Jared Kwok   0:11
Okay, I'm assuming that everyone can see and hear me. Could I get a few thumbs up from the audience? Excellent.
Thank you. All right. Thanks everyone for attending. We'll get started. Introducing standard designs, our webinar for today.
First of all, good afternoon everyone and welcome. Firstly, I'd like to thank everyone here for taking the time to join us today for the standard design presentation, especially during your lunch break. Hopefully you'll manage to grab something to eat while listening in. For those that I haven't met or don't know me,
My name is Jared Kwok. I'm a delivery team manager with School Property based in Cambridge. I've been working with the ministry now for approximately 7 years, which has gone really quick. My background is in project management and quantity surveying.
And before joining the ministry, I worked in the private sector, both in Australia and New Zealand. And over the past 18 months, I've been fortunate enough to be part of the team focused on standardization and why we're here today. I've been working across strategy, materials and systems and the implementation.
phase. Before we get started, I would also like to acknowledge the many people that have contributed to this work thus far. Standard design has been shaped by input by many teams within the ministry and from partners across the wider industry. Too many to mention at this point, and I'm sure there'll be a lot more.
I would also like to give a special thanks to Trevor Watt from Athfields Architects, who's been heavily involved in developing standardized designs, and he'll be sharing some real world examples later in today's session. In terms of today's agenda, I'll start by setting the scene and talking about the scale of the school property portfolio.
and why standardization has become an important focus for us. Neil Wyatt will then take you through the evolution of our standard design approach before we share some practical examples of what we're seeing on projects, again, which will be presented by Trevor. We'll keep things fairly high level today because there's a lot to get through.
But there will be opportunities to ask questions throughout our Q&A sessions.
and hopefully we'll finish by 1.30 so you can get back to what you're doing today. Some quick housekeeping. Due to the numbers, we've muted the mic function. Feel free to drop questions in the chat. Again, we'll also have time for Q&A in the middle of some of the sections.
that we're presenting today and a fair amount of time at the end. Questions are very welcome. The more we have, the more we get to learn and provide you with some clarity. But please keep your comments and questions respectful and professional, which I'm sure you will. Questions will be moderated. We have Ross Henderson and Vincent Bullens in the chat and other experts from the Ministry.
from the audience. So depending on how many questions we get today, we'll do our best to answer them. If we don't, we will reach out at a later date. And if you think of something that you would like to share with us or say to us later on, please send us an e-mail at property.improvement at education.
Um...
So now I'd just like to hand it to Riki for please join us with our opening Pateriki.

Riki Edmonds   4:03
Kia ora tatou.
Today marks the first day of Maori Language Week. So, like Jared said, your mics are muted, but I would encourage you to read along with me if you can. So, Pouhiri, Pou Rama, Pouhiri,
Mario ora kia tatou.

Jared Kwok   4:32
Thanks, Riki.
The School Property Portfolio.
Before we talk about standard design, we just thought it would be useful to understand the scale of the portfolio that we're working with for the people here that aren't familiar. So the ministry is responsible for more than 2,100 state schools across New Zealand. Those schools sit on around 8,000 hectares.
ideas of land and represent a portfolio worth approximately 33.5 billion. So this makes it the second largest social infrastructure portfolio in New Zealand. Across that portfolio, we manage roughly 16,000 buildings and around 37,500 classrooms. When you look at those numbers, it's easy to see why
consistency and efficiency matter. Many of our buildings were constructed between the 1950s and 70s and around 90% lightweight timber frame buildings. At the same time, our population continues to grow, particularly in our main urban centres, creating
increasing demand for new learning spaces. The challenge that we have at the Ministry and as taxpayers is balancing investment in existing schools, redevelopment and of course maintenance of existing while having to deliver for new capacity where it's needed most.
One of the positive outcomes that we're already seeing through the standardization is a significant reduction in classroom costs, around 28%, and we're anticipating that's going to keep putting pressure downwards as we move along through the journey. And what that means is that we're able to stretch our funding further.
and deliver more classrooms for students and the community.
It's also encouraging to see that there's a growing uptake with standardized designs with more than 50 or 51 projects currently using standardized designs and progressing through our new planning pathway.
What these numbers really tell us is that even small improvements on how we design, make efficiencies and deliver projects will have a very large impact across a portfolio of this size. Standard designs will be applied across a large number of B26 projects.
Which you'll hear more about in this presentation.
So why standardize?
The biggest catalyst was the mysterial inquiry completed back in 2024, which it concluded that the current system was not fit for purpose. The inquiry identified three key challenges. First, projects were taking too long to progress from identifying a need from planning, design and delivery.
Second, costs were continuing to arise and we had a system that was increasingly reliant on bespoke outcomes or design solutions, and that created project by project interpretation. And third, planning, procurement, funding and delivery.
We're not always operating as a connected system. OK, this created some inefficiencies and inconsistencies across the projects across the country.
While every school is unique and every site presents different challenges, we are often solving the same problems repeatedly.
that created a lot of unnecessary effort, a lot of design time and inconsistency, and ultimately the repercussions or downflow effects that was just the increased costs. So standardization is one of the ways that we're going to be responding to these challenges.
Our objectives are pretty straightforward. We want to improve value for money, increase consistency across our projects, reduce delivery time frames, and make better use of industry and ministry resources. Importantly, the opportunity that we are presenting, who are always going to present from a standardized project,
program extends well beyond the ministry. A portfolio, as I said before, of the scale provides greater certainty for schools, designers, contractors, manufacturers and our suppliers. We will try and to create more predictability of pipeline of work, which
We anticipate will support investment and capability and capacity and the downstream effects will be greater for every dollar that we invest in the future.
Moving to a simpler, more streamlined system. So what does this actually mean in practice? At its core, we're moving away from treating every project as a standalone exercise and more towards a consistent system across our entire property portfolio. Historically, different projects have often followed different pathways.
A planning, design, and procurement and delivery could vary depending on the project or the team or the location.
The shift that we're making is bring all these elements together into a more integrated approach. So standardization will become a default pathway for growth projects moving forward, helping us improve that consistency, reducing the time frames and again, achieving that better value for money. Importantly, this doesn't remove collaboration. In fact, collaboration actually becomes with our partners, both internally and externally,
becomes even more important. Most of the projects that we're going to be delivering will continue to be school led by School Property, working closely with schools and consultants, designers throughout the delivery process.
Schools that do have the capability and capacity to lead their own projects will have that option available. So, that's not going to be a constraint. They'll simply be working within the same framework as whether it's school-led or Capital Works led here. So, the key message here is that we're not reducing flexibility.
where it's needed. We're creating just a bit more of a consistent foundation so we can focus where we need to.
So on that, the other significant change that probably everyone in here would have heard of is happening alongside our standardization programme is that we've established a New Zealand School Property Agency, or as everyone probably knows, NZ Spar. This will be happening from the 1st of October 2026.
NZ Spar, for those that don't know, will become a dedicated crown entity responsible for planning, building, maintaining and managing our school portfolio. The intent is really quite simple. It's about creating a stronger focus on property delivery, improving accountability and transparency, and better value.
For school designers, contractors and our consultant suppliers, you won't feel a dramatic change or a shift overnight. So just to confirm to you that the relationships they've built over the past and the projects that are under the way and the way that we work together are largely going to.
stay the same as they have in the past. The biggest changes that you'll see over time will be greater consistency in how we plan, document and how our projects are delivered.
So now I'll hand it over to Neil to talk about the evolution of standard designs. Thanks, Neil.

Neil Wyatt   12:30
Yeah, thanks, Jared.
All right. So, yeah, kia ora and thanks for joining. So, I'm going to talk about the evolution of standard design today. So, 18 months ago, as Jared mentioned, we set out on this journey as a result of that ministerial inquiry. Today, I'll just talk you through the evolution of standard design.
and provide an overview of what we developed and why we developed this approach, what we're trying to achieve and how it supports better outcomes for schools and for the ministry. So the focus of today's presentation for myself isn't on about the technical details of individual building designs,
It's rather it's about the journey we've been on. So the lessons we've learned and standard design has helped us deliver school infrastructure more consistently and efficiently and effectively.
So what is standard design? I guess when people first hear that term, standard design, they sometimes think that every school is going to get exactly the same building or some kind of looking colour approach. That's actually not the case, far from it. Standard design is a collection of pre-developed
building solutions for most of the common building types of school buildings that you see. So these designs have been developed with educators, designers and suppliers and technical experts to ensure that they work really well in the school environment. So we certainly close the net very wide in terms of our
consultations with others. I guess the key idea is that the fundamentals of the design are already resolved, right? Things like the structure, safety, you know, compliance requirements, the poor building systems. They're all built into the design from the beginning, so they're baked in, if you like.
At the same time, schools still have some flexibility. They can manage choices around materials, colours, finishes, and aspects of the designs that they may reflect their own identity or their culture or their local community. So rather than removing choice, standard design aims to make
decision making easier by providing proven solutions while still allowing schools to create spaces that feel like their own.
So this next slide talks about the way things were. So to understand why standard design was needed is worth reflecting on how projects were often delivered in the past. Historically, many projects relied on bespoke design solutions, as Jared has talked about before. Each project started from scratch with different consultants, different systems, and a different
delivery approaches almost every single time. So that meant considerable time and effort was spent repeatedly solving the same design problems. It also resulted in a wide variety of building solutions of heating and ventilation systems of Procurement approaches.
and ever increasing levels of design review and assurance were required.
Well, there's certainly some excellent outcomes that we saw. The overall process could be very costly. It was certainly very time consuming. And I guess at its best, it was inconsistent.
So many decisions were effectively being made project by project, even when schools were facing very similar changes and challenges.
But where we wanted to go, so our objective was to move towards a more efficient and consistent model. We wanted designs that had already been tested and proven, designs that were easy to construct and easy to maintain over the life of the building.
We also want a greater equity across the portfolio. Students and staff have the same access to quality learning environments, regardless of where they are located within the country.
So by using repeatable building types and consistent construction details, we believe we can reduce costs and shorten delivery time frames. Another important point is that standard design was never intended to force a solution onto schools. Instead, the aim was to spend less time redesigning the common elements.
and ultimately working with schools on what really moved to them. So ultimately, we wanted buildings that were safe, durable, adaptable, and capable of supporting teaching and learning for many years to come.
So, where we've landed, so...
We've landed on a series of typologies. We have what we're calling single-sided and double-sided teaching and learning blocks. And these are both single-level and multi-stories, and we've also got halls and gyms. So all the bases are covered. So a suite of design solutions that are consistent, more affordable, and
more efficient to deliver. So these designs already meet ministry design requirements and building code requirements while still providing enough flexibility to respond to different schools needs and site conditions. So for schools, this creates a smoother planning and design experience because many of the fundamental decisions have already been made and tested.
For the ministry, it allows us to focus our efforts on delivering quality outcomes rather than repeatedly reinventing common building types.
Importantly, standard design isn't a final destination. It's a platform that we can continue to evolve as we learn from projects and we receive feedback from you guys and from schools and the general industry.
So, how building modules work?
Yeah, I guess one of the key features of the standard design program is the use of modules. And you can think of these as a little bit like building blocks, a bit like Lego. Teaching blocks, sorry, teaching modules provide complete teaching spaces, whilst amenity modules provide the supporting spaces such as toilets, admin areas, staff facilities, or
even resource spaces. So these modules are designed around a common structural framework. It means that they can be combined in different ways to suit different schools and different sites. And the benefit of the approach is that we achieve consistency without sacrificing flexibility.
So schools don't have to fit into a single building form, if you like. Instead, these modules can be assembled in different configurations depending on the scale and needs of the project.
So the modular approach creates opportunities for future expansion, and it also allows us to add new standard models over time as needs evolve.
The killer parts. So, this slide kind of builds on that modular concept. So, at fire level, we've developed what we're referring to as a killer. So, rather than every project requiring a unique solution, we've established a set proven building components and systems that can be used repeatedly across
different projects. The advantage of these is that these components are already coordinated and understood by designers, contractors, and project teams. You'll also notice examples of standard approaches to building services, such as heating and ventilation. Again, the goal is not to remove flexibility completely here, but it's to start
from a well-tested baseline and then adapt where necessary. So this gives us a greater confidence in the performance of the building, a greater confidence in the consistency of its operation and of its long-term maintainability.
So we set the design as a challenge of moving away from difficult to operate and expensive to run mechanical systems. So now all the different topologies developed can operate in summer using primitive ventilation.
In climate zones 3 to 6, which is basically the South Island, so heat recovery ventilation is also an option available because we know that windows don't get opened in summer or even when it's cold outside. So we've got to have that as an option. So we now have a standard solutions through which extensive modelling we know will work across
All climatic zones in New Zealand.
So the launch of standard design guidance. An important milestone in the journey has been the release of standard design guidance. So we now have a growing catalogue of resources covering a range of school building types and layouts. These documents are available to support project teams and provide a common reference point for planning and design.
Having this guidance publicly available creates greater consistency across projects and it also helps schools understand what options are available to them.
It's important to note that the program does continue to grow with additional guidance being developed for the other learning environments that schools have. We'll soon have solutions for Kura and learning support available, hopefully by early October, I'm told.
So alignment with the standard planning, which many of you would have may have heard about already from Peter Cui. So the final point is standard design doesn't operate on its own, right? It works alongside standard planning. So together, these approaches help ensure projects are feasible.
Buildable and aligned with the school's current and future needs before significant investment is made.
The planning process focuses on understanding the school, the site and the community, while standard design provides a suite of proven building solutions that can support those needs. To the schools, that means better conversations, clearer planning, and projects that can move more effectively when funding becomes available.
The result is a more proactive and consistent approach that helps projects become ready for delivery sooner, effectively.
So in summary, standard design is really about balancing consistency and flexibility. We're moving from a model based largely on bespoke project by project solutions to one that uses proven designs, modular thinking, and standardized guidance to deliver better outcomes. The aim is simpler planning,
more effective delivery, improve value for money and ultimately better learning environments for students and staff. Thanks for your time. I'll now turn it over to Jared, who's going to speak to you about what standardization means for you.

Jared Kwok   23:48
Thanks, Neil.
Just a reminder here, just another little bit of housekeeping for everyone. Just remember that the chat function has been disabled. So if you've got any feedback or questions, just put them in the Q&A, which you hopefully see on the top ribbon there.
So, at this point, it's just taking just good to take a bit of a step back, as Neil alluded to, about what we actually mean about standardization, because it does mean different things to different people. For us, standardization isn't about making every project the same.
It's a bit or putting a fixed solution or forcing it onto a school. It's about starting something with something that is proven. So rather than being that beginning each project with a blank sheet of paper, we're able to build from designs and solutions that have
already been tested and successfully delivered. So that means less time, money spent redesigning, which was highlighted by the report that I alluded to, what I talked about earlier in this presentation, and we can focus our energies on things that actually matter. And that's a really
important point here that we want to make. Because the biggest risks on school projects are really the classrooms itself. So the things like the ground conditions, existing infrastructure, utility connections, site access and how the new buildings will actually interact within the existing or the new school environment.
They are the actual areas that we need to concentrate our effort on and make sure that we're collaborating with our designers, consultants, and contractors to focus their expertise on. Schools will obviously, as we see many times, will still have choices, their identity, their culture, educational requirements, and how to
how the buildings actually fit into the wider campus remain vitally important to our considerations. So while the foundation may be standardized, the outcome still needs to be tailored to suit the school's characteristics.
Another key benefit in the approach that we're taking from a standardization perspective is that every project helps improve the next one.
As projects get delivered, we want to capture lessons learned, buildability feedback, cost information and operational insight. This information will feed back into the program so that each generation of the designs or the new iterations become stronger and more efficient than the last one that we've done.
Over time, this creates a continuous improvement loop where all the insights were said, buildability feedback and all the feedback here from people like yourselves in this webinar help us improve the school experience and feed back into the catalog.
Making it more efficient and faster.
There will be resources available on our website and of course our standardization team is here to support what standardization isn't. It's equally important to talk about what it isn't. It's, as we've said, it's not a one-size-fits-all. It doesn't mean the school gets the same building.
And it certainly doesn't remove the need for professional judgment, innovation and collaboration. And that's where working with our great contractors and consultants comes to the forefront. So in many ways, these things actually become more important.
As Neil said, we need really good planning and we still really need great engagement with schools and the communities and making sure that we cater to their needs.
What it does do is it provides us with a lot better starting point in the past. I know that's been a bugbear probably with a lot of people in this room, so we're making a concentrated effort to make sure we're being a better client.
Key changes. So this is probably something that everyone here is quite interested in. This slide here outlines some of the practical changes that you'll start to see as we start to embed standardized designs and deliver projects. While the overall, we've tried to cut down on the noise as such, while the overall
project lifecycle remains familiar. We're introducing some new tools that help you improve consistency and support better decision making. The common theme across all these changes is actually quite simple. We've tried to simplify it. Historically, projects can move into the design with varying levels of information.
lots of different assumptions or assumptions that had to be made and different interpretations. So there is a new project summary document and a planning summary. And again, this is intended to address and creating greater clarity up front.
They will help define the scope, identify key constraints, which is obviously a lot of the time missing on our projects and creates time delays and hopefully reducing the assumptions before design work starts. For consultants and contractors, that should mean better information at the commencement of our projects and greater confidence for everyone here.
on what's actually being delivered. We're also updating our principal requirements to better align with the standardization program and provide our contractors with a consistent set of expectations across projects. Another important addition is the project master document.
This will be the thing of the project single source of truth. What it'll do is it'll capture approved design, substitution, departures of the standard design, some key project decisions. So they're all captured in one place. Again, this is something that we'll feed out in our tender documentation. And finally, you'll see a new suite of
guidance documents, including our standardization guidelines and shortlist of materials and systems. All right, these documents aren't here to replace good judgment, as I said before. What they'll do is they'll just provide some clearer guardrails to ensure we're making good decisions early.
Just for an example, this is a, we've developed a traffic light system as a guideline. Hopefully everyone here knows what a traffic light is. So the purpose is to provide clarity about where flexibility exists, what decisions can be made and who is responsible for making them.
At a high level, there are four categories, but obviously traffic light, we've got red, amber and green. Red is fixed. Red represents the core elements of the standardized designs. These are the components that underpin the compliance and the design intent of standardization.
Things like structural system, you see there, thermal envelope and key compliance requirements full within the red category. These elements have been under a lot of consideration up to this point and along the journey, so they've been tested and validated over time. We realise that there'll probably be some improvements moving forward.
But we, at the stage, we don't want to change these.
Simple message is read protects the design integrity, so we don't change those. And we've got the AMBER categories through managed change. AMBER recognizes that sometimes there is a genuine reason we need to depart from the standardized solution. There may be some unique site constraints.
project specific requirements that present an opportunity to change our approach. Again, these changes are prohibited, but they do require a process to go through for managed approval.
The objective here isn't to stop change, it's just to make sure changes are deliberate. We understand what those changes are at a portfolio level. Sometimes they can get lost within a project level and they are assessed on their impact on cost programme, maintenance and the overall design intent. So think of AMBER as allowed justified change.
There's also, as we've talked numerous times about the local context where every school site is different. So with this is where we need professional judgment and expertise to change things like there'll be foundations, landscape integrity, utility connections, cultural identity and the like, anything that
Will vary from project to project.
Green is your selectable options. Green represents approved choices that already exist within the catalog. Again, this catalog will be up on our website that you can have a look through, try to get familiar with it. This is where schools and delivery teams get options and preference that can maintain the school's integrity and their identity.
without having to look up new solutions project by project. The schools again have choice, but they just need to be choosing from the options and that have been assessed and proven that they work.
Ultimately, this framework is designed to strike a balance. It protects things that need consistency. It does allow flexibility where it adds value and provides meaningful choice within our proven system.
I'd just like to, we're just open up for questions now, so I think we've got Ross and Vincent are going to read some out.

Ross Henderson   34:10
Thanks, Jared. Just the one question so far, which relate to have sample units being constructed. I know, I think, apologies, it looks like some people might be having some issues with the Q&A. If you are having those issues, we will attempt to resolve those, but
You can please e-mail us. So it's property.improvement at education.gov.nz. Yeah, so yeah, please feel free to send us an e-mail with a query. Apologies for that. We will try and resolve that.
So just one question asking about if sample unit sample units had been constructed we haven't done so at this point but we will we will do that through the early designs we'll assess then when they come through. Dan's asked a question about the estimate cost
per square meter.

Neil Wyatt   35:19
I can probably answer that one. So we've had we've had Malt B's tracking the design development rate throughout the entire process. Can't go into details about exact cost right now, but we're very confident that we're hitting the right numbers in terms of cost per tissue space, cost per square meter.

Ross Henderson   35:21
Thanks, Neil.

Neil Wyatt   35:39
And if there are any particular queries, feel free to send them through to that e-mail address advised earlier. But yeah, we have mostly monitored costs. Yeah.

Ross Henderson   35:52
Question here from Brian. How many separate buildings do you plan to build each year?

David Hobern   36:04
I can answer that one, Ross. David Hobern here. It really depends. We can't put a number on it. This is subject to need and future funding. But as you saw in Jared's comments, we're doing about 50 standard designs this year. So you kind of just assume that it'll be similar sort of numbers going forward, if not

Ross Henderson   36:05
Thanks, David.

David Hobern   36:25
Greater, but it's a really hard question to answer.

Ross Henderson   36:28
Thanks, David. Question from Natalie asking if the new documents are available to download. If you're referring to the standard design and standard layout guidance, Natalie, then yes, that's available on our website. If you just go to Ministry of Education and search standardization, the page should
pop up if you go through the part that talks about standard designs that will take you to a menu of documents that are available at this stage.
Terry's got a question here about passive ventilation. Neil, you mentioned this. Is there a real life working example to prove the modelling? A question is asked on the basis that often buildings overheat and passive ventilation alone doesn't quite cope with the demands, especially when large numbers.
people at present. That's perhaps one for you, Neil.

Neil Wyatt   37:33
Yep, sure. Obviously, yeah, the baseline approach to date is that we push for passive ventilation and we have mesh consulting out of Auckland, have modelled each of the typologies in pretty much every orientation you can think of. So they all work in theory.
We haven't actually constructed any yet to test, but that will certainly be happening. As you know, we do install the IEM monitors into all of our teaching spaces. So through the use of those, we'll be monitoring our successful passive.
Not cross row ventilation works in practice, but yeah, we haven't modeled or constructed one yet.

Ross Henderson   38:18
Thank you, Neil. A question here from Brooke. Can you please repeat how could I align to the standard design or the work being done in this space? Perhaps Riki, if you're still online or Neil.

Riki Edmonds   38:32
I can answer that. Yeah. So the principles for the program still apply for our kuda, but there have been a range of typologies that we've created that specifically for Kopa from our education.

Ross Henderson   38:33
Thanks, Riki.
You're a bit quiet. Sorry, Riki. Just want to adjust your mic. That's better. You might need to just repeat. Sorry.

Riki Edmonds   38:49
Oh, oh, there you go. Sorry, my mic was start again. So, the principles of our standardization program have applied to Kaupapa Maori education, but we've had to develop some Kaupapa Maori education specific typologies.
and obviously with that, some a different suite of layout options and things like that. So that information isn't on our website yet, but will be within a month.

Ross Henderson   39:23
Thanks, Riki. We might just do one more question, and I think just we'll just keep things moving in the interest of time, but I'll just take this question here. So Eric is asking, what is a likely trend for future project procurement under NZSPA? Will projects be procured under NZSPA lead design using
NZS 3910 or 3916 with contractors required to comply with NZSPAR standard designs or through a modular build delivery model.

Matt Horwell   39:54
I can answer that one too.

David Hobern   39:54
Ross, David here again. Oh, Matt, do you want to go on me?

Matt Horwell   39:57
Yeah, I can go. That's fine. So the project procurement isn't looking to change in terms of we'll still use our 3010, we'll still use our 3016, but ultimately it's what is the best approach for the project. So it's a best for project approach in terms of how we'll do our procurements. That might involve traditional construction, that might involve modular construction.

Ross Henderson   39:59
Thanks, Matt.

Matt Horwell   40:20
but ultimately it's under this umbrella of standardization and looking to be more consistent across our project delivery.

Ross Henderson   40:28
Thank you, Matt. And I'll just take this one last question and I think we'll just we'll move on. We just need to obviously keep things moving. But please, yeah, do keep those questions coming through. We'll do your best to answer them as we go. So this one here from David. Economies of time and cost can be realized through a D&B contract. Will standard design solutions form part of D&B contracts? Is that correct?
one for you maybe David, I'm not sure.

David Hobern   40:52
Absolutely, yes.

Ross Henderson   41:01
Cool. Yeah, can you talk to that one, David?

David Hobern   41:06
Oh, sorry, I thought I did. Yes, 100%. We'll be using the standard designs for all DMB projects.

Ross Henderson   41:13
Great. Thank you. I'll pass back to you, Jared, and we'll continue on. But as I say, keep those questions coming through. We will do our best to answer them as we go along. Or yeah, as I said before, feel free to e-mail us to us, property.improvement at education.gov.nz.
Thank you, back to you, or Trevor in fact, apologies.

Trevor Watt   41:43
Yeah, Hayr.
Have I broken this already, have I?
Where's the controls gone?
You okay?
Okay, good to go. So I guess I'll just take you through a case study of using one of the standardized designs, one of the larger topologies, which we started taking us through for a specific site back in Arch. So some of the lessons learned have already been sort of adopted.

Ross Henderson   42:10
Here you go.

Trevor Watt   42:30
with some of the early feedback. So one of the important things here is a vehicle for testing the centralized design against the ministry's various processes. Obviously, there's a few of those. And particularly around how it works with school engagement, how it works in dealing with councils around planning and consenting processes.
dealing with the site specific integration of the standardized designs, as well as some of the constructability with input through the contractor, through contractor engagement. And then obviously, eventually once we get into construction, there'll be a feedback loop around that as well.
But and as Jared referred to, the whole point is providing sort of feedback, refining these designs so we can, or the ministry can improve as we go.
Effectively, this project had three stages. One's the standardized planning stage, which put it into the business case. So that was purely ministry-led, and that was effectively a starting point as far as a brief. Where we picked it up was around developing, I guess, preliminary design and dealing with site investigations. So that was kind of lead
for us and working with the ministry. And then stage three was under a DNB, which is completion of the design and obviously taking it through the construction process.
From the standardized planning and business case, what the focus of that stage was, was early school engagement to work out what the requirements were. The ministry then confirmed the space requirements and the standardized design topology and size. In this case was 14 teaching spaces.
They did work around confirming the general location of the building on the site and there was also some due diligence around the site, basically a paper based exercise around the background of the site and any planning information. And then the project budget was at that stage based on all that sort of feedback.
So the output of the planning, standardized planning was a document, it was pretty robust, dealt with all that sort of information. And that diagram on the right was kind of a starting point, was a general position of the building modules on the site based on some initial discussions with the school.
So the focus of stage two was locking in a concept, but also undertaking all those investigations which tend to slow down the initial stages of a design in relation to the specific nature of the site. So one was actually to test the building.
Location in a lot more detail, make sure the orientation and all the other requirements were taken into consideration. I guess the key one was finalizing the internal layouts with the school, so that's an area which these general layouts, but obviously when...
dealing with specialist spaces. We need to work through that. The interesting part there was around the sort of process was setting clear guidelines with the school about what could be changed and where the input could modify the design. And certainly it did
Improvement the, I guess, the communication where pretty much see the building size can change, toilet locations, lift position can change, structural grid and layout can't change, but within that sort of framework, there's a number of things we're keen to sort of.
Progress with the school to capture the requirements.
In relation to key site investigations, we identified, obviously the geotech was key on the site. The school has variable ground conditions, kind of between an orange and green. We're clearly within the sort of orange zone, so we needed to get some specific testing done, which probably is a bit over the seven week.
time frame we had, that's the bit that took the most time. Being on a piece of grass, we obviously had to look through the soil contamination and get some testing around that with a growing school, because it's roll growth, just testing the sewer main capacity and condition.
We had also identified transport and planning has been a potential issue, but doing a little bit of due diligence around that wasn't such a big issue. And certainly if this was another site, we did have a topo survey and some underground surveys of services. So we did need to undertake that, but if it was on another site.
site, which didn't have that, we would undertake that under this sort of phase of work. And probably the key output was actually defining a much clearer project scope, which was beneficial for everybody, our design team, for locking in fees and the like going forward. If it's on
A much more detailed, there's less risk, less guessing about what the project was going to be.
This was happening, we sort of started this specific site application and testing back in March. This was happening in parallel with the standardized solutions, so now a lot of that stuff has been worked through. But some of the lessons learned are because of the fact that we were sort of testing, sort of testing some of that stuff at the same time.
So, generally, the first five is around 7 weeks, including the Easter period.
And so sort of work through. Okay. The brief we started was probably a first little hiccup where the topology we were given was a two-story double loaded, the D2, with four specialist spaces. The school's requirements from teaching space was for six specialist spaces.
So that was our first sort of issue that we had to work through. Fortunately, those spaces were all their computer suites, so they needed six of those. And fortunately, the size of computer suite is not quite as large as some of the other specialist spaces. So we're able to sort of work through that.
I guess, in a perfect world.
That would both those sort of things would align a little more closely.
So the site wasn't too bad. It was on the front of a school. It was quite prominent. A piece of the school that hadn't been built on before. So initially the concerns with the school was not losing the sports field with growing schools, open space and certainly sports fields.
become more sort of critical. And also they had concerns about, I guess, the visual impact of such a large building in a green landscape, which we had to sort of work through. So within there, we did test a couple of orientations as well during this sort of phase. Internal layout, as I talked about,
So the challenge of getting 6 into four, as far as specialist spaces. This was one area, I guess there's been a bit of focus on the structural scheme being two-way moment frames, and this is where they did come into having a clear advantage where we could take some walls off the grid lines.
to make sure that we can get some 6 standardized computer suites. We do know that within the standardized designs, there are standardized layouts. Unfortunately, where we were back in March, there wasn't a standardized computer suite.
Layout had been developed. I think there is one now, so I guess our biggest challenge was around working with the two sort of different groups that actually use the computer suites, and the bulk of my time was actually developing up different layouts to try and get which were quite...
Different sort of teaching arrangements, try and get those guys aligned, so we could standardize these spaces within the building, and so we did a rich arrangement. We have 6 computer suites around maker space, so the maker space was work for like robotics, electronics.
and also architectural and product design. So the building was quite adaptable in that sense, and also we were able to utilize the main circulation as another teaching space with good exhibition walks and the ability to connect into that space as well.
Ground floor is more generic teaching, so it was pretty straightforward. The only thing, again, it comes down to this two-way moment frame, having some benefits around flexibility. The school were keen to keep with the ability to connect to teaching spaces, to
work together, so the Power 2 arrangement, but also the ability that they can open up into larger spaces as well. So obviously there is a clearer directive now from the Ministry of providing more single cellular spaces, but schools do have the ability to still go
Yeah, with pair of three, 4, or more open within this arrangement. So not having any diagonal bracing or structural bracing restrictions within the main floor plate, it certainly helps with accommodating the
The different arrangements within the envelope.
and then we did a few sketches as well. But certainly our focus wasn't on anything external at all. It was a reasonably quick sort of process. We're keen to sort of capture, I guess, with these, a lot of ministry RFPs that come out, the building is a little bit more defined, but the actual site works and site infrastructure was not.
So we're quite keen to sort of capture a diagram with as much accuracy as possible at that stage to help define what the overall project sort of scope was going to be as far as extent to SiteWorks and capturing key infrastructure improvements. So that was sort of the end of the...
of that sort of stage two. Stage 3, after went through review processes and procurement, was went into design and build framework.
What you notice here is because of a lot of that standardized work was already happening, the time frames are actually quite tight. So developed design for weeks, detailed design for weeks, a couple weeks in between for reviews, but they're actually quite tight time frames compared to what they used to be. So key aspect around the.
Developed design was actually.
getting the design team into the site specific requirements, finalize the exact building and location, so just testing distance of boundaries for fire and stuff we had to do, finalize internal layouts and confirming internal and external finishes, and just the final scope.
before we actually went into documentation. And I guess that making sure that at the end of that stage we could get the school sign off for everything we can, because we do know that going into quite a tight detailed design, if we have to make changes or the school's not
comfortable, you tend to go backwards before going forward. So we had a school review about 70%, sort of three weeks into that phase.
One thing, working with the contract, identified that we could split out an enabling works package to keep the program as fast as possible. So the enabling works consistent with the foundation design, which included the hydraulics within that. And so as well as developing the rest of the building up to the developed zone.
design level, we could do that because in parallel, the standardized design had worked to a level of around the base build already. So it was very tight, but we managed to achieve issuing for consent for the Enabling Works package at the end of that development design stage within that four weeks.
Program.
So just a little taste of what we got to after that three-week for developed design for the school review, we were able to give them confidence that we still could meet the requirements on the site. We still had to also accommodate rain gardens on the site because of the resource consent issues. So there's some sort of challenges to position the building in a position where
We could accommodate the rain garden volume required.
We didn't have to sort of deal too much around the internal planning. It obviously progressed with the other consultant sort of input, but layouts didn't really change at all around the main teaching spaces. We were really just sort of sort of starting to detail that up.
And then we sort of expanded some of the more areas with a bit more detail, the sort of the flexible space, maker space and the workspace, kind of keen to sort of capture all their services requirements. So again, at the end of Delta Design, we were quite keen to have all that information that feed into the actual documentation.
Package.
So, there's a few minor things around servicing and PowerPoints and stuff. We had to go backwards and forwards, but generally the process was pretty quick, and also, you know, confirming internal finishes, again, all text, paint, carpet, nothing.
Too strange. At the end of that sort of concept stage, I guess the school's biggest concern was, I guess, what this building was going to look like at the front of the school, and particularly in relation to the furry in the two entries. It was part of the entry sort of experience. The concern about sort of the blackness of some of the facades from what they had sort of understood about standardized designs.
and they were also talking about potentially doing school funded enhanced finishes on the building, be that timber or precast or something which obviously we weren't keen on, and the ministry probably wasn't that keen on either. So I guess that was a focus on actually what were the cladding materials and
and addressing their concerns about the placement. So we soon looked around what they had on site as far as the context and what they had around some of the other buildings as far as materiality. And whilst the building is just a straight standardized design as far as window
placements and materiality with metal and fiber cement and battens. We're able to sort of talk through that in relation to the overall School and I guess one of the key ones is actually just doing a quick sort of before and after and placement and also talk through the fact that the building was set.
back, there's a landscape condition, there's actually doors on that facade, so there is some activation and some modulation and that provided a degree of comfort that, and the aspect around trying to change the cladding types to something else sort of disappeared, which was good.
And then at the end of the stage, just confirming the extent of soft and enhanced stand areas, which I guess that's one of the things which would be good to have some sort of further guidelines sort of going forward.
The interesting thing at the end of developed design, because it's standardized, an actual envelope had already been taken to detail design for much of the stuff. The actual level of documentation was pretty advanced at the end of the stage. And so we had stairs, obviously foundation conditions and detailing and stuff was actually reasonably advanced.
because effectively the envelope had already been taken to that level. Just some feedback from structural engineer. Obviously the two-way moment frame gets some interest, but I guess the key of that is the flexibility for internal layouts and also the scale of the building.
They didn't have to do any modifications to fit in any of the special spaces and some tweaking of the lifts and stuff. Guess this touch on foundation design is quite a quick process. The site wasn't like perfect as far as ground conditions.
We did have a geotech report. We did look at different options. We were initially looking at a 500 concrete raft and a 1.2 gravel raft that went down to an 800 deep gravel raft upon investigation.
But generally, we're able to sort of get their foundations designed within that sort of time frame.
The program through development design was quite tight. We did the contractor did look at some alternatives around SIPS panels and the like. The time frame in that sort of four weeks was kind of challenging for that, so that was probably one of the lessons learned.
And I guess on the other one is actually flagging to the geotech engineer that of the standard design system would have meant that he wouldn't have to investigate quite so many options within his report. There are a few modifications to standardized design. We managed to get rid of a few posts, which is good.
Generally, modifications are pretty minor. Some window refinements managed to get storage requirements by looking a bit more closely around the services requirements and school deleted a lobby door to the toilet, which is pretty minor. So, we're just sort of finishing the detailed design, so it's still sort of a work in progress.
and obviously there's some lessons learnt coming through that and also into construction. So just some quick lessons learnt so far, which if you're back to the ministry, is again getting a better alignment at that first stage if possible when the business case align with standardized design.
which obviously ties in with the school brief and the budget. Trying to capture a bit more around that, not necessarily the building itself, but all the auxiliary costs around things that get relocated because of the position of the building. Development design time frame, if you want to look at alternatives, it's probably quite
Too tight and then getting better guidelines around, you know, fixed joinery, landscape integration on standardized projects, and then I guess the tricky one is when Jared kind of talked to that traffic light system that sort of popped up is actually how do we keep standardized designs?
Standard, without avoiding sort of too much sort of creep, there's obviously improvements, but as they develop more or build more of these, how to kind of keep within that standard design sort of framework. So, that's a very quick overview of a project.
So far.
Hand it back to Jared.

Jared Kwok   1:02:21
Yeah, that's great.
Ross, I think we've got another section for Q&A, is that correct?

Ross Henderson   1:02:35
Yes, we do. So yeah, we've got some time. We've got roughly 20-ish minutes. So yeah, again, if you have questions, pop them into the chat or use that e-mail address. And apologies, I think just a small number of people did have some issues with the Q&A. So our apologies for that. We will
attempt to get that straightened out. But yeah, as I say, either pop us an e-mail or pop the questions in the Q&A function and we will deal with those as we go.
Thank you.

Jared Kwok   1:03:37
OK, so Ross, is that no more, no more questions come up?

Ross Henderson   1:03:46
Apology, bear with me. One here just now. Carl's asking, excuse me, how developed is the standard design in terms of structural design, i.e. sizing of members, etc. Might be one for you, Mark.

Mark Willard   1:04:05
Yeah, hi Kyle. Structural designs and all designs are fully developed to the end of developed design, so they are all specified with beam column sizes, floor thicknesses, foundations for good ground, structural intent and philosophy. But when you come to apply them as part of your B26 projects, they still have the opportunity for you to
Obviously, develop your own models and then do some site-specific refinements. Now, going forward, we may look to further take that design beyond developed design, lock it down a bit more, but at the moment, there's a bit of flexibility to apply it to a specific site.

Ross Henderson   1:04:46
Thanks, Mark. Question here from Craig. What design panel will these services be procured from? Will this be opened for new applications in the near future? The current MPLD panel has been closed since late 2020, so six or so years. Is that maybe one for you, David?

Rosie Hart   1:05:06
I'm happy to take this one also in place of that. Just so the current MPLD panel will be utilized for obviously traditional procurements, utilizing a closed competitive approach. If it's a design and build approach that's selected for that project, then the main contractor will be responsible for engaging those designers.

Ross Henderson   1:05:08
Oh, thank you.
Thanks, Rosie.

Rosie Hart   1:05:25
not from our panel. We don't actually have a date on when the current MPLD panel will be reopened or refreshed, unfortunately. If we do, we'll obviously let everybody know way ahead of time.

Ross Henderson   1:05:39
Thank you. A question here from Alex around site-specific design. Noting that site-specific design occurs after the standard solution has been developed, how are acoustic risks such as Rd. noise factored into the passive ventilation strategy? Is the design sufficiently adaptable to move away from passive ventilation?
where acoustic modeling demonstrates it would compromise the learning environment. Neil, maybe that's you.

Neil Wyatt   1:06:06
Yeah, I've answered that one already, Ross.

Ross Henderson   1:06:08
Alright, apologies. Yep.

Neil Wyatt   1:06:10
I think, yeah.

Ross Henderson   1:06:11
Yeah, thank you.
Sorry, I'm just skimming through just to make sure we haven't...
There was a question here about secondary school toilets. Neil, did you see that one?

Neil Wyatt   1:06:30
No, I didn't, if it was my Reilly.

Ross Henderson   1:06:31
Okay, I can read, yeah, I can read that one. The standard designs for secondary school toilets, i.e. making them more or less prison standard, having the right privacy locks on the cubicle doors showing occupancy, but they can't be easily opened by other students from the outside. Ceiling panels out of reach, no plumbing accessible to students.
For students to tinker with, et cetera, et cetera.

Neil Wyatt   1:06:54
Yeah, obviously, we're going to follow our existing design requirements around bathrooms, toilets, etc. and getting the right hardware, getting commercial hardware, and yeah, having that locked in. But ultimately, things like hardware, we're not at that point of specifying it quite yet, and it will come down to
for B26 anyway, down to the contractor, but they'll need to follow our existing design requirements.

Ross Henderson   1:07:20
Yeah, thanks, Neil. Chris is asking for D and B projects, and this is one for you. I think, Matt, can alternative structural systems be considered as long as they meet the performance objectives?

Mark Willard   1:07:35
Yeah, hi Chris. No, we welcome your feedback on the structural systems, but they won't, any alternatives won't be accepted as part of the B26 projects. And the basis for that is we're targeting program level benefits rather than trying to achieve individual site optimization. So we're looking at that program level efficiencies that we can obtain
through standardizing the structure and that looks at broader strategies that come through, which is time to design, procurement opportunities, consenting strategies, and all of those. So that will all start to be activities that we consider in future years. But for now, we want to try and repeat and standardize the structural system
or the different typologies across the portfolio.

Ross Henderson   1:08:24
Thank you, thank you, Mark.
Sorry, I'm just playing catch up on the questions. They're really good. Thanks everybody. Appreciate them. Will there be a choice? This is from Chris. Will there be a choice between intumescent and plasterboard protection? Will there be standardization for the intumescent selection for the round columns? Is the SPG loss in corners accounted for?
Again, maybe Mark.

Mark Willard   1:08:52
The fire strategy is largely developed as well. So the benefits of multi-story buildings using the two-way moment frame is a concrete filled and that provides the fire rating to the columns. You'll still need to protect the beams and the underside of the floor slab, which is typically through the concrete slab.
And that's either through intermes and paint or boxing it out with some sort of fire-rated product. What was the second part of the question, Ross?

Ross Henderson   1:09:21
Sorry, just skimming back. For the round columns, is the SPG, apologies, sorry, SPG loss in corners accounted for?

Mark Willard   1:09:30
Yes, and it's similar to, I guess, brace frames. We end up having a reasonably large loss due to the location of the brace.

Ross Henderson   1:09:39
Thanks, Mark. Jeremy's question, I see the documents for standard design on the website have the teaching space configurations. Are the structural designs and details going to be made available to the public?
It may be near.

Neil Wyatt   1:09:58
So yeah, I'll try and answer that one. Yeah, there's a huge collateral of information there sitting behind the scenes. You know, reports, drawings, you name it, it's all there for every typology. So design teams will be issued with that package. It won't necessarily be made available to the public, but as a project,

Ross Henderson   1:10:00
Yeah.

Neil Wyatt   1:10:17
comes up, the delivery manager will be responsible for making sure there's a good package of information handed over to support that particular build.

Ross Henderson   1:10:30
Thanks, Neil. Mike's asking, depending on the extent of standard design adopted, where will design liability start and stop with MOE, designer PS1s, PS2s, etc.?

Mark Willard   1:10:43
Yeah, I'll jump onto that. So Mike, for B26 projects, the project team will take the liability for the project. So it'll be up to each individual team to be satisfied that the design meets the objectives of the building code, as well as our requirements. Going forward,
We're looking to review where that liability sits, but that's for a future stream, not B26.

Ross Henderson   1:11:12
Thanks, Matt.

Neil Wyatt   1:11:12
I'll just jump in there. I'll just jump in there. Ross, I think the important thing to clarify is that what we're handing over isn't the finished design, right? What it is are the instructions for formulating your design as you move forward, right? So it's the ingredients of the cake, if you like. You know, we're not giving you the cake that's been fully baked and glazed. It's the ingredients. So you still need to take that information as
being correct and apply it to create your design from it. So at that point, we'll have a complete design and then within the ministry ourselves, we will have a singular review at preliminary design stage. That's the position right at the moment.
and that singular review then will look at how you've adapted the standard design to suit your project and also focus primarily on the site-specific issues that need to be resolved.

Ross Henderson   1:12:09
Thanks, Neil. This may one for you as well. Nikki's asking, the standard layouts on the website are not showing detailed design. How do we get hold of the detailed designs? I think he might have covered that just a moment ago.

Neil Wyatt   1:12:20
So yeah, the standard layouts have been taken to that develop design stage. So they're not, you know, they're not every nut and bolt locked down, but there's certainly a schedule included, you know, for example, the fixed joinery, you know, what is FF&E, what is fixed. So each teaching space type, whether it's specialist or
general as a sheet that goes with that. And as I say, we've documented their base level of what is fixed and what is at F&E. And beyond that, you know, if the School want additional items, then OK, and that's another change request that they'll need to look at.

Ross Henderson   1:13:00
Thanks, Neil. This one from Renee. Does NZ Spar hold any liability for the standardized designs, i.e. structural design, etc., or does full liability move to the consultants engaged for each project?

Mark Willard   1:13:16
Yeah, Renelle, similar to some of the other questions, part of your role as a consultant will be picking up the standard designs which have been completed to develop design and then progressing those through to detailed design. And with that, you'll need to develop your own calculations and your own models.
to satisfy yourselves that you can sign off the PS1 and PS4 at the end of the day. So liability will remain within the project team rather than being held by a ministry and NZSPA for B26 projects.

Ross Henderson   1:13:51
Thanks, Mark. Hector's asking, has a whole life assessment been done to ensure that maintenance and operational costs are captured in the feasibility studies?

Jared Kwok   1:14:03
I can answer that, Ross. Yes, they have. One of the key objectives when we started the design intent and the materials and systems to make sure that we're capturing the whole life costs. As I mentioned before, we're at a juncture where that probably hasn't been forefront of consideration in the past, but it's not only the new shiny building

Ross Henderson   1:14:04
Thanks, Jared.

Jared Kwok   1:14:27
things that we're talking about here, but it's all our existing stock and the interoperability of materials and systems that we choose to be fit for purpose and durable and everlasting. So obviously sustainability is a big part of that. So yes, absolutely.

Ross Henderson   1:14:47
Thanks, Jared. Terry, just and apologies, Terry, if we missed your earlier question. This is about warm roofs. In essence, asking if warm roofs will be based on meeting or exceeding H1R value requirements to help assist with regulating room temperature. Will warm roofs sit under a red light or amber light in the traffic light system? That's you, I'm guessing, Jared.
Sorry.

Neil Wyatt   1:15:13
So I think I did respond to that question already. So yeah, the warm roofs will meet H1. They won't exceed H1 at this point. So things like roofs over verandas, you don't need to extend that warm roof over the veranda. It can just be a single roofing sheet.
But yeah, yeah, we're not intending to exceed building code at this point. What was the other part of the question you had there?

Ross Henderson   1:15:41
And...
Will they sit under a red light or amp light in the traffic light system?

Neil Wyatt   1:15:47
Yeah, so they are very much fixed items. The built up warm roofs that we're looking at for these typologies are very much fixed. And so yeah, they're a red item so that they can't be changed.

Ross Henderson   1:16:00
Thanks, Neil. Suzanne is asking, will the standard designs on MOE website integrate DQLS acoustic requirements for use of space into the same documentation to assist standardization?

Neil Wyatt   1:16:15
Yeah, again, like I mentioned before, really, all of our design requirements are satisfied with these designs. So DQLS, thermal, acoustic, you name it, it's all baked into the design as such. So you don't need to really litigate any of it. Things like division walls between teaching spaces or even external walls. Yeah, it's all
We have solutions that are baked into the designs, essentially, yeah.

Ross Henderson   1:16:40
Thanks, Neil. Jono is asking, are all standardized designs of a similar size to the example, or are there designs for single standalone classrooms, toilet blocks, etc.?

Neil Wyatt   1:16:54
have a variety of different sizes of teaching in admin block. So anything from a single, you know, from a four teaching space, single-sided with external circulation right through to a two and three-level double-sided block. I think I'd put an example there that Trevor had given.
So we think we've captured every scenario really in terms of teaching spaces and the size of buildings required to fit them in.

Ross Henderson   1:17:25
Great, thanks, Neil. Jeremy is asking, will the design details be handed to integrated schools?

Neil Wyatt   1:17:36
Yes, I mean, the design details, the collateral that I talked about is there and available for every project team that is working on school property. So whether it's an integrated school or a ministry school or whatever it is, is certainly available.

Ross Henderson   1:17:56
Thanks, Neil. Shareena is asking, will there be a briefing session on the HVAC elements and how these have been validated?

Neil Wyatt   1:18:08
Currently, we don't have one planned, but we can certainly do that. And perhaps it's a separate session that we'll go into a little bit more detail and we can organize that certainly through our lead consultant there, Mesh Consulting.

Ross Henderson   1:18:23
Perhaps, Shareena, yeah, if you reach out to the team via that e-mail address. And yeah, certainly something we can have some further discussion on. Thank you.
Just checking there's no final questions. We're doing pretty good for time, I think. Hopefully we've answered everybody's questions. Appreciate you all taking the time and making the time to put them through. They're really good questions. Please, yeah, keep them coming, as I say. Pop us an e-mail as well if you've got any further questions or thoughts or feedback.
And...
That would be much appreciated. I will hand back to you, Jared, for the final section.

Jared Kwok   1:19:09
Thanks, Ross.
Thanks everyone for your questions. It's great. So just as we wrap up, again, just like to thank everyone here for attending your patience. I know there's a lot of information to absorb. And yeah, it's hopefully you got a
bit of a feed in today as well. I just want to just re-emphasize some of the key takeaways, some of the key messaging of today.
Firstly, standardization, like we've mentioned various times, it's a journey rather than a destination. We recognize that we're still learning. We're trying to refine it and improve the program. Budget 26, it's really a transition year as we embed these new processes and our documentations in the way that we're going to work moving forward. So
have patience with us. We don't, again, it's not going to be perfect, but it's going to be vitally important that we get your feedback. That is not a flippant comment either, because the only way that we evolve and improve this program is by listening to the people that do the work on the ground. And that's something that we've taken a lesson from in the past that we're going to implement and make sure that
So this program is going to be successful and involves as it matures. Secondly, while standardization introduces some new tools and frameworks, the delivery process is largely the same as it has been in the past. Projects will continue to be competitively tendered.
and delivered through our established procurement pathways, even as we move into NZ SPA. The objective is an evolution of what we're doing here, not to disrupt the way that we do things or create roadblocks. While this is, NZ SPA is a significant organisational change for us,
our focus remains the same. So delivering good outcomes for schools. Again, from the report, and the mandated through NZ Spar, the board, is that we have to be really customer focused. Our customers are the schools and our children and our teachers and everyone that operates within the environment. So it's vitally important that
We have yourselves as our partners and the relationships that we form with the schools remain vitally, will be unchanged and then vitally important to make this a success. And again, this is an exclusive program. We want your ideas.
innovations that are being proposed, we definitely want to hear about them. If they benefit the program, we'll implement them. So whether you're a consultant, a designer, contractor, school rep, if you have experience or any insights that you've got for us that can help us improve this program.
We want to hear from you. So over the past 18 months, I can see right at the start, we've come a long way, but we still recognise that this is probably only the start of the journey. But where we've started, where we've got to now is a vast improvement from where we've been. Well, that's what we think anyway. So
really excited to hear your feedback. So thank you again for your time today, everyone, your questions and the interest in this program. And I hope that the session has helped provide a bit more clarity for you out there and understanding about what we're doing, where we're heading and why we're doing it. And again, I really, really appreciate it.
So, now we'll just move into the final close-out with Karakira and I'll hand you over to Riki.

Riki Edmonds   1:23:07
Kia ora tatou. Yeah, just another mehi to everyone for being here today. It's an exciting journey for us and it's taken a while to get here, but you know, we're really excited to be at that implementation phase. So, koiki te ka papa.
Becky Dave.
Jared Kwok   1:23:45
Thanks, everyone.