Lift Schools and Bromcom Computers Plc joint statement

[elsiegee40]

You would struggle to justify excluding any of the three main suppliers from tender. I looked at the exclusions criteria and none of them covers fear of being taken to court https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/procurement-act-2023-guidance-documents-procure-phase/guidance-exclusions-html

 

I agree schools need legal advice before attempting any tender process, not just for MIS. Most should probably use a DfE Framework Agreement where a third party runs the tender and gives legal protections https://www.gov.uk/guidance/find-a-dfe-approved-framework-for-your-school

[synaesthesia]

Is ESS really a plausible major supplier now though? Literally ranked down there with the "this product is only used in Dubai, India and a school in the Outer Hebrides" MIS.

[supportman]

Is ESS really a plausible major supplier now though? Literally ranked down there with the "this product is only used in Dubai, India and a school in the Outer Hebrides" MIS.

 

Yes, we had them in during our procurement process even though we already had Sims. It was a useful baseline.

 

Their presentation was quite ridiculous, they had no real plan for the future at that time and kept on telling us about their "cloud" offering which turned out to be running a 20 year old software stack on a remote server. Even the non technical people in our school clocked it very early on that there were issues with their development processes and roadmap. This was during the time when Capita were trying to sell the company, but I believe its not much different to this day!

 

It was a close run thing between Arbor and Bromcom. Both were excellent and entirely modern. In the end it came down to small factors like integrated payments from the parent portal and look of the system.

 

Proper procurement and a fair process to all suppliers is essential to get the best system for your school. Whatever that system is....

Edited October 8, 2024 by supportman

[synaesthesia]

Well yes, but when you can pick any number of the smaller MIS' that fall into the "Other" category in the MIS lists and they all clearly have a better system and plans from the outset, it's easy to see SIMS falling before it even got to the full tender process. Obviously that's easier to say from an unbiased perspective, does/should being the current provider automatically include it in the process?

[PotNoodleTech]

Yes, we had them in during our procurement process even though we already had Sims. It was a useful baseline.

.

 

I disagree - If I was tendering for an MIS, which I will never ever have to again, their offering wouldnt even meet the requirements of the tender and I would class it as not fit for purpose as it doesnt even comply with DFE/Gov best practice on cloud first offerings. Particularly:

 

DFE: "help to prevent cyber-attacks and safeguard your school’s data by storing data in the cloud - (see the Government Cloud First policy)" https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/choosing-a-school-management-information-system-mis/benefits-of-a-fit-for-purpose-management-information-system-mis

 

GOV Cloud First Policy: "Organisations should use Cloud managed services, avoiding simply using the Cloud for infrastructure hosting. Solutions should use higher level Cloud services available from the vendor, taking full advantage of the 5 Cloud Essential Characteristics provided by NIST and security benefits from adopting a good Cloud service. "

 

SIMS is simply using the cloud for infrastructure hosting which according to GOV and thus DFE is to be avoided. How can you even consider tendering for a company that doesnt meet guidelines set in 2013 ( https://www.gov.uk/guidance/government-cloud-first-policy )

Edited October 8, 2024 by PotNoodleTech

[Rob_D]

I wonder if you could use one of the frameworks for added legal protection?

[Diello]

According to the statement, they did use a Framework, from the statement: "Lift Schools’ award of a contract for schools management information systems to Arbor Education Partners Limited via the G-Cloud 12 Framework Agreement." (now expired) - So even using a CCS framework, which should make sure one is complaint with procurement requirements, wasn't enough.

 

We went with Everything ICT, and to be fair they did put quite an onus on us to show we'd completed our due diligence on the selected supplier.

[DrCheese]

According to the statement, they did use a Framework, from the statement: "Lift Schools’ award of a contract for schools management information systems to Arbor Education Partners Limited via the G-Cloud 12 Framework Agreement." (now expired) - So even using a CCS framework, which should make sure one is complaint with procurement requirements, wasn't enough.

 

We went with Everything ICT, and to be fair they did put quite an onus on us to show we'd completed our due diligence on the selected supplier.

 

I suspect because they went with a further competition in the framework, rather than direct awarding to Arbor. Frameworks offer you a lot of protection against BS contract terms (eg printer companies demanding you pay £15k to pick up copiers at the end of a contract) but you still have to ensure you're running any further competition within them transparently.