School contribution optimiser.
Increasing school contribution improves the Project Cost score on a saturating curve. The optimiser models that curve from the Round 12 and 13 outcomes pattern.
Compiled by Oliver Wakefield-Smith, founder, Digital Signet. Reviewed against ESFA Information for Applicants 2026-27 and the Condition Funding Methodology March 2026 revision.
Why contribution moves the cost score
A higher contribution improves the value-for-money calculation: ESFA gets more output for the same grant exposure. Within the 25% weighting this translates into a score uplift.
The diminishing return
Above approximately 15% contribution the marginal score gain becomes small. ESFA values risk-sharing but not subsidy; over-contributing reads as the trust funding the project itself.
Typical winning contribution profile
A small MAT bid frequently lands around 10%. A single-academy trust may go lower. A VA diocese contribution is often nil where the diocese itself does not capitalise.
Cash-flow versus score trade-off
A contribution from trust reserves protects future cash flow but constrains other capital decisions. The decision is finance-committee territory, not bursar-only.
Modelled curve. ESFA publishes the 25% weighting but not the exact assessor cost function; the saturating shape is hand-fitted to the public Round 12 / 13 outcomes pattern where bids contributing above ~15% rarely score noticeably better than 10%.