MIS Systems Thread, Something to keep an eye on from DfE in Technical; No it's not that. That's a strange idea, I hadn't heard of it. It's a redeveloped version of our existing ...
3rd April 2012, 01:46 PM #46
- Rep Power
No it's not that. That's a strange idea, I hadn't heard of it. It's a redeveloped version of our existing MIS. We use SIMS but only for the bare basics. Everything else is done by additional systems.
I think I will need to speak to senior management about it and try and take the right approach. Thanks for the advice. 'Procurement' is nothing to do with me by the way, I'm a technician I just want to be clued up when the gears start to turn.
IDG Tech News
3rd April 2012, 03:41 PM #47
Scholarpack are on the list as Histon House as i recall. They ditched the free in exchange for ads model due to the number of ads blockers people were using.
Originally Posted by matt40k
5th April 2012, 12:53 PM #48
Yes that's correct. I'm trying to get (Trading as ScholarPack) appended though as Histon House Ltd doesn't mean much to our customers!
Originally Posted by penfold_99
5th April 2012, 01:06 PM #49
- Rep Power
Is there a preview (live demo) version of ScholarPack? I'd like to take a look at it.
5th April 2012, 01:49 PM #50
check out the website ScholarPack - The Cloud Based Management Information System for Schools and there is a contact form there, they will arrange a demo and discuss your requirements.
Originally Posted by Banford
11th April 2012, 04:31 PM #51
On the query about whether additional suppliers can join a framework there is the following advice to suppliers from BuyingSolutions at Buying Solutions - about us - supplier zone - procurement plans and current framework agreements.
As far as I am aware, this would meant that once the procurement process of creating the framework is completed a supplier cannot join it directly but could operate as a sub-contractor instead.
Once a procurement has been completed, additional framework agreements cannot be awarded. However it may be possible for you to sub-contract your services to suppliers on existing Government Procurement Service framework agreements. If you are interested in potential sub-contracting opportunities, please contact the relevant supplier directly.
It is also important to remember that when a company is purchased by a larger company the framework provider (in this case DfE and GPS) will check to ensure that the original conditions are still met (financial security, suitability to deliver, suitability of product, etc) and may remove the company from the framework if these are not met to the required standards (ie those established in the original SoR).
Thanks to TonySheppardNCC from:
11th April 2012, 06:10 PM #52
As long as that other provider is part of another framework from the GPS... that is how that reads. So if a company not on ANY framework buys a company that is on this framework, they cannot assume they can buy the contract as well...
11th April 2012, 08:56 PM #53
Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere, but does this not now mean that Capita cannot and does not charge for re licensing where a school converts to an academy?
11th April 2012, 09:23 PM #54
Suppliers cannot discuss the contents of what was asked as part of the response.
However, @PhilNeal should be able to answer this away from the subject of the framework.
11th April 2012, 09:49 PM #55
I was relating specifically to the document on the DfE website entitled academies and Relicence costs
12th April 2012, 03:32 PM #56
If I am reading this right if you are not currently on the framework you have no chance of being added to the list??
Originally Posted by TonySheppardNCC
If this is correct it sound very protectionist and anti competitive. Any new entrant in the MIS market would not be able to join the framework and so be at a disadvantage.
12th April 2012, 04:30 PM #57
That is correct. This is because the framework was a pre-selection process of sorts to ensure suppliers are deemed 'good companies', stable and reliable, among other things, so that the same lengthy and potentially costly processes don't need to be done by each school. New suppliers would need to go through the same hoops to do this, and the GPS won't be running this on demand any time soon!
I believe the framework lasts only a few years, so the next session (where we might have to go through all of this again!!!) will be the next opportunity.
12th April 2012, 04:42 PM #58
Schools are not forced to choose from the list, the list and the process is a pre-screening thing (of sorts) only to eliminate some procurement requirements, as well as demonstrate that all suppliers adhere to the rules the framework introduces. As I understand it, if one wishes to procure from the list, there is a procedure to follow, which then a supplier must abide by the rules. If one wishes not to choose via the framework, then said supplier does not have to abide by the framework 'rules'.... at least that is how the framework pages reads...
Originally Posted by jayemm
so... that doesn't answer your question at all!
19th September 2013, 04:00 PM #59
Here's something interesting information that you can find on Google
Thanks to vikpaw from:
matt40k (20th September 2013)
20th September 2013, 02:39 PM #60
|MIS ||Count |
|CCS-SIMS ||18050 |
|RM SMS G2 ||1618 |
|Serco ||1292 |
|Pearson e1 ||307 |
|WautonSamuel ||188 |
|ScholarPack ||38 |
|Bromcom ||22 |
|xmlTemplate ||12 |
|Aspen ||5 |
|DatabridgeMiS Census ||3 |
|9070 ||2 |
|9200 ||1 |
|1 ||1 |
|1234 ||1 |
|AltovaXML ||1 |
|9080 ||1 |
|9120 ||1 |
|886 ||1 |
| ||1 |
|Arbor ||1 |
|7250 ||1 |
|CCS-ONE ||1 |
|REMS ||1 |
By DaveP in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
Last Post: 29th March 2011, 08:48 PM
By mattx in forum General Chat
Last Post: 28th January 2011, 01:45 PM
By PhilNeal in forum MIS Systems
Last Post: 3rd October 2010, 05:07 PM
By mattx in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
Last Post: 20th February 2009, 02:16 PM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)