To increase the rate of 16-18-year-olds in education and training by at least 15% within three years.

To offer a broader range of education courses for 16-18-year-olds.

To accommodate a further 80 full time learners within thePittville University existing facility.

To absorb 11-16 year-old pupils from Pittville High into the other schools if all further education units were moved to a new campus.

This is a Service Scope option NOT a Service Solution option.

Delivers against one or more of the critical success factors.

Supports one or more of the Spending Objectives.

Will represent a benchmark for Value For Money throughout the appraisal process.

This is the LEA's preference and therefore the preferred option.

Should be carried forward to the short listed options.

Delivers against one or more of the critical success factors.

Will represent a benchmark for Value For Money throughout the appraisal process.

Supports one or more of the Spending Objectives.

Incorrectly identified as a Scoping Solution.

Staff at the new campus will automatically become employees of Pittville University with the same terms and conditions of employment.

The parties shall attempt to resolve any dispute through negotiations between senior executives of the parties, who have authority to settle the same.

The new campus building is to be listed as an asset on the Local Education Authority balance sheet.

The return on the investment will repay the sum of the original investment over 10 years.

The contract period for development of the new campus is three years.

The Change Management Strategy should mitigate the impact of school closures on jobs.

There should be a break clause allowing either party to give two months written notice to terminate the agreement after a minimum of six months.

11-16 year old pupils from Pittville High School could be absorbed into the other schools if all further education unit were moved to a new campus.

The Pittville University development option will result in a net overall saving in the cost of contracts for cleaning.

No, because the funding statement is provided in the Financial Case.

No, because the Economic Case should have already quantified this funding risk.

Yes, because alternative monies may be available to fund proposals that offer demonstrably better value for money.

Yes, because scenario analysis should reflect the political uncertainties on which the success of the proposal depends.

No, because the Financial Appraisal should NOT contain capital costs.

No, because construction and refurbishment costs should be treated as revenue costs.

Yes, because all running costs must be accounted for.

Yes, because these are a cost of developing the scheme.

No, because taxation costs should be excluded from the Financial Appraisal.

No, because it is the Economic Case that should include inflation and taxation costs.

Yes, because the Financial Appraisal should demonstrate value for money.

Yes, because both resource and non-resource costs and benefits should be factored into the analysis.