localzuk Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 If the company is in any way owned by the LEA or County Council there would be a conflict of interest issue preventing them from bidding for any BSF contracts. That's what we were told in Kent anyway. The LEA has an IT supprt organisation that has been shut out of BSF here. That is the opposite of what I've heard - I had heard of at least one (I can't remember which) LEA which are proposing to do just that. Otherwise it is anti-competitive and could very easily be taken to the European Courts... A company is a company, whoever owns it.
Deaks Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 (edited) The underlying problem is that no company can simply come in and bid for the ICT part of the contract. A consortium of companies bid for both the buildings and IT parts together. Equally to the above, a consortium that does not include the LEA company could claim bias on the part of the council if they chose to go with the company that does as the council would effectively be awarding itself the contract. Edited February 18, 2008 by Deaks
GrumbleDook Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 If the company is in any way owned by the LEA or County Council there would be a conflict of interest issue preventing them from bidding for any BSF contracts. That's what we were told in Kent anyway. The LEA has an IT support organisation that has been shut out of BSF here. The advice on this has varied with each LA I have heard looking at running it internally. IIRC Newcastle *is* running the services internally and it has been looked at by others. Allow me a moment to delve into the recess of cynicism. If a council can sell off the IT services to an existing commercial company or even spin it off as an independent company to bid for BSF / PFI work in other LAs, earning a chunk of money as part of the sell off, then it *will* happily do so ... and get rid of possible debt, and then buy in services as needed. After all ... the chance to get a few million in now, make another million or so in short term cost savings ... and then leave it for someone else to worry about in 10 years time ... then it seems a simple solution. If it doesn't work after 10 years they can always start the internal team again, blame council members that have retired, or blame Central Govt for pushing them in a particular direction. It has been happening this way across so many sectors, not just public sector, for many years ... and whilst some large companies are moving back to in-house teams there are many more companies that are outsourcing even more. The decision to run in-house or to get rid of them is usually a combined political and financial decision. Unions know this and do bugger all about it. information that comes down to schools is tweaked because of this, and the info that gets to support teams in schools is watered down even further. It is when the business plan is being written that it is important to get your school to put its foot down ... then again during the long listing, etc. I have had to back off a little of my digging due to workload at school and LA, but I will see if there is anything else new that has arisen after the various meetings / conversations that usually happen between agencies and companies around BETT.
farmerste Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 all these posts, and noone has actually said what the words BSF stand for!!! have to google it now:eek:
Dos_Box Posted February 18, 2008 Author Posted February 18, 2008 BSF = Building Schools for the Future.
tech_guy Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Are you sure? I thought it meant something that's sadly unprintable in this forum?
Grommit Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 BSF is in our Wiki. Can users add content to the wiki ?
webman Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Can users add content to the wiki ? Yes, just log in with your usual Edugeek username/password.
broc Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Hi all, Apologies if this already covered, but could it not be possible to excude the ICT side of things from the whole BSF project based on the descretion of the LA and the school being revamped? One possible way to do this would be to have the school rebuild as per BSF guidelines but then have consultants who talk to the relavent IT services people at the school/establishment and implement the changes that are required as a one off rather than streamlining this as managed services. I think this may an alternative as it gives the schools the chance to update/refresh the equipment and infrastructure and still get to keep the IT in-house which will be better in terms of support as the whole team (NMs, senior ICT techs, ICT tech etc) are based on-site. Ash. Any LA (or individual school) can choose to leave ICT outside of the BSF contract if they wish, as long as they don't want the BSF capital funding for ICT. At approx £1450 per student, this can amount to many millions per LA, typically £1m+ for each medium sized secondary school. In reality few LAs (or schools) will leave it out. If they want the BSF ICT funding, they have to work within the framework laid down by Partnership for Schools, and a key element of this is managed ICT services. There is growing evidence to suggest that LAs can have a major part to play in the delivery of the managed service if they have the resources & willpower to convince PfS they can deliver. In this respect they will be treated as any other commercial organisation.
steve Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Barnsley council who, formed a joint venture company with Bull Information Systems for all their ICT, have put in place measures to allow their current provider to enter the bidding process: Linky
sahmeepee Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 BSF is in our Wiki. Woo, I get top billing! Thankee
Diello Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Like what? I prefer simplicity - B*ggering Schools for the Future Not that imaginative, yet conveys the essence effectively. Yup - Money talks, by refusing to give the funding if schools don't want a managed service, they're basically blackmailing the Head to give in. I wonder how long it will be before the gov takes all management out of a school and has it all centrally controlled so no decisions can be made by those who actually know what the school needs... that'd also save money paying the management salaries.
GrumbleDook Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 Yup - Money talks, by refusing to give the funding if schools don't want a managed service, they're basically blackmailing the Head to give in. Cnsidering the number of times it has been the Head that has failed to use money allocated for IT for that purpose, or who have run rough-shod over Bursars / Business Managers when it comes to sustainability ... people wonder why Govt don't trust schools with money? If there were more standards in place (FMSiS is a start) thing might have been better.
ITWombat Posted February 18, 2008 Posted February 18, 2008 people wonder why Govt don't trust schools with money? If there were more standards in place (FMSiS is a start) thing might have been better. Yes Minister
conehead Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 Barnsley council who, formed a joint venture company with Bull Information Systems for all their ICT, have put in place measures to allow their current provider to enter the bidding process: Linky Hmm, seeing that the Barnsley ICT team had already been tuped into the new Venture Company that does the area's ICT and Bull I.S own 80% of the subsequent company compared to Barnsley Council's 20% it's not quite the same thing. In effect it's a separate company already that sells services to schools that now has to be putting in a bid for the BSF contract, otherwise I imagine it will lose a lot of it's existing client base?
steve Posted February 19, 2008 Posted February 19, 2008 (edited) In effect it's a separate company already that sells services to schools that now has to be putting in a bid for the BSF contract, otherwise I imagine it will lose a lot of it's existing client base? Its in both Bull and Barnsley councils interest to put a bid in as they would loose out on the revenue from the venture company, and also if they loose the contract for schools they'll probably have to loose staff - no tuping I'll bet from the venture company to the BSF company. It does go to show where there is a willingness to keep the current provider a part of the bidding process, there are options open. This does imply the ICT bidder doesn't have to be part of the main BSF bid - I'm sure I've read this somewhere but will have to read up on it again. Edited February 19, 2008 by steve
broc Posted February 20, 2008 Posted February 20, 2008 This does imply the ICT bidder doesn't have to be part of the main BSF bid - I'm sure I've read this somewhere but will have to read up on it again. My understanding on this is that any potential ICT supplier must be part of a 'consortium' bidding for the whole BSF business. I don't think PfS will allow ICT to be de-coupled. Successful bidders will form a partnership with the LA (LEP). Making it an 'all in one' bid can result in a solution which has the best building proposals with the worst ICT solution & vice versa. This is why the ICT Draft output specification is so vital in the bidding process as in theory it should ensure all ICT solutions proposed are up to a minimum standard acceptable to the schools.
steve Posted February 20, 2008 Posted February 20, 2008 My understanding on this is that any potential ICT supplier must be part of a 'consortium' bidding for the whole BSF business. I don't think PfS will allow ICT to be de-coupled. Successful bidders will form a partnership with the LA (LEP). Yep, you're right, I must have dreamt (nightmared) it. Read it here on teachernet
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now