Write for the people who carry the decision

Open with the decision being requested, the legal customer, the sites covered and the reason action is needed. State the existing contract and notice position, proposed start and end dates, approval route and acceptance deadline. Explain the practical requirement in school language: the activities to support, the estate changes expected and the support the team needs.

Write a short recommendation supported by referenced records. Governors, trustees or the proprietor should not have to reconstruct the case from a folder of quotations. Nor should a polished summary hide the detail. Give reviewers access to the actual offer, comparison, terms, adviser appointment and assumptions, with clear dates and version references.

Explain the options and the comparison basis

Set out the viable buying and supply options considered, including the current provider where relevant. Explain why others were rejected or unavailable. Identify the common consumption forecast, supply dates, pricing observations and service requirement. If quotations differ in validity or coverage, make the limitation visible and arrange a refresh or reconciliation.

The cost assessment should include the relevant charges, fees, tax treatment and period. Show what is known, what can change and what remains missing. Keep the calculated cost separate from judgements about service quality, flexibility and risk. Do not turn an assumed reduction in consumption or an unverified recovery into money already secured.

Where a planned climate or estate measure affects demand, reference its separate approval and funding position, the forecast version and the delivery dependency. Compare the supply options on the same agreed project and delayed-project cases. Give reviewers the supplier’s written treatment of the relevant volume, meter and timing changes. Do not use an aspiration as a settled reduction in the purchasing requirement.

Put cash alongside cost

An agreement can look affordable on an annual net-cost basis but create a difficult payment profile. Explain billing frequency, payment dates, deposits, security, credit conditions and any upfront service or implementation expenditure. Identify when recoverable tax is expected to be reclaimed, using the school's actual tax position rather than assuming immediate recovery.

Test the proposed commitment against the budget and a reasonable adverse case. A fee-funded school may need to consider changes in pupil or boarder numbers, lettings and other operating activity. Use the school's own forecasts; do not claim a uniform sector effect. Say who has reviewed the assumptions and what would cause the decision to return for reconsideration.

Put project expenditure and any transition costs on the same cash timetable as energy payments, deposits and expected tax recovery, while keeping their approvals and accounting treatment distinct. Ask the school’s tax reviewer whether changed use or supply arrangements require the energy assumptions to be revisited. A modelled reduction in imported energy does not establish the recoverable VAT or final cash benefit.

Make service value specific enough to review

If a continuing service helps justify the recommendation, identify what is being purchased: for example, a competent site consultation, regular bill checks, consumption analysis, staff support or issue management. State the outputs, frequency, responsible team, full remuneration and review method. Explain which needs would otherwise be met internally or through existing arrangements.

Separate a credible expected benefit from a guarantee. Reduced staff workload may matter without being a cash saving. A corrected bill is different from a recurring consumption reduction. A site assessment produces findings; implementation, cost, safety review and later measurement still follow. The paper should not count the same improvement under both tariff and demand reduction.

Show the important risks and open conditions

Describe material exposure in the actual terms: changing charges, volume provisions, site additions or removals, early termination, automatic renewal, guarantees, assignment and data access where relevant. Explain the proposed term against the school's plans. A longer agreement offers a different commitment; it does not prove that the resulting bill or overall value will be better.

List unresolved points with an owner, action and required date. Distinguish a condition that must be satisfied before acceptance from a later mobilisation task. If approval is conditional, record the exact conditions, who confirms completion and who may accept the final version. Approval must not make an outstanding legal or commercial question disappear from the record.

If project timing or funding changes before supply acceptance, identify who must recheck the forecast and supplier response and which material changes return to governors or the proprietor. A project approval does not authorise the energy contract, and an approved supply recommendation does not authorise capital works. Retain the two decisions and their shared assumptions together.

Record the decision and control any refresh

For a charitable school, the paper should support a decision within the charity's powers and interests, with relevant information and managed conflicts. For a company proprietor, align it with the company's powers and directors' responsibilities. These are different governance routes, and a charitable company engages both. Identify who actually has the authority to decide and retain the minute or written approval.

Where energy prices need refreshing, agree how the updated offer will be checked against the evaluated scope, risk and authorised limits. A delegated execution process should identify the permitted changes and what triggers further approval. Do not allow an expired quotation or a changed material term to be accepted simply because the original recommendation was approved.

Finish with evidence that can be handed over

Keep the approved paper with the final offer and terms, cost and service assessment, remuneration record, authority, conflicts record, open conditions and acceptance evidence. Assign transfer, opening readings, first-invoice review and service ownership. The person managing the agreement should be able to see what the school expected and which assumptions need checking.

Our aim is a decision the school can explain: the options understood, reasons stated, records located and unresolved questions owned. A completed programme tool does not inspect those documents, certify compliance or grant approval. This guide is England-focused; the Charity Commission sources apply to England and Wales. Other UK entities should use the relevant governance and legal advice.