GThe Academy Trust Handbook 2026 introduces important changes that affect how multi-academy trusts approach procurement, contract management and governance. While trusts can still use suppliers outside DfE-approved routes, they are now expected to clearly evidence why procurement decisions have been made and demonstrate that they deliver value for money.

This guide breaks down the key procurement-related updates in a clear, practical way, covering DfE-approved procurement routes, energy contract requirements, MIS framework deadlines, contract extension rules and new financial transparency expectations. Alongside an explanation of what has changed, it includes practical actions trusts should take before 1 October, helping business leaders, finance teams and procurement professionals prepare for the new requirements with confidence.

Get school catering right, and it goes unnoticed. Get it wrong, and it becomes one of the loudest complaints you will get from pupils and their parents. That’s exactly why the in-house-versus-outsource decision deserves more scrutiny than it usually gets.

Some schools choose to manage catering themselves, employing their own kitchen teams and retaining full control over menus, purchasing and day-to-day operations. Others work with a school catering supplier, using catering contracts, placing responsibility for service delivery with an external specialist.

Neither approach is automatically better. The right decision depends on your school’s priorities, available resources and long-term objectives.

If you’re reviewing your current catering arrangements, here are the key factors worth considering before deciding whether to keep catering in-house or outsource it.

Why More Schools Are Reviewing Their Catering Model

School budgets continue to face significant pressure, while expectations around food quality, nutritional standards and sustainability keep rising. At the same time, recruiting catering staff has become more challenging, food costs remain unpredictable and schools are expected to demonstrate good value for money across every area of expenditure.

As a result, many schools are reviewing how their catering service operates, whether that means strengthening an existing in-house team or exploring an external provider’s expertise and economies of scale. 

A structured approach to catering procurement for schools can help schools compare their options objectively and understand which model best supports their pupils, staff and budget. You can learn more about Procure’s approach to school catering procurement.

The goal is to be able to make an informed decision, rather than continuing with the existing model because it feels familiar.

What Are The Benefits Of Managing Catering In-House?

Running catering internally gives schools complete control over the service. Menus can be developed around the needs of pupils, changes can often be implemented quickly and leadership teams have direct oversight of staffing, purchasing and day-to-day operations.

Many schools also value the close relationships that develop between kitchen staff and pupils.

An established in-house team often understands the school community exceptionally well and can respond quickly to feedback from staff, parents and children.

Where schools have strong operational processes, experienced catering managers and the capacity to oversee compliance effectively, an in-house model can work extremely well.

For some schools, maintaining that level of direct control is an important consideration.

Where In-House Catering Can Become Challenging

Managing catering internally also brings significant responsibility. Schools become responsible for recruitment, staff management, training, food safety, nutritional compliance, supplier relationships, purchasing and ongoing budget management.

These responsibilities sit alongside every other operational demand already facing school leaders.

As costs rise and staffing becomes harder to manage, maintaining consistent quality can become challenging. Schools may also find that purchasing power is limited compared with larger catering providers, making it harder to secure competitive pricing for ingredients and supplies.

These challenges don’t mean an in-house model can’t succeed – they simply highlight the level of resource needed to manage it well over the long term.

What Does A School Catering Supplier Typically Provide?

Working with a school catering supplier transfers much of the operational responsibility to an organisation that specialises in delivering catering services within education.

Depending on the contract, suppliers may manage:

Many suppliers also have access to wider buying networks, allowing them to negotiate food prices that individual schools may struggle to achieve independently.

Perhaps more importantly, specialist providers understand the specific requirements of school catering, including DfE nutritional standards, allergen management and changing pupil preferences.

Schools should also understand how suppliers monitor food hygiene, allergen management and nutritional standards throughout the life of the contract. Strong providers are transparent about these processes, which is why reviewing their approach to food safety and compliance should form part of any procurement decision.

When Outsourcing Makes Sense

Outsourcing can be particularly beneficial where schools are experiencing ongoing operational pressures.

For example:

In these situations, outsourcing can reduce administrative pressure while giving schools access to specialist expertise, though the school still retains responsibility for oversight.

Before making any decision, it is worth understanding how your current catering service is performing. A detailed review and audit can identify opportunities to improve value, assess compliance with nutritional standards and determine whether your existing arrangements are still meeting the needs of your school.

When Keeping Catering In-House May Be The Better Option

There are also situations where remaining in-house still makes good commercial sense. Schools with skilled catering leadership, stable staffing, strong financial performance and consistently high meal uptake may find little reason to change.

If the service is delivering excellent food, remaining compliant and representing good value, there may be greater benefit in refining the existing operation than replacing it. The decision should always be based on evidence, not assumptions.

Questions Every School Should Ask Before Deciding

Whether you’re considering outsourcing or remaining in-house, there are several important questions worth asking.

Answering these questions honestly often provides a much clearer picture of whether change is necessary.

The Role Of Catering Procurement For Schools

Changing providers should never be your starting point. 

Effective catering procurement for schools begins with reviewing the existing service, identifying strengths, understanding where improvements could be made and evaluating whether the current model offers the best balance of quality and value.

Only then should schools decide whether remaining in-house or moving to outsourced catering contracts for schools is the right option.

Once a school has decided to explore the market, a structured process of tendering and evaluation ensures every potential supplier is assessed fairly. Looking beyond headline costs allows schools to compare providers on service quality, nutritional standards, operational resilience, reporting and long-term value.

Making The Right Decision

Every school has different priorities, resources and challenges, and there’s no single answer that is right for all of them.

The best decision is the one that delivers nutritious meals, supports pupils, represents good value and allows school leaders to focus their time where it has the greatest impact.

At Procure, we help schools assess their existing catering arrangements objectively before recommending the most appropriate route forward. Whether the outcome is improving an in-house operation or appointing a new school catering supplier, our role is to help schools make informed commercial decisions that balance quality, compliance and cost.

From independent reviews through to procurement, tender management and ongoing contract support, our focus is helping schools ease pressure on internal teams while securing catering provision that delivers the best possible outcomes for pupils and strong value for money.

The Energy Consultants Association (ECA) have urged the DfE to correct ‘misleading’ energy claims. For MATs and academies, it’s worth understanding what that debate is really about. But whichever side you favour, the reality is the same: no single procurement route is right for every trust.

What the dispute is actually about

The ECA has written to the education secretary raising concerns about two claims the DfE has made to schools under its Maximising Value for Pupils programme, launched in December to help school finances stretch further, with a particular focus on energy. 

The ECA’s challenge centres on two claims. First, the DfE says its energy is bought “up to 30 months ahead when market conditions are right,” implying active timing of the market. The ECA says it is actually bought in stages to smooth out price swings, which is not the same as securing the lowest price. Second, the DfE has suggested broker deals leave schools exposed to price rises. The ECA disputes this, noting many broker contracts are fixed-price for that reason, and that brokers typically offer more than a contract, including bill checks and help managing usage across sites.

It’s an interesting debate, and one that schools should be aware of. But in our view, it also risks distracting from the question that matters most.

Why the argument itself is not the point

‘One credible option among several’ is roughly how any procurement decision should be treated, energy or otherwise. There is no single right answer for every trust, and the right route depends on your estate, your existing arrangements and what you are trying to achieve.

That’s why this debate only tells part of the story. Neither side answers the question that ultimately determines whether a trust is losing money: does it know what it is spending, site by site, and why? A trust may secure a competitive tariff through the DfE, a broker, a framework or another compliant procurement route, but still fail to achieve best value if it lacks visibility of what is happening across its estate.

Where the real savings tend to sit

In our work with trusts, the recoverable value in energy spend rarely comes from the contract alone. It tends to come from three things:

For growing multi-academy trusts, these challenges become even greater. Every school often arrives with different suppliers, different contract terms, different renewal dates and different patterns of energy consumption. Without a joined-up view across the estate, opportunities are easily missed, and decisions become reactive rather than strategic.

The best approach

Our recommendation is simple: understand your position before deciding your procurement route.

Rather than starting with the question, “How should we buy our energy?”, we encourage trusts to begin by asking, “What does our estate actually need?”

We always recommend starting with an independent look at where your trust actually stands, covering current contracts, consumption data and the condition of the estate. This can be achieved through an independent Energy Health Check, which is one of the energy services we offer at Procure Education. 

The health check uses a suite of diagnostic tools to provide a high-level assessment of current arrangements and identify where the greatest opportunities may exist. There’s no cost involved, and no upfront engagement needed from any of your current suppliers. Where appropriate, this health check can be supported by more detailed Technical audits of individual sites, helping establish whether inefficiencies stem from procurement, plant performance, building fabric, controls or operational practices. 

Alongside this, we help trusts develop greater visibility of their contract portfolio, renewal timelines and estate-wide energy position, enabling procurement decisions to be thoroughly planned and value for money to be evidenced. We don’t push a single product or technology, and we work alongside whatever procurement route is best suited to your specific trust. Sometimes that may be the DfE’s Energy for Schools service. Sometimes it may be a framework, broker or other compliant route.

Ultimately, the real question worth asking before your next renewal isn’t whether you have the best rate available. It’s whether you understand what is being spent, why, and whether it needs to be. If the answer is not a confident yes, that is where the conversation should start.

Procure Education works exclusively with schools and multi-academy trusts on procurement strategy, contract management and energy. If you would like an independent view of your trust’s energy position, get in touch.

Providing healthy school meals is about far more than keeping pupils fed throughout the day.

For many children, particularly those receiving free school meals, lunch may be the most substantial meal they eat. The quality of that meal can influence concentration, behaviour, energy levels and overall wellbeing throughout the school day.

That is why school food standards exist.

The Department for Education (DfE) sets clear requirements around the nutritional content of school meals, helping schools ensure pupils have access to balanced, healthy food regardless of where they are educated.

Most schools understand the importance of these standards. The challenge is making sure they are consistently being met.

Whether meals are delivered by in-house teams or external school contract caterers, compliance cannot simply be assumed. Schools remain responsible for ensuring the food provided to pupils meets the required standards.

This raises an important question.

How can schools be confident their catering provision remains compliant while also delivering good value and a positive experience for pupils?

What Are The DfE School Food Standards?

The School Food Standards apply to all maintained schools, academies founded after June 2010 and free schools in England.

The standards are designed to ensure pupils receive nutritious meals that support healthy development and encourage positive eating habits from an early age.

The requirements cover a wide range of areas, including:

The standards do not simply focus on individual meals. They look at menu planning over time to ensure pupils receive a balanced diet across the school week.

For schools, compliance means more than offering healthy options occasionally. Nutritional standards need to be built into the catering provision as a whole.

Why Compliance Can Be Difficult To Monitor

Many schools work with experienced contract caterers for schools and trust them to manage menus appropriately.

In most cases, suppliers are doing exactly that.

However, schools often face a visibility challenge.

School leaders and business managers are responsible for a wide range of operational priorities. Monitoring menu compliance in detail is rarely something they have the time or specialist expertise to do regularly.

Catering arrangements often evolve over time.

Menus change. Ingredients change. Food costs fluctuate. Supplier pressures increase. Staffing changes occur.

None of these things automatically create compliance issues, but they can make it harder for schools to maintain oversight.

This is particularly true where school catering contracts have been in place for several years without a detailed review.

Signs Your School Catering Provision May Need Reviewing

In many cases, schools first notice operational symptoms rather than nutritional concerns.

These can include:

Whilst none of these issues automatically mean standards are not being met, they can indicate that a closer review of the catering provision may be worthwhile.

A healthy and compliant catering service should be able to demonstrate how menus are developed, monitored and reviewed throughout the year.

The Role Of Catering Procurement In Maintaining Standards

When schools think about catering procurement, cost savings are often the first thing that comes to mind.

Cost matters. School budgets remain under significant pressure.

However, catering procurement should also be viewed as a quality and compliance exercise.

The right procurement process allows schools to assess:

Strong catering contracts for schools create clear expectations from the outset.

Rather than relying on assumptions, schools can establish measurable standards around food quality, nutritional performance and service delivery.

That creates greater confidence throughout the life of the contract.

Why School Catering Contracts Should Not Be Left Untouched

One of the most common challenges schools face is contract inertia.

A catering provider may have been delivering meals for several years. Relationships are positive. Day to day operations appear stable.

As a result, contracts are often renewed with minimal review.

The difficulty is that schools change over time.

Pupil numbers shift. Dietary requirements evolve. Expectations around healthy eating increase. Food costs rise. Government guidance develops.

A contract that worked perfectly five years ago may not fully reflect the school’s current needs.

This is why regular reviews of school catering contracts are important, even when there are no obvious concerns.

Reviewing performance does not necessarily mean changing provider. It simply ensures the school remains confident that standards, value and compliance are aligned.

What To Look For When Reviewing Contract Caterers For Schools

If your catering provision is due for review, there are several areas worth examining.

Menu Compliance

Ask for evidence showing how menus align with current School Food Standards.

This should be documented rather than simply discussed.

Nutritional Oversight

Understand who is responsible for reviewing menus and how compliance is monitored throughout the year.

Meal Uptake

Healthy food is important, but pupils also need to choose it.

Strong providers work hard to balance nutritional requirements with meals pupils actually want to eat.

Reporting

Schools should have access to clear performance information, including meal uptake, service performance and compliance monitoring.

Flexibility

Schools evolve quickly. Catering provision should be able to adapt to changing requirements rather than operating from a rigid template.

What About Catering Tenders?

For some schools, a contract review may lead to a formal procurement exercise.

Catering tenders give schools the opportunity to compare providers, challenge assumptions and assess the wider market.

A well-run tender process looks beyond headline pricing.

It considers quality, compliance, service delivery, innovation and long term value.

This is particularly important for schools approaching major contract renewal points or reviewing primary school catering tenders for the first time in several years.

The goal is not simply to secure a cheaper supplier.

The goal is to ensure pupils receive high-quality, compliant meals while the school achieves the best possible value.

Compliance And Cost Should Work Together

There is sometimes a perception that healthier meals automatically cost more.

In reality, strong school contract catering companies understand how to balance nutrition, operational efficiency and commercial performance.

The best providers recognise that schools need all three.

Compliance without value creates budget pressure.

Value without compliance creates risk.

The strongest catering arrangements achieve both.

That is why many schools are taking a broader view of contract catering for schools, looking beyond immediate pricing and focusing on long-term outcomes.

Supporting Better Outcomes For Pupils

School meals play an important role in the wider educational experience.

They support wellbeing, concentration, attendance and pupil satisfaction. They also contribute to how parents, pupils and staff perceive the school environment.

Ensuring those meals meet DfE standards should not be viewed as a compliance exercise alone.

It is about creating a service that delivers better outcomes for pupils while remaining commercially sustainable for schools.

At Procure, we support schools through every stage of catering procurement, from reviewing existing arrangements through to managing catering tenders and supplier evaluations. Our focus is helping schools secure compliant, high-quality catering provision that delivers value without compromising standards.

Because when it comes to school meals, schools should not have to choose between quality, compliance and cost.

According to Sprint Education’s latest budget insights, only 47% of schools are actively responding to financial pressure by seeking better value suppliers.

At a time when school budgets remain under pressure and the government is placing increasing focus on value for money, estate efficiency and long term sustainability, that figure feels surprisingly low.

If schools are facing greater financial pressure while expectations around estate performance continue to rise, why are more than half of schools still not actively seeking better value suppliers?

Procurement reviews often sit behind safeguarding, attendance, staffing pressures, inspections, wellbeing initiatives and the countless operational demands competing for attention every day. Facilities management contracts rarely feel like the most urgent issue until something goes wrong, which means they can gradually slip down the priority list despite representing a significant area of spend. By the time they receive attention, schools are often working against renewal dates, operational issues or rising costs rather than taking a proactive and strategic approach.

That is understandable, school leaders and operational teams are balancing responsibilities that extend far beyond estates and procurement activity. However, leaving facilities management in the “we’ll get to it later” category can quietly become expensive over time.

The wider environment is also changing. Government focus on school estates, sustainability targets and long term asset planning continues to increase. Schools are under growing pressure to demonstrate value for money, improve efficiency and ensure buildings remain fit for purpose, while the maintenance backlog across education buildings remains substantial. Expectations are shifting beyond simply maintaining buildings and towards managing estates more strategically.

How Facilities Management Costs Quietly Increase Over Time

For many schools, rising costs do not come from one obvious area of overspend. Service arrangements evolve over time and, as schools change, contracts do not always change with them.

A cleaning specification may still reflect building usage patterns from several years ago. Energy contracts can continue without being reviewed against changing usage patterns or market conditions, while service arrangements often remain structured around historic requirements rather than current priorities. Inflationary uplifts may also be applied year after year without being reviewed or benchmarked against the wider market.

Viewed independently, none of these examples necessarily stand out as a major concern. Across an entire estate, however, they rarely happen in isolation. Small inefficiencies spread across multiple contracts can gradually build into significant long term cost leakage, particularly when reviews become difficult to prioritise alongside everything else schools are managing.

Why Facilities Management Needs a Joined Up Procurement Strategy

Many schools review services individually. Cleaning, energy, maintenance and wider operational contracts are often managed through different budgets, suppliers and review cycles.

Different suppliers frequently work to separate objectives, report in different formats and operate on different timelines. Over time, that can reduce visibility across the estate and make it harder to identify overlapping costs, inefficiencies and opportunities to improve value.

The focus therefore moves beyond reviewing contract prices in isolation and towards understanding wider estate spend, operational efficiency and where savings opportunities may be hiding. A more joined up facilities management procurement strategy creates greater visibility and allows schools to understand how services work together rather than assessing them separately.

Where Schools Often Uncover Hidden Savings Opportunities

Savings opportunities within facilities management are not always found through large scale changes or disruptive projects. More often, they emerge through services and contracts that have gradually evolved over time without being reassessed against current operational needs.

Cleaning contracts can continue operating around outdated specifications or building usage patterns that no longer reflect how spaces are used today. Energy arrangements can become disconnected from changing consumption patterns, supplier markets and newer efficiency opportunities. Service structures that once represented good value can slowly become less aligned with operational requirements and financial priorities.

For most schools, this rarely comes down to poor decision making. Time and resource pressures mean reviews often happen reactively rather than strategically, particularly when existing arrangements appear to be working well enough.

When schools do take the opportunity to review these areas, they often uncover differences in pricing structures, service specifications and contract performance that had simply gone unnoticed over time. Even relatively small changes can create meaningful long term savings without disrupting day to day operations or adding pressure to already stretched teams.

Turning FM Procurement into Long Term Value

Facilities management is becoming increasingly important strategically, but schools should not need to absorb another complex responsibility internally.

Creating visibility over spend, contract performance and procurement opportunities takes time, and that is often the very thing schools have the least of. Bringing in specialist support allows schools to uncover opportunities that may otherwise remain hidden without pulling focus away from the priorities that already demand attention.

Schools often approach Procure looking for support with a contract review or tender process and uncover opportunities that had gone unnoticed, including duplicated services, hidden costs and areas of unnecessary spend.

On average, Procure helps schools reduce procurement costs by 25% while saving around 20% of staff time. Long term savings often come from having the time, structure and visibility to see the bigger picture.

Keeping a school clean is about far more than appearance. It is about safety, wellbeing, safeguarding, operational standards and making sure pupils and staff can work in an environment that feels cared for. Yet when schools review or renew their cleaning arrangements, important details are often missed.

That is not because school leaders are careless. It is because cleaning contracts schools rely on can be far more complex than they first appear. On paper, one quote can look much like another. A supplier may promise high standards, flexible support and full compliance. But unless the right questions are asked and the right checks are carried out, schools can end up with a service that falls short where it matters most.

This is where problems start. Standards drift. Corners are cut. Responsibilities become unclear. Inspection readiness weakens. Staff end up chasing issues that should never have been theirs to manage in the first place.

For many schools, the challenge is not simply finding contract cleaners for schools. It is making sure the agreement behind the service is robust, accountable and built around the realities of an education setting.

Here are some of the most common areas schools overlook when reviewing school cleaning contracts, and what to focus on if you want a service that is safe, consistent and fit for purpose.

Cleaning is often treated as routine when it should be treated as strategic

Because cleaning happens every day, it can be easy for it to fade into the background. Until something goes wrong, it is often seen as an operational task rather than a strategic contract that deserves close scrutiny.

But education cleaning contracts affect the whole school environment. They influence how safe shared areas are, how well washrooms are maintained, how quickly issues are resolved and how confident staff and visitors feel in the standards being upheld. They also play a role in infection control, presentation and readiness for external scrutiny.

When a cleaning service is working well, it supports the school quietly and consistently. When it is not, the effect is felt quickly across the site.

That is why schools need to look beyond whether a building appears generally tidy. The real question is whether the contract itself is strong enough to deliver reliable standards day after day.

One of the biggest mistakes is assuming the specification is detailed enough

Many school cleaning contracts are built on broad promises rather than clear expectations. The contract may refer to daily cleaning, periodic tasks and general hygiene standards, but without enough detail to hold the supplier to account properly.

This creates a problem straight away. If the specification is vague, it becomes difficult to challenge inconsistent delivery. Areas may be cleaned less frequently than expected. Deep cleaning tasks may slip. Consumables may not be managed properly. Standards can become subjective rather than measurable.

A strong school cleaning contract should set out exactly what is required, where, how often and to what standard. Classrooms, washrooms, staff spaces, dining areas, halls, touchpoints and specialist rooms should all be considered carefully. Periodic work should be defined just as clearly as daily work.

If the contract leaves too much open to interpretation, the school is exposed.

Schools do not always test whether the service matches the way the site is really used

No two schools operate in exactly the same way. Pupil numbers, building layout, age range, community use, wraparound provision and extracurricular activity all affect cleaning demand.

This is where generic commercial cleaning contracts schools are sometimes sold can fall short. A specification built for a standard office or a generic public building will not reflect the rhythm and pressure points of a school day. Nor will it account for the fact that schools have constant footfall, changing room usage, safeguarding requirements and a duty to maintain a suitable environment for children.

A school with a busy breakfast club, after school provision or heavy sports hall use will need different support from a smaller site with a simpler timetable. A school with younger pupils may need closer attention in toilets and dining spaces. A site with older buildings may require a more considered approach to maintenance and presentation.

The right contract starts with how the school actually operates, not with a template.

Supplier audits are too often overlooked or treated as a tick box

A cleaning supplier can say all the right things in a proposal. That does not mean the day to day service will stand up under pressure. One of the most important steps schools miss is carrying out proper supplier checks before making a decision.

This matters whether you are going through a formal cleaning tendering process or reviewing an existing arrangement. Schools need to look closely at how a supplier manages staffing, supervision, training, quality checks, absence cover and issue resolution. They should also understand who is accountable if standards slip and how performance is monitored across the contract.

Without this level of audit, schools can find themselves tied to a provider that looks good in a presentation but struggles in practice.

The supplier audit should not just ask whether they can clean a school. It should ask how they prove it, how they maintain standards consistently and how they respond when something is not right.

Inspection readiness is often misunderstood

Schools do not need a perfect looking corridor at every second of the day. What they do need is confidence that their environment is being maintained properly, safely and consistently.

That is where inspection readiness comes in. It is not about appearances alone. It is about being able to demonstrate that standards are being managed well, that cleaning responsibilities are clear and that there is evidence of oversight.

If a concern is raised about hygiene, maintenance or cleanliness, the school should be able to show how those standards are monitored and addressed. If the contract cleaner changes staff regularly, there should still be continuity in process and expectations. If an area falls below standard, there should be a clear route to correction.

Too often, schools assume inspection readiness is simply the supplier’s job. In reality, it is shared. The supplier delivers the service, but the contract must give the school enough visibility and control to demonstrate that the environment is being managed properly.

Lack of clarity around supervision causes avoidable problems

A school cleaning service is only as reliable as the management behind it. One of the most common weaknesses in cleaning contracts schools enter into is a lack of clear supervision and reporting.

If there is no named contract manager, no agreed review structure and no simple escalation process, schools are left chasing basic issues. Missed cleans, recurring complaints and inconsistent standards then become far harder to resolve.

A strong contract should make supervision visible. Schools should know who is responsible for managing the service, how often quality checks happen and what reporting they can expect. They should also know how concerns are logged, how quickly issues are dealt with and how repeat problems are prevented.

Without that structure, the burden shifts back onto the school, which defeats the point of outsourcing in the first place.

Cheapest is not always best value

Budget pressure is real. Every school is trying to protect spending without compromising standards. But with school cleaning contracts, the cheapest option can quickly become the most expensive if the service is weak.

A lower headline cost may mean fewer staff hours, weaker supervision, less frequent periodic cleaning or poor contingency cover. It can also mean a service that looks acceptable at first glance but gradually deteriorates as corners are cut to maintain margin.

The better question is not simply which supplier is cheapest. It is which supplier offers the strongest balance of quality, accountability and value over the life of the contract.

A good cleaning service should reduce pressure on staff, not create more of it. If leadership teams or site staff are constantly stepping in to deal with issues, the real cost is far higher than the contract price alone.

Schools often underestimate the importance of staffing quality

Buildings do not clean themselves. Behind every contract are people, and the quality of those people makes a significant difference.

When schools assess contract cleaners for schools, they need to think beyond staffing numbers. They need to understand recruitment, training, supervision and retention. Are staff properly inducted for working in an education environment? Is safeguarding awareness built into the service? What happens when someone is absent? How often does the team change?

Frequent turnover can weaken consistency. Poor handover can lead to missed areas or falling standards. Limited training can create compliance issues and operational mistakes.

A supplier may have strong branding and competitive pricing, but if staffing is unstable or poorly supported, the school will feel it very quickly.

Periodic cleaning is where standards often slip

Daily cleaning tends to get the most attention because it is the most visible. But periodic cleaning is where many contracts quietly fall behind.

Tasks such as floor treatments, high level dusting, deep cleans, internal glass, washroom detailing and holiday works are essential to maintaining standards over time. When these tasks are not clearly planned and tracked, buildings start to decline even if the daily basics are being covered.

This is a common weakness in commercial cleaning contracts schools inherit or renew without challenge. The daily checklist may look fine, but the broader maintenance of the environment is not being delivered properly.

Schools should make sure periodic work is clearly defined, scheduled and reviewed. If it sits in the contract, it should be visible in practice.

The cleaning tendering process needs more scrutiny than many schools expect

When schools go out to market, it can be tempting to move quickly. Cleaning can feel like a straightforward service to procure compared with more specialist contracts. In reality, the cleaning tendering process needs just as much care.

Bid documents need to be detailed. Site information needs to be accurate. Service expectations need to be clear. Evaluation should consider not just price but delivery model, staffing, contract management, quality assurance and education experience.

If the process is rushed or overly simplistic, schools risk comparing suppliers on incomplete information. That can lead to weak decisions and difficult contracts.

The best tenders give schools confidence that they are comparing like for like and choosing a supplier based on genuine value, not just sales language.

Ongoing review matters just as much as the initial contract

A common mistake is assuming the hard work ends once the contract is signed. In reality, this is where accountability has to continue.

Even strong school cleaning contracts need regular review. Standards should be monitored. Issues should be logged and tracked. Performance meetings should happen. The supplier should be challenged where needed and recognised when things are working well.

Without that ongoing oversight, even a good contract can drift. Problems become normalised. Minor issues become recurring ones. Staff lose confidence that concerns will lead to change.

The right contract should make ongoing management easier, not harder.

What schools should focus on instead

If you are reviewing education cleaning contracts, a few priorities make a real difference.

Start with a clear understanding of how your site is used and what standards you actually need.

Review whether your current specification is detailed enough to hold the supplier accountable.

Carry out proper supplier audits, not just a surface level check.

Look closely at staffing, supervision and contingency arrangements.

Make sure periodic cleaning is clearly included and visible.

Use the cleaning tendering process to compare value properly, not just cost.

And make sure the school has enough reporting and oversight to stay inspection ready throughout the life of the contract.

Why getting this right matters

A cleaning contract is not just a facilities issue. It affects how your school feels, how safe it is and how much operational pressure falls back onto your team.

When the right systems are in place, schools get consistency, visibility and peace of mind. Staff spend less time chasing issues. Leaders feel more confident in the standard of the environment. Pupils benefit from a school that feels well cared for and properly maintained.

When the wrong contract is in place, the opposite happens. Problems build quietly until they become impossible to ignore.

Schools already carry enough. They should not be left second guessing whether their cleaning service is doing what it promised.

At Procure, we help schools review services properly, challenge weak arrangements and secure contracts that protect both standards and value. The goal is simple: less burden on your staff, stronger supplier accountability and an environment that supports pupils and staff every day.

If your current cleaning arrangement is coming up for review, or if you are not convinced your provider is delivering what your school needs, now is the time to take a closer look.

Renewing catering contracts for schools should be a chance to improve value, tighten standards and make sure pupils are getting the quality of food they deserve. Too often, though, schools reach renewal point already stretched, short on time, and under pressure to make a decision quickly. That’s when mistakes creep in.

And those mistakes can be expensive.

They can lock schools into poor-value contracts, weaken accountability, create unnecessary compliance risk, and leave staff dealing with issues that should have been resolved before the agreement was signed. In some cases, schools assume renewal is the easier option and simply continue with the same provider, only to find costs rising, quality slipping, and problems becoming harder to fix.

This is not because school leaders or business managers are doing anything wrong. Quite the opposite. Most are trying to protect pupils, budgets, and staff time while juggling a long list of competing priorities. The challenge is that catering renewal is rarely straightforward. It involves commercial scrutiny, contract review, supplier challenge, due diligence, and a firm understanding of school catering compliance.

Getting it right matters. 

Here are some of the most common mistakes schools make when renewing catering contracts, and how to avoid them.

Mistake 1: Leaving the review too late

One of the biggest problems starts before the renewal process even begins. Schools often leave contract review until the last minute, assuming there will be enough time to make a sensible decision. In reality, that lack of runway limits your options immediately.

When time is tight, it becomes harder to review performance properly, gather feedback, check the contract terms, assess the market, and decide whether renewal is genuinely the best route. It also makes it far more likely that schools will accept price increases or service issues simply to avoid disruption.

Schools need time to assess what is working, what is not, and whether the current arrangement still reflects their needs. That means reviewing well in advance, not when the pressure is already on.

The earlier you start, the more control you have.

Mistake 2: Assuming the current provider is still the right fit

Just because your existing school catering supplier has been in place for several years does not automatically mean they remain the best option. Schools evolve. Pupil numbers change. Free school meal uptake changes. Demographics shift. Expectations around food quality, allergens, sustainability and service standards move on too.

A supplier that was right three or five years ago may no longer be the right fit today.

This is where many schools become stuck in habit. The service may feel familiar, staff may know the caterer well, and leadership may understandably want to avoid unnecessary upheaval. But renewal should be based on evidence, not convenience.

Ask the difficult questions:

Is meal uptake where it should be? 

Are pupils actually enjoying the food? 

Are portion sizes consistent? 

Is communication strong? 

Are costs still competitive? 

Is the service keeping pace with your school’s current needs?

Renewal should be earned, not assumed.

Mistake 3: Focusing only on price

Budget pressure is real. Schools are being asked to do more with less and every contract comes under scrutiny. But focusing only on the lowest price is one of the quickest ways to create bigger problems later.

A cheaper offer is not always better value. If quality drops, meal uptake can fall. If staffing is stretched too far, service standards suffer. If ingredients are poor, complaints rise. If compliance is weak, risk increases. What looks like a saving on paper can quickly become a far more expensive problem in practice.

The right question is not simply, “What does this cost?” It is, “What are we getting for this cost, and does it stand up operationally, commercially and compliantly?”

Schools need value, not false economy. That means balancing cost against quality, service, resilience, and compliance.

Mistake 4: Skipping a proper catering audit

You cannot make a strong renewal decision without a clear understanding of the current position. That is why a catering audit for schools is such an important starting point.

Without an audit, schools are often relying on assumptions. They may know there are some issues, but not how widespread they are. They may feel that costs are too high, but not know where value is being lost. They may sense that quality is inconsistent, but lack the evidence to challenge it properly.

A robust audit brings objectivity. It looks at service quality, financial performance, uptake, compliance, staffing, operational issues and contract delivery. It shows where the current model is working and where it is not. Most importantly, it gives the school a firm basis for deciding whether to renew, renegotiate or re-tender.

Too many schools skip this step because they are short on time. In reality, skipping it often leads to weaker decisions and poorer outcomes.

Mistake 5: Not checking whether the contract still reflects the school’s needs

Contracts age. Schools change. Yet many renewal conversations are based on documents that were written years earlier and no longer match the current reality of the school.

This creates a real risk. If the contract is vague, outdated or missing detail, it becomes harder to hold the supplier to account. Standards that were never clearly defined are difficult to enforce. Expectations around menus, allergens, staffing, reporting or performance can slip because the contract no longer gives the school a strong position.

Before renewal, schools should review the specification in detail. Does it still reflect your pupil profile? Does it take account of current meal patterns and service expectations? Does it clearly define nutritional obligations, reporting responsibilities and operational standards? Does it support school catering compliance in a way that is practical and defensible?

If not, renewing on the same basis may simply carry old problems forward into a new term.

Mistake 6: Underestimating compliance risk

Compliance is often treated as one part of the process when in reality it runs through the whole thing. School catering compliance is not limited to one policy document or one supplier promise. It touches food standards, allergen management, food safety, safeguarding, staffing and the wider accountability expected of schools.

This is where schools can be placed in a difficult position. A provider may appear to be performing adequately day to day, but that does not mean every compliance requirement is being met consistently or documented properly. Weaknesses in training, allergen controls, supplier management or record keeping can stay hidden until a problem arises.

Renewal is the right time to test this thoroughly. Ask for evidence, not general assurances. Review documentation, certifications, reporting, audits and processes. Make sure the supplier’s compliance position is not just stated but proven.

Mistake 7: Failing to challenge performance properly

Many schools know their current provider is not delivering perfectly, but they still renew because the problems have become normalised. A few complaints here. A quality issue there. Costs creeping up year on year. Limited innovation. Poor communication. These things are often tolerated because staff are busy and the process of changing supplier feels daunting.

But tolerated issues rarely improve on their own.

Renewal should be a point of challenge. Schools should look closely at whether the supplier has met the standards agreed, whether service has improved over time and whether concerns have been resolved properly. If not, that needs to be part of the decision making.

A school catering supplier should be accountable, responsive and commercially fair. If the relationship has drifted into one where issues are repeatedly accepted rather than addressed, renewal is the moment to reset expectations or reconsider the arrangement entirely.

Mistake 8: Not involving the right people

Catering decisions affect more than one team, so renewals should not happen in a silo. Business managers, leadership teams, catering staff and operational stakeholders all bring a different perspective. In some cases, pupil or parent feedback can also highlight issues that are not visible in contract paperwork alone.

A contract may look acceptable financially, while operational staff can point to service problems that undermine pupil experience every day. Equally, a provider may be well liked on site, but a more commercial review may reveal poor value or weak reporting that needs to be addressed.

The best renewal decisions combine these viewpoints. They do not rely on one person carrying the whole burden. That matters not just for quality, but for defensibility too. A more rounded process leads to stronger decisions and greater confidence that the right route has been taken.

Mistake 9: Treating renewal as the end of the process

Even when schools handle renewal well, a final mistake is assuming the work stops once the contract is signed. In reality, this is where accountability has to continue.

Without ongoing monitoring, standards can drift quickly. Costs can creep up. Issues that were promised to be fixed can reappear. Reporting can become inconsistent. Before long, schools are back in the same position they were trying to escape.

Renewal should be followed by structured contract management. That means regular review meetings, clear performance measures, monitoring of food quality and uptake, oversight of compliance, and visibility of where value is being delivered. Procurement should not disappear into the background once the paperwork is complete.

This is one reason many schools choose specialist support. It reduces the burden on internal teams while making sure the supplier remains accountable throughout the life of the contract.

What schools should do instead

A stronger renewal process starts with a few simple principles.

At Procure, we work exclusively with schools and trusts, helping them review, challenge and manage catering arrangements in a way that protects both quality and value. We do not believe schools should have to carry this complexity alone. We believe they should have a partner who understands the pressure they are under and knows how to take the burden off their shoulders while keeping standards high. That focus on tailored support, better food, compliance and value sits at the heart of Procure’s proposition.

If you are approaching a renewal and want to avoid costly mistakes, now is the time to review your current contract properly. The right support can save money, reduce risk and make sure your catering provision is delivering what your school really needs.

Running a catering tender is one of the biggest opportunities to protect your budget, improve food quality, and make sure your pupils receive meals that meet every nutritional and safety requirement. Yet for most schools, the process can feel overwhelming. Timelines are tight. Documentation is heavy. Supplier vetting is complex. At the same time, school catering compliance is under more scrutiny than ever.

A compliant and well-managed tender puts you firmly in control. It stops costs spiralling, closes loopholes, strengthens accountability, and ensures you work with a caterer who delivers the standard your pupils deserve.

This guide gives you a clear, defensible structure to follow. It also helps you recognise where the challenges tend to arise, and why many leadership teams choose to bring in specialist support to avoid mistakes that can affect compliance or value.

Step 1. Start with clarity on your current position

Begin with an honest view of your current service. A catering audit for schools gives you this clarity and highlights issues that are often missed day to day. It shows you where money may be slipping away, where compliance has weakened, and where your current caterer is not meeting required standards.
A thorough audit removes guesswork. It offers the evidence you need to set firm expectations for future suppliers and helps protect your school throughout the tender. Many schools choose to bring in external specialists at this stage because an objective audit often reveals risks that an internal team might miss.

Step 2. Map out a realistic tender timeline

Compliant tendering requires structure. Schools often underestimate the time needed to prepare documents, review bids, and run fair scoring panels. When deadlines slip, compliance becomes vulnerable.

Most schools need around six months from audit to award. Planning this out early protects your leadership team from last-minute pressure and prevents rushed decisions that compromise school catering compliance.

Schools that work with specialist procurement support usually find the process significantly smoother because timelines, documentation, supplier communication, and scoring frameworks are all professionally managed from the outset.

Step 3. Build a clear and defensible specification

Your specification is the backbone of the process. It tells suppliers exactly what you expect and protects you if quality drifts during the contract.

The clearer and more detailed your specification, the stronger your position is if standards slip during the contract. This is also an area where schools often struggle. Many rely on past documentation that no longer reflects their needs. Others use wording that is too vague to enforce later.

Specialist support can ensure your specification is watertight and aligned to statutory food standards, safeguarding expectations and financial controls.

Step 4. Vet suppliers thoroughly

Supplier vetting is where most tendering risks sit. Strong bids can look impressive on paper but fall short in practice. You need to check financial stability, training records, allergen control, TUPE understanding, and the caterer’s ability to meet school food standards consistently.

This level of scrutiny takes time and experience. Schools often tell us that this is where they feel least confident because it is not something they handle regularly.

Specialist teams carry out these checks every day, which helps you avoid hidden pitfalls and ensures your shortlisted suppliers are genuinely capable of delivering what they promise.

Step 5. Score bids fairly and consistently

Every score must be justified and defensible. This is where compliance is won or lost. The panel must apply the same criteria, record decisions clearly, and avoid anything that could be interpreted as unfair or inconsistent.

Schools often find this stage time intensive and high pressure, especially when balancing daily responsibilities. Having a specialist manage scoring frameworks and documentation provides reassurance that the process stands up to scrutiny.

Step 6. Plan mobilisation early

Even the best chosen caterer can struggle if mobilisation is rushed. You need confirmed menus, allergen processes, staffing plans, equipment checks, parent communication, and kitchen readiness in place long before the first meal is served.

Step 7. Monitor performance from the start

Compliance continues long after the contract is awarded. Regular checks on food quality, cost control, portion sizes, uptake, waste, and operational performance are essential. Without structured monitoring, standards drift and budgets weaken.

This is another area where many schools benefit from external support. Ongoing oversight provides accountability and early visibility if quality drops.

Why getting this process right matters

A strong tender does more than deliver a better price. It improves pupil experience, reduces financial risk, and gives your team confidence that the service is safe and compliant.

Schools that work with procurement specialists often report:
• Higher meal uptake
• Better value per meal
• Fewer safeguarding and allergen concerns
• A more stable long term relationship with their caterer
• Stronger protection against budget pressures

Most importantly, a compliant tender ensures your pupils receive the quality of food they deserve while you stay firmly in control of your budget.

Having a procurement partner should take pressure off your shoulders, save you money and improve quality. But does your current provider truly deliver on those promises? Schools are unique and deserve more than a one-size-fits-all service. Here are some key areas to reflect on when evaluating whether your procurement partner is giving you the best support possible.

What to ask about your procurement partner

1. Do they understand your school?
A single primary, a secondary or a school within a larger group all have very different needs. Even schools in the same group can differ when it comes to pupil demographics, free school meal numbers, budgets and priorities. Is your partner tailoring their approach or simply rolling out the same solution everywhere?

2. Do they truly understand education?
Procurement in education is not the same as other sectors. Schools face strict compliance, nutritional standards and safeguarding considerations. Does your provider bring education-specific knowledge, or do they treat schools like just another client?

3. Are they commercial on your behalf?
The right partner should negotiate hard for you, combining financial acumen with procurement expertise. If they are not driving the best value in every contract, then your school could be missing out.

4. Do they balance savings with quality?
Cutting costs is important, but not if it means lower standards for pupils and staff. If savings come at the expense of quality meals or safe, reliable services, then it is the wrong approach.

5. Are savings being reinvested back into your school?
Real value goes beyond cutting costs. Do the savings your partner achieves free up budget that can be reinvested into classrooms, resources, staff development or extracurricular programmes? Some providers even make direct contributions to support wider school initiatives. Is your partner helping your school move forward, or just focusing on short-term numbers?

6. How broad is their support?
Can they only help with one area, or do they have the capability to support across all school services e.g. catering, cleaning, facilities management, utilities, uniforms and more? A fragmented approach leaves you managing multiple providers instead of one trusted partner.

7. Are they easy to work with?
The process should reduce your workload, not add to it. Do they handle complexity with clarity and take the stress away, or are you left chasing updates and filling in the gaps yourself?

8. How transparent are they?
Do you know exactly where savings are made, which suppliers are used and how contracts are managed? Openness builds trust, without it, you are in the dark.

9. Do they provide ongoing support?
Procurement does not end with signing a contract. Are they monitoring compliance, reviewing supplier performance and supporting you throughout the life of the agreement, or do they disappear once the paperwork is done?

Why schools choose Procure

Schools switch to Procure because they want a partner who goes further. We combine commercial expertise with a deep understanding of education, tailoring our service to each school’s specific needs. The result is proven:

Breadth of expertise across catering, cleaning, facilities management, utilities and more

Put us to the test

If you’re questioning whether your procurement partner is delivering real value, let Procure show you the difference. We’ll prove how much more you can save in both time and money, without ever compromising on quality.For a free consultation, contact us today.

The Procurement Act 2023 officially came into force on 24 February 2025, after months of preparation and a year-long delay from its original implementation date. It represents the most significant shake-up in public sector procurement for over a decade, aiming to simplify processes, improve transparency and deliver better value for communities.

For schools and trusts, however, the past months have revealed both opportunities and challenges as the sector adapts to this new framework.

What Has Changed Since February 2025?

What’s Still to Be Done?

The Act is law, but full adoption across education will take time. Areas still developing include:

Why This Matters for Schools

Budgets remain tight, and staff workloads are already stretched. While the Act promises better value and greater transparency, the reality for many schools is more reporting, more complexity and higher risk of non-compliance.

School leaders didn’t sign up to become procurement specialists. Their focus is on teaching, supporting pupils and running schools in increasingly difficult conditions. The last thing they need is another layer of red tape.

Why Procure Are the Partner Schools Can Rely On

This is where Procure step in. We are education procurement specialists, working only with schools, trusts and academies. We understand the pressures and the pain points and we make the Procurement Act work for you, not against you.

Here’s how:

The Procurement Act 2023 has reshaped procurement for schools – but it hasn’t solved the everyday reality of rising costs, tighter budgets and staff stretched to the limit. If anything, it has made the process more complex.

That’s why schools need a partner who not only understands the law but also understands their world. Procure take care of compliance, cut costs without cutting quality, and give back precious staff time.

So while the Procurement Act 2023 continues to bed in, schools that partner with Procure can stay ahead of the curve and keep their focus where it belongs – on pupils, not paperwork.

We’re here to help schools get more value from every contract especially when it comes to school meals, facilities and essential services. If you’re reviewing your school procurement strategy, let’s talk.