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.
Is there a preview (live demo) version of ScholarPack? I'd like to take a look at it.
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.
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).
GREED (11th April 2012)
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...
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?
I was relating specifically to the document on the DfE website entitled academies and Relicence costs
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.
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.
so... that doesn't answer your question at all!
matt40k (20th September 2013)
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
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)