BSF Thread, Derbyshire BSF in United Kingdom (UK) Specific Forums; Derbyshire is arguing that, as one of only five councils in England with a four-star excellence rating from the Audit ...
14th July 2008, 03:24 PM #1
Derbyshire is arguing that, as one of only five councils in England with a four-star excellence rating from the Audit Commission for its services, it is fully entitled to use its existing procurement methods to deliver its BSF
scheme. However, recent guidance issued by PfS makes it clear that variant models are not welcome.
I like this bit "PfS makes it clear that variant models are not welcome" are they concerned that a competent LA might come along with a better solution making other 'models' look silly expensive and inflexible.
Derbyshire in plea over BSF contract - 16/08/2006 - Contract Journal
I know it's a bit out of date but it made me chuckle.
"I can understand PfS not wanting every council coming up with its own unique model, but when a council has a system that works why not let them get on with it?"
Last edited by cookie_monster; 14th July 2008 at 03:27 PM.
IDG Tech News
14th July 2008, 04:34 PM #2
"Why not let them get on with it?"
Because it doesn't make the company any money.
One of the things that annoys me the most about the BSF-lovers - they always seem to "forget" that it's about making money for the companies, and very little to do with the education of students.
14th July 2008, 04:52 PM #3
The only acceptable 'variant' to PfS seems to be along the lines of what Newcastle upon Tyne did, where the LA went into partnership with one or more private companies. As I understand it, the Newcastle LA has a managed services unit who look after service delivery, but the private partner(s) designed, supplied & built the solution.
I understand that other LAs may be following this model but they will have their work cut out convincing PfS. At least the staff remain as LA employees, even if they are no longer school employees.
14th July 2008, 06:38 PM #4
That's the way i've always felt it should be done the LA should have a larger team with the necessary experties that can advise and guide school techs. I've said that they should of been managing schools that way for ages.
14th July 2008, 07:27 PM #5
I agree to an extent in that some tasks would be better managed centrally to take some of the duplication of labour out of schools, such as packaging software, even some of the monitoring and especially having some technician cover for illness or big jobs. This would free up a lot of time to let us get 'creative' and really push the schools forward.
Originally Posted by cookie_monster
15th July 2008, 09:49 AM #6
PfS will only allow an LA to bid if they can be convinced the LA can deliver a service that is commercially sound and capable of competing against the best that commercial outsourcing organisations can deliver. In practice this means they must already have significant investment in infrastructure, resources, skills already in-place. Not every LA is in that position; not every LA has the will and/or political support to invest in mounting a bid either.
Originally Posted by cookie_monster
Then of course there is the not too distant memory in many schools of how bad LA ICT support has been in the past, so the schools have to be 'sold' on the idea that the LA can deliver too.
15th July 2008, 10:08 AM #7
And consider that some of the bidding companies are actually LA support teams that have been sold, partly or entirely, to commercial companies.
VT4S is an example of this but there are a number of others.
By youngteam in forum Educational IT Jobs
Last Post: 26th June 2008, 10:03 AM
By moggy in forum Thin Client and Virtual Machines
Last Post: 29th February 2008, 10:07 AM
Last Post: 26th October 2007, 12:41 AM
By SpecialAgent in forum Educational IT Jobs
Last Post: 5th July 2007, 04:17 PM
By GrumbleDook in forum East Midlands Broadband Consortium (EMBC)
Last Post: 19th June 2007, 08:10 PM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)