'Disappointed' bidder sues MAT after MIS Tender failure

[Ditto]

I believe it's relevant to this thread, but mods, please move if needed. I've been looking for details around the Bromcom vs AET case - I can't find much. However a couple of things.

There was a FOI request https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/notification_to_bidders_re_recen#incoming-1872191 which shows they abandoned an offer to anyone. The letter that is linked, states "has received correspondence from certain bidders" - I don't think we need Inspector Columbo and his Basset Hound to hazard a guess at who that might be.

The other is more specific around procurement legislation, but specific to this case - https://www.arthurcox.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/December-2022.pdf

It wasn't so long ago that AET signed up with Progresso as it was at the time. I can't find much on that and whether Arbor, Bromcom or others were in the bid, but it would appear they weren't challenged at that point. Although it's not guaranteed, you'd think that suggests AET know how to run a procurement legally?

If anyone knows more about the AET procurement when they selected Progresso in late 2016 or the recent one that was initially awarded in Oct 2021, but it would appear abandoned subsequently, I'd be interested to hear.

All-in-all, there's a lot of school money being diverted from the fundamental purpose of schools, due to procurement processes and legal requirements.

[Ditto]

Speculatively, if an appeal is successful, will it change people's stance. A key difference between say a speeding fine is you are dealing with absolutes. This case judgement is one around much more nuanced interpretations and it's not beyond the realms of possibility of it being overturned.

[Mr.Ben]

All-in-all, there's a lot of school money being diverted from the fundamental purpose of schools, due to procurement processes and legal requirements.

 

That's always been the case though - LAs or MATs. The difference is that if an LA was challenged it wouldn't flag up as Education.

[elsiegee40]

Please avoid personal attacks. This thread is descending into conflict and will be closed if this continues

[Damon]

Speculatively, if an appeal is successful, will it change people's stance. A key difference between say a speeding fine is you are dealing with absolutes. This case judgement is one around much more nuanced interpretations and it's not beyond the realms of possibility of it being overturned.

 

Interesting point. I guess the story is not over yet. Likewise, what if the appeal fails? That's more money down the drain. I wonder what grounds you can appeal on with something like this.

[Banjo]

"you can't realistically finger-point in a scenario like this"

 

But if it were a single school (with the fine scaled appropriately), particularly a LA school, I'm pretty sure this would cost the Head and Business manager their jobs, and the governing body would be removed.

 

But you can indeed do that, the same as in the criminal courts senior managers can be held liable for corporate manslaughter.

 

What should have happened in this case in that this should have been referred to the DfE. They should have written to the MAT with a threat of terminating their funding agreement unless they were assured of secure L&M from the CEO/board. The trustees would then have moved to remove and replace the CEO and his leadership senior team. Those culpable then take responsibility for the MATs actions and the MAT has a new direction.

[Ditto]

I do feel withdrawing funding, dismissing the governing body and sacking the CEO is just a tadge extreme (deliberate understatement to keep the thread cool in spite of respected differences of opinion ).

 

Sure, at this point the courts have ruled, on challenge from the losing bidder, an illegal tender has occurred. But additionally the judge expressed his sympathy for the position UL found themselves in. No corruption or bias was suggested. In many ways it's come down to some disputed points scoring and numerical errors. Yes, that may have led to Bromcom losing out on a sizeable contract, but then if the bid was run in a different way and legally, they might not have won anyway. At the end of the day, no one has died, there has been no manslaughter, no one has been found to have knowingly fiddled the books (perhaps topical but let's not go their!), no sign or suggestion of corruption. Now if UL were failing the children's education in a big way, I'd entirely agree with the suggested approach, but that's not the case as far as I can tell.

 

So to conclude, subject to any appeal, it looks as though UL will receive a fine. We'll have to see what level that is. For me, if legal costs are included, what the remainder is would be a good guide to how seriously the courts feel the punishment should be for not executing this particular task well.

[psydii]

Just to be clear, I'm not advocated for removal of the executive and non-executive boards, just that if an LA school landed themselves a comparable fine, it would be a very real possibility.

[supportman]

Some good analysis here:

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/learning-from-bromcom-computers-plc-vs-united-trust-case-erol-fcca/

[Roberto]

So to conclude, subject to any appeal, it looks as though UL will receive a fine. We'll have to see what level that is. For me, if legal costs are included, what the remainder is would be a good guide to how seriously the courts feel the punishment should be for not executing this particular task well.

 

One would hope that any fine imposed by the court would be minor. As much as I've strongly advocated for "this is why edu orgs need to get better at procurement" in this thread, and I still stand by that view, there is nothing good to be gained in punitive fines here, esepcially when the issue is down to process errors rather than any kind of malicious intent.

[Ditto]

One would hope that any fine imposed by the court would be minor. As much as I've strongly advocated for "this is why edu orgs need to get better at procurement" in this thread, and I still stand by that view, there is nothing good to be gained in punitive fines here, esepcially when the issue is down to process errors rather than any kind of malicious intent.

I would think covering Bromcom's legal cost alone is going to put it into the extremely painful spectrum.

[Roberto]

I would think covering Bromcom's legal cost alone is going to put it into the extremely painful spectrum.

 

Indeed. The costs are the costs, which is why I hope the fine is minimal.

[Roberto]

Interesting update via LinkedIn. It seems United Learning’s request to appeal was dismissed, and quite emphatically so.

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/follow-up-blog-united-learning-trusts-appeal-langbrook-finance?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&utm_campaign=share_via

 

Well worth a read if you’re involved in procurement.

 

Reflecting on some of the earlier posts about how terrible Bromcom was for bringing this case, I wonder if attitudes might have changed now that a court has so comprehensively found in their favour. I was a little surprised at the tone of some of the earlier comments - I think complaints about the case being brought against UL have aged badly.

 

The education field ought to have known about procurement regulations and standards for quite some time now - I remember getting some training on this about 15 years ago when working on proposals and quotes for LSFC's new campus for example, and having to go through the OJEU bid process for some parts of that due to the size and complexity of some of our RFPs so the necessity for frameworks and for following them properly really shouldn't be new any more.

Edited April 8, 2023 by Roberto

[supportman]

Interesting update via LinkedIn. It seems United Learning’s request to appeal was dismissed, and quite emphatically so.

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/follow-up-blog-united-learning-trusts-appeal-langbrook-finance?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&utm_campaign=share_via

 

Well worth a read if you’re involved in procurement.

 

Reflecting on some of the earlier posts about how terrible Bromcom was for bringing this case, I wonder if attitudes might have changed now that a court has so comprehensively found in their favour. I was a little surprised at the tone of some of the earlier comments - I think complaints about the case being brought against UL have aged badly.

 

The education field ought to have known about procurement regulations and standards for quite some time now - I remember getting some training on this about 15 years ago when working on proposals and quotes for LSFC's new campus for example, and having to go through the OJEU bid process for some parts of that due to the size and complexity of some of our RFPs so the necessity for frameworks and for following them properly really shouldn't be new any more.

 

In summary.... if United learning had been fair, Bromcom would have won the tender.

 

Its quite clear from the judges remarks.