-funded projects should come from an independent source. Specifically, surveys cannot be considered independent if conducted by a firm that has also tendered for the work or manufactures any proposed solution.

Upon further inspection of the school’s 11 roofs (spanning 2,500 square meters), it became evident that the original survey had recommended complete replacement on nine roof areas (totalling 2,000 square meters) with a new mineral wool tapered insulation system, while only two areas were suggested for overlay. Here, additional “red flags” emerged:

Core Sampling Issues: Core samples were taken only from the lowest points of the roof, often within gutters, leading to moisture readings that may not accurately represent the overall condition. Moisture mapping was then conducted using a handheld device, and conclusions about widespread saturation were drawn from just one core sample and a series of photos.

Material Cost Concerns: The recommended waterproofing system, which included tapered mineral wool insulation, came at a particularly high price point – £475 per square meter for waterproofing, with the insulation alone priced at £285 per square meter. To put this in perspective, a fully compliant Broof(t4) roof waterproofing system, complete with PIR insulation, offering a 30-year guarantee, can often be achieved for less.

Oversights in Design: The survey and specification lacked critical considerations for raising windows, adapting cavity trays, and assessing the weight on a reinforced wood wool deck, all essential details when proposing a new waterproofing system.

Budget and Scope Discrepancies: After conducting an independent infrared survey and full roof inspection, TDRC found that only four roof areas required full replacement with tapered insulation, totalling 1,400 square meters. For the remaining areas, we recommended selective removal and replacement, with flat board insulation as appropriate.

The Importance of Independent, Objective Advice

Waterproofing manufacturers have their own operational costs, and their sales teams work hard to meet business targets. However, the funds for CIF projects are derived from public taxpayer money, and that requires an extra layer of diligence and responsibility. As consultants, we have a duty to provide unbiased guidance to help schools and other public institutions maximise their return on investment, allowing them to allocate funds efficiently.

At TDRC, we provide performance-based specifications, not tied to any specific manufacturer, so our clients can access the open market, ensuring they secure the best possible value. This independent approach helps clients avoid restrictive solutions and evaluate their options from a wider range of systems and suppliers.

A Duty of Care

In the current economic climate, budgets are tight, and we owe it to our public institutions to stretch every pound as far as possible. Our duty of care includes offering objective, cost-effective solutions that maximise the scope of work achievable within each project’s funding. In contrast, reliance on subjective specifications tied to a manufacturer’s product can unnecessarily inflate costs.

My advice to schools, property consultants, and facility managers overseeing CIF-funded projects is simple: prioritise independence in the evaluation and selection of roofing solutions. By thinking beyond the standard solutions, you can find savings that make room for additional projects.

Remember: You only have until Dec 12th 2024 to get your CIF bids in.

For independent help and advice on your project please call Terry Davis MIoR on 07444 527221 or email info@tdroofingconsultants.com