Lift Schools and Bromcom Computers Plc joint statement

[jbrowning_LiftSchools]

We wanted to make you aware that on 19 September 2024 we released a joint statement with Bromcom Computers Plc, click here to read: https://bit.ly/3zWGqj7 Edited October 4, 2024 by jbrowning_LiftSchools

[sefton]

It just doesn't stop with Bromcom, did they sponsor this Forum just to vent about their competitors?

[JRA]

How big was the gun they held to your head when they did that?

 

Blink twice if you're in danger Mr Browning!

[Jawloms]

Ah! The good ol' AET! *bites tongue hard*

[synaesthesia]

I've found an image of Bromcom's legal and PR team's with the instrument they using for the hole they keep digging...

 

[3s-gtech]

Do these legal cases basically show that the best way to not get sued by Bromcom is to either acquiesce and award them the contract whether that’s right or wrong, or to simply not consider their product at all in the first place, thereby not involving them in the contract tender?

 

Or plan C - follow due diligence extremely carefully, transparently and fairly so they don’t have a leg to stand on if/when they sue?

 

Serious question. Their solicitors seem to be able to pick the processes apart easily so it would be worth sharing what’s gone wrong.

[Cat_Jam148]

Ali Guryel, Managing Director at Bromcom, says:

 

"We weren't driven by financial gain"

 

Bwhahahahahahaha...yeah right. It's only when Bromcom received flak from the wider community that I reckon they back peddled and decided not to seek costs from the trust.

[synaesthesia]

Ali Guryel, Managing Director at Bromcom, says:

 

"We weren't driven by financial gain"

 

Bwhahahahahahaha...yeah right. It's only when Bromcom received flak from the wider community that I reckon they back peddled and decided not to seek costs from the trust.

 

Ah but how do you know - the agreement is confidential. Maybe, ironically, Lift agreed to pay Bromcom the referral fees from Arbor

[sefton]

Ah but how do you know - the agreement is confidential. Maybe, ironically, Lift agreed to pay Bromcom the referral fees from Arbor

 

Maybe Lift have had to buy them a suite of Novell Netware servers to increase Bromcom's capacity and scaling.

[elsiegee40]

Or plan C - follow due diligence extremely carefully, transparently and fairly so they don’t have a leg to stand on if/when they sue?

 

Serious question. Their solicitors seem to be able to pick the processes apart easily so it would be worth sharing what’s gone wrong.

Serious answer. You have to follow Plan C each and every time. That’s what tender is about. There is no wriggle room. Anyone doing contract by tender should be getting proper legal advice up front.

 

Not saying I agree with the trust being forced to publicly shame themselves on here, nor do I endorse certain PR methods. This is my personal view. I am not a part of EduGeek and do not speak for them.

 

It’s a definitely a warning you can’t ignore unfortunately.

[Roberto]

Serious answer. You have to follow Plan C each and every time. That’s what tender is about. There is no wriggle room. Anyone doing contract by tender should be getting proper legal advice up front.

 

Agree with this - we were briefed to “follow plan C” with all our tendering procedures when I worked at a college that was building and equipping a new campus, which is probably about 15 years ago now.

 

We were clearly advised to follow the then gold standard OJEU procurement process and/or to use frameworks that were compliant with it. I’d imagine that OJEU is no longer current in the UK since Brexit and I am in no position to advise anyone on what to do now - except to say that if we were aware of the need to follow procurement processes 15 years ago, why are people acting aghast at the need now?

 

Clearly the sector has been heading in this direction for some time and regardless of personal opinions of any vendor’s any of us might have, both schools, suppliers and ultimately the public benefit from open, honest tendering processes for spending public money.

Edited October 4, 2024 by Roberto

[FN-GM]

“Bromcom’s motivation is to ensure that schools receive the best service at

the best price”

 

How nice of them to do this out of the goodness of their hearts.

[Ditto]

I agree that 'Plan C' is the best option. But I wonder even with legal advice, whether AET/Lift would have been taken to task. I remember the judgement agreed fault, but it didn't identify anything sinister - so at the end of the day, a mistake. Also, this says Bromcom won't pursue costs - that's legal costs covering Bromcom's fees - is that the only cost? Is other compensation still payable? If yes, that's money that isn't now going to pupils education. Given for understandable reasons the agreement is confidential, it does irk that it isn't transparent and open which is expected with the expenditure of public money and is that challengeable via a FOI. At the end of the day, I only see one MIS provider repeatedly get caught up in this legal rigmarole, and it leaves a bad taste regardless of the legal rights and wrongs.

[davinderkundi]

I'm curious to see how this will impact students

[JRA]

Do these legal cases basically show that the best way to not get sued by Bromcom is to either acquiesce and award them the contract whether that’s right or wrong, or to simply not consider their product at all in the first place, thereby not involving them in the contract tender?

 

Another (serious and genuine) question related to this one. Can you be in any way at risk of being sued by Bromcom if you just don't even consider them at all?

[NegativeKillDeath]

Another (serious and genuine) question related to this one. Can you be in any way at risk of being sued by Bromcom if you just don't even consider them at all?

 

They are the third biggest MIS and only just behind Arbor, to not consider them must mean you have discounted them by some criteria probably around reputation. It maybe unfair to not give them the chance to pitch and answer your concerns.

[JRA]

They are the third biggest MIS and only just behind Arbor, to not consider them must mean you have discounted them by some criteria probably around reputation. It maybe unfair to not give them the chance to pitch and answer your concerns.

Thanks for that. Specifically though, are you at risk of being sued for not doing so? As in, you embark on any procurement as if Bromcom just didn't exist?

[3s-gtech]

Another (serious and genuine) question related to this one. Can you be in any way at risk of being sued by Bromcom if you just don't even consider them at all?

That was the option B I posted. Problem with that is...it's ridiculous, as their product may be the best fit for the need. If they were somehow eliminated before the tender process had started, simply on a proper assessment without involving them at all, that may be possible but seems unlikely.

[Primus]

Thanks for that. Specifically though, are you at risk of being sued for not doing so? As in, you embark on any procurement as if Bromcom just didn't exist?

 

What value would the hypothetical procurement be for?

[NegativeKillDeath]

Thanks for that. Specifically though, are you at risk of being sued for not doing so? As in, you embark on any procurement as if Bromcom just didn't exist?

 

I don't think you could avoid the risk of being sued. Even if you genuinely had no idea Bromcom existed they might feel justified in pursuing the matter legally.

[psydii]

Both Arbor and SIMS are backed by Private Equity and able to (for now) sustain losses of nine times Bromcom's annual profits. These debts must be repaid at some point, and the money can only come from one place. A third company in this space, that is profitable and competitive at the current market rates poses a long term problem for PE backers recouping their investments.

 

Bromcom's problem in this space is three fold, it can be out invested, it is vulnerable to poor (naive) procurement practices on the customer side, and it is vulnerable to poor (potentially illegal) procurement practices by its competition.

 

In an ideal world it would run purely on the merits and flaws of its product(s), but it isn't ideal and it has to be litigious to ensure it is even in the game.

 

Finally it should be noted that in the big expensive case the DfE underwrote the Academy's expenses because it was a useful test of the market the law and the process. 1M to figure out a market worth 100M's annually is really nothing. After that was settled, all schools and Trusts should have sat up and made sure their houses were in order.

 

Now excuse me while I go clear some space on our SIMS server and make sure our link to Classcharts recovers.

[Roberto]

Thanks for that. Specifically though, are you at risk of being sued for not doing so? As in, you embark on any procurement as if Bromcom just didn't exist?

 

I don't know about sued, but frankly anyone who does this should be admonished for not carrying out a proper tender process and due dilligence with public funds.

 

I'm not trying to defend any one vendor here, I just think that public funds should be spent properly, and part of this includes running proper bid processes for major LOB applications, major capital purchases, major infrastructure/building works. As I've said before, it appalls me that this appears to still be a foreign concept to some schools in 2024.

 

As for Bromcom - I am not sure I agree with their actions and posture - forcing organisations to humiliate themselves publically is a bad look if nothing else... but for the rest of it, if schools carried out proper, robust bid processes then vendors wouldn't have to take legal action and public money wouldn't be wasted defending bad practice.

Edited October 7, 2024 by Roberto

[sefton]

Personally having gone through an MIS procurement exercise, I don’t see how you could carry that out without including Bromcom.

[synaesthesia]

Personally having gone through an MIS procurement exercise, I don’t see how you could carry that out without including Bromcom.

 

I think one of the only things that would make legal and common sense would be if there were active legal proceedings against either party, ironically

Some might argue if the point of the tender was to move away from them as the incumbent provider, you'd have to include them - that might not be the case for most SIMS users because it's easy to quantify that product offers clearly less than just about anything else out there including doing it manually or scanning OCR marksheets to an Excel document.

[DrCheese]

Plan C (Proper tender) is the right option of course, but I worry that most schools & medium-sized Academy trusts don't have the legal know-how, contract experience & financial clout that a big MIS vendor has.

Even if a Trust tries its best to 100% comply with the rules in good faith, the losing MIS vendor can tie them up in litigation over technicalities or minor mistakes that would have unlikely changed the result anyway.

 

Of course, it just means Academy Trusts will need to start hiring/training dedicated procurement managers & teams, but I'm not sure everyone moving to an adversarial way of dealing with contracts is really what we want to be moving towards. No one wins except the lawyers.