Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Said it before & I'll say it again - I'm really wary about posts like this as they just make me feel that we're replacing one bad faith company (ESS) with another

 

I really wish companies would just let their products speak for themselves & have confidence in that, instead of resorting to FUD

Edited by DrCheese
Posted

Imagine if all the other forum sponsors started posting this kind of PR nonsense, I don't think it would be long until a new rule is introduced to prevent it.

  • Like 2
Posted

The simple reality of this would be:

 

1. Is the change materially different to your school? Do you gain or lose any capabilities, or is it simply that the UI has changed? This would need to be looked at on a case by case basis.

2. Have the terms and conditions changed?

3. Is the price any different?

4. If you determine it to be a material change, then you would need to follow the rules in your school's finance policy, which itself should be based on the public procurement law. The thresholds for different types of procurement processes will vary by school, so anyone making comments about specific numbers is not correct (or more specifically, outdated), other than the legally mandated £214,904 amount for full tenders (per Schedule 1 of the Procurement Act 2023). For example, the Academies Financial Handbook (2.25) states only that schools must gain best value. There is then some guidance as to what the DfE considers low/high etc, but these are not based on law - the specific thresholds were revoked so, the DfE does not have control of this, outside of guidance. Local Authority schools must comply with any rules set by their LA as well.

Everything else is noise really.

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...