Procurement of MIS Systems - Dispelling a few myths

[NotAGeek]

I suppose it depends what you mean about "familiarity". The way you've written it makes it sounds like it is just an issue of a feeling. Except, it isn't - familiarity should more accurately be referred to as retraining costs. Retraining costs should definitely be included in any process (both initial capital cost for retraining, through training courses, and longer term access to training materials and ease of training affect the overall cost of a product).

 

Hello

Associated products/services you need from the supplier, such as training, should be added to the specification when tendering and the cost should be considered. The point is that, just knowing how to use one product is not a reason to continuing with that product and we have a responsibility to check for more optimum products, even if it may mean needing to re-train.

If you're assuming that costs associated with training for a new product will always mean new suppliers will not be able to compete, this is not true. I recently led a tender for a EMIS system, the 20+ year incumbent was also one of the bidding suppliers, and we chose an alternative new supplier as even with the training costs, there was a better supplier offering better value.

[Primus]

Hello there,

Tendering goes beyond simply OJEU tenders. Your own school's buying rules and public sector contract regulations will mean you will need to tender on much lower thresholds than the OJEU threshold. For example, any contract over £25k (total value) must be advertised on Contracts Finder..

 

Whilst I broadly agree with your points, can you identify the legislation that requires this please as this is contrary to our MAT financial compliance?

[elsiegee40]

Whilst I broadly agree with your points, can you identify the legislation that requires this please as this is contrary to our MAT financial compliance?

 

And ours... just checked... orders in excess of £25k require MAT Finance Committee approval, > £40k must go to competitive tender, > OJEU threshold made via an EU compliant purchasing consortium or advertised by the Trust on the OJEU website.

[elsiegee40]

Hello there,

Tendering goes beyond simply OJEU tenders. Your own school's buying rules and public sector contract regulations will mean you will need to tender on much lower thresholds than the OJEU threshold. For example, any contract over £25k (total value) must be advertised on Contracts Finder..

 

I have done a quick scan of The Public Contracts Regulations2015

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/102/regulation/5/made

 

and EU procurement directives and the UK regulations

 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transposing-eu-procurement-directives

 

Section 5 of The Public Contracts Regulations is about Threshold Amounts

 

5.—(1) This Part applies to procurements with a value net of VAT estimated to be equal to or greater than the following thresholds:—

 

(a)for public works contracts, the sum specified in Article 4(a) of the Public Contracts Directive;

 

(b)for public supply contracts and public service contracts awarded by central government authorities, and design contests organised by such authorities, the sum specified in Article 4(b) of the Public Contracts Directive, subject to paragraph (2);

 

©for public supply contracts and public service contracts awarded by sub-central contracting authorities, and design contests organised by such authorities, the sum specified in Article 4© of the Public Contracts Directive;

 

(d)for public service contracts for social and other specific services listed in Schedule 3, the sum specified in Article 4(d) of the Public Contracts Directive.

 

(2) Where public supply contracts are—

 

(a)awarded by central government authorities operating in the field of defence, and

 

(b)concern products not covered by Schedule 4,

 

the applicable threshold for the purposes of paragraph (1) is the sum specified in Article 4© of the Public Contracts Directive.

 

(3) References in paragraphs (1) and (2) to the Public Contracts Directive are references to that Directive as amended from time to time.

 

(4) The value in pounds sterling of any amount expressed in euro in any of the provisions of the Public Contracts Directive mentioned in this regulation shall be taken to be the value for the time being determined by the Commission for the purpose of that provision and published from time to time in the Official Journal in accordance with Article 6 of the Public Contracts Directive.

 

 

The procurement regulations only seem to specify the OJEU limit of €214k (£189,300)

 

I don’t have time to dig deeper. At present I feel the £25k limit for contractfinder is your LA’s policy not the law.

 

That that we have £25k as the threshold for Trust scrutiny suggests that £25k must be a threshold for higher scrutiny in some document, but how that is achieved varies with the organisation

Edited October 23, 2020 by elsiegee40

[NotAGeek]

Whilst I broadly agree with your points, can you identify the legislation that requires this please as this is contrary to our MAT financial compliance?

 

I'm sorry for the confusion I caused in my post about the £25k threshold and I hope to provide clarity in this response. The regs can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-sector-procurement-policy#public-contracts-regulations-2015 - where two thirds of the way down there is a section with the title 'Contracts Finder' where it says central govt bodies need to advertise all contracts over £10k, and wider public bodies need to advertise everything over £25k. In my LA, we include schools in wider public bodies and school GB's often adopt our model for procurement rules.

 

However, I have just come across this PPN - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/667054/17_v1.0.docx__1___1_.pdf - where paragraph 11 says that schools are exempt from the legislation which is new news to us!

 

So then we are left with the buying for schools guidance for schools and what other posters have written on here, which is a competitive process via getting quotes from alternative suppliers up to an amount (as opposed to advertising) and advertising once the contract is over a suggested value - suggested level being £40k. So a procurement exercise is still needed to be compliant with public procurement and schools procurement regs, there is just no legal requirement to advertise all opportunities over £25k.

 

Again, apologies for any confusion to all!

Edited October 23, 2020 by NotAGeek

[CarlJohnson]

I am brand new to this forum and have read this thread with interest. There appears to be a theme here whereby there seems to be a reluctance go to market for MIS systems. Whilst this thread relates to MIS I would like to add the following points which apply to any product or service:

 

1. If change is being made, why wouldn't you take the opportunity to carry out a robust review of what is currently in place v what is currently required? Requirements change over time as does the service offering.

 

2. Change is defined as not only how a product or service is being delivered, value is also a criteria e.g. if a service was tendered for a particular value and that spend has increased significantly, maybe due to the addition of schools to a mat, then this can be seen as a fundamental change.

 

3. Public Procurement regulation are fundamentally about good transparent and fair practices. Yes, there are thresholds at which OJEU will apply, but for anything else, following an agreed policy, or at least having a documented and transparent procedure that has been followed is a must.

 

4. I agree, some organisations may not have the resources or expertise of an in house Procurement department to carry out a full tender process, but access to compliant frameworks has improved in recent times which makes the process easier.

 

5. Never be afraid to challenge the status quo and investigate the latest offerings, you may be surprised at where this takes you.

 

Just a few of my thoughts.

Edited November 10, 2020 by CarlJohnson

[RootsSchImp]

One reason schools might be reluctant to go to market is EdTech companies who sue when they don't get their way

[Primus]

One reason schools might be reluctant to go to market is EdTech companies who sue when they don't get their way

 

They're suing because they allege the rules weren't followed.

 

The attitude on here to the legal action is getting ridiculous. No large company commences legal action without substantial legal advice and evidence of potential wrongdoing.

 

If the school followed the rules they have nothing to fear and will completely recover their legal costs from Bromcom.

 

If you ran a company selling a product that was strongly focused on schools and you found schools weren't following procurement regulations and legislation to your detriment what would you do?

 

The sensible approach is not to rush to judgement but to wait and see what happens.

[CarlJohnson]

Why and on what grounds would they have to sue if a transparent, compliant, auditable and fair process has been followed? They may challenge a decision as is their right, but these challenges can be a great exercise to demonstrate how robust your process is and to ensure that no bridges are ever burnt. You would not want to exclude them from future opportunities.

[Lonix]

They're suing because they allege the rules weren't followed.

The attitude on here to the legal action is getting ridiculous. No large company commences legal action without substantial legal advice and evidence of potential wrongdoing.

 

Keyword here: potential. Not conclusive.

Being sued even if they are found guilty is no easy thing to deal with. Like it or not, it will make people question it. And again, it still leaves a sour taste of that company not taking a loss.

 

You may not like the attitude people have towards it.. but you can't blame them and they have every right to feel negative about it. Even if they turned out to be the best cost effective solution on the market it still can go back to 'preference' something we all argue with IT (especially Apple Vs Windows). Could they still drag us to court? Our current MIS has far too many issues but its the preference of teachers due to the reporting functions.... do we get sued because we decided to stick with our current MIS? even though ours is expensive? Do we find every little negative niggle to note down (wasting time) if we choose NOT to go for an MIS? Just to cover our backs? Far too many questions pop in my head.

 

When we get round to doing our tender process, I can't help but put a little mental note next to that company name stating what is going on - and not for the first time.

 

Our tender process is rigorous with tons of paper work to back it up but there will be key notes on preferences/staff training/time which you can't put a value next to it.

 

Do suppliers go ahead and take the same action and start pushing for the courts?

[CarlJohnson]

Your tender process does not necessarily need tons of paperwork, just be clear on your requirements, their importance and how you can score them.

Interesting on the term "preference", there must be something in the performance or functionality that leads to this preference and this can absolutely be included in any scoring mechanism, as long is the question itself does not preclude other providers. The things you mention such as staff training etc. are all things that can be scored, this is all part of fully understanding your requirements, engaging with all key stakeholders and then going to market in a structured and robust way. No one is going to sue if done properly.

Edited November 10, 2020 by CarlJohnson

[Primus]

Keyword here: potential. Not conclusive.

Being sued even if they are found guilty is no easy thing to deal with. Like it or not, it will make people question it. And again, it still leaves a sour taste of that company not taking a loss.

 

You may not like the attitude people have towards it.. but you can't blame them and they have every right to feel negative about it. Even if they turned out to be the best cost effective solution on the market it still can go back to 'preference' something we all argue with IT (especially Apple Vs Windows). Could they still drag us to court? Our current MIS has far too many issues but its the preference of teachers due to the reporting functions.... do we get sued because we decided to stick with our current MIS? even though ours is expensive? Do we find every little negative niggle to note down (wasting time) if we choose NOT to go for an MIS? Just to cover our backs? Far too many questions pop in my head.

 

When we get round to doing our tender process, I can't help but put a little mental note next to that company name stating what is going on - and not for the first time.

 

Our tender process is rigorous with tons of paper work to back it up but there will be key notes on preferences/staff training/time which you can't put a value next to it.

 

Do suppliers go ahead and take the same action and start pushing for the courts?

 

On the other hand Bromcom will have be involved in lots of bids and tenders for schools and MATs and they're suing this MAT. If they'd sued every school that chose not to go with them you'd have a point but they will regularly lose out.

 

If your tender process is correct and you follow that process then you have nothing to fear. If you discount a supplier outwith of your tender process you're going to find yourself in trouble for not following the process.

[JamesWeatherill]

I'm James, the CEO and co-founder of Arbor. I'm sarting to get up-to-speed on the forums, so do ask me any questions you have, happy to help.

 

Just to give some insight from what we see in the market. Over 20% of the schools who chose Arbor this year have used the government's G-Cloud framework. https://www.crowncommercial.gov.uk/agreements/RM1557.12

 

This allows you to procure safely, quickly and compliantly (as well as fend off any challenges). My strong hunch is that it's going to become the mainstream way for Trusts and schools to tender, not only for MIS but for any tech/services over a procurement threshold. You still need to know what your requirements are but I'd say it cuts down the work involved in preparing any tender by >50%, and reduces risk. It also makes pricing completely transparent and gives you a strong set of T&Cs to protect you.