Derbyshire BSF

[cookie_monster]

Derbyshire is arguing that, as one of only five councils in England with a four-star excellence rating from the Audit Commission for its services, it is fully entitled to use its existing procurement methods to deliver its BSF scheme. However, recent guidance issued by PfS makes it clear that variant models are not welcome.

 

 

I like this bit "PfS makes it clear that variant models are not welcome" are they concerned that a competent LA might come along with a better solution making other 'models' look silly expensive and inflexible.

 

Derbyshire in plea over BSF contract - 16/08/2006 - Contract Journal

 

"I can understand PfS not wanting every council coming up with its own unique model, but when a council has a system that works why not let them get on with it?"

 

I know it's a bit out of date but it made me chuckle.

Edited July 14, 2008 by cookie_monster

[Diello]

"Why not let them get on with it?"

 

Because it doesn't make the company any money.

 

One of the things that annoys me the most about the BSF-lovers - they always seem to "forget" that it's about making money for the companies, and very little to do with the education of students.

[broc]

The only acceptable 'variant' to PfS seems to be along the lines of what Newcastle upon Tyne did, where the LA went into partnership with one or more private companies. As I understand it, the Newcastle LA has a managed services unit who look after service delivery, but the private partner(s) designed, supplied & built the solution.

 

I understand that other LAs may be following this model but they will have their work cut out convincing PfS. At least the staff remain as LA employees, even if they are no longer school employees.

[cookie_monster]

That's the way i've always felt it should be done the LA should have a larger team with the necessary experties that can advise and guide school techs. I've said that they should of been managing schools that way for ages.

[teejay]

That's the way i've always felt it should be done the LA should have a larger team with the necessary experties that can advise and guide school techs. I've said that they should of been managing schools that way for ages.

 

I agree to an extent in that some tasks would be better managed centrally to take some of the duplication of labour out of schools, such as packaging software, even some of the monitoring and especially having some technician cover for illness or big jobs. This would free up a lot of time to let us get 'creative' and really push the schools forward.

[broc]

That's the way i've always felt it should be done the LA should have a larger team with the necessary experties that can advise and guide school techs. I've said that they should of been managing schools that way for ages.

 

PfS will only allow an LA to bid if they can be convinced the LA can deliver a service that is commercially sound and capable of competing against the best that commercial outsourcing organisations can deliver. In practice this means they must already have significant investment in infrastructure, resources, skills already in-place. Not every LA is in that position; not every LA has the will and/or political support to invest in mounting a bid either.

 

Then of course there is the not too distant memory in many schools of how bad LA ICT support has been in the past, so the schools have to be 'sold' on the idea that the LA can deliver too.

[GrumbleDook]

And consider that some of the bidding companies are actually LA support teams that have been sold, partly or entirely, to commercial companies.

 

VT4S is an example of this but there are a number of others.