BSF Alternative business case

[TerryTibbs]

Throughout the BSF threads there are many references to the apparent lack of alternative business case proposals in the face of BSF managed services. The more fair-minded/knowledgeable posts recognise that this is mainly due to leverage, not to say blackmail, from the LA/LEP/P4S to force compliance with the programme. The most routine pressure is to claim that opt-out jeopardises the entire BSF programme. Another common mechanic is simply to compress the time available to develop an alternative proposal, which in any case is a truly Herculean task for any school, as they generally don't have many years of experience building comprehensive business cases, (unlike the pre-qualified bidders who not only do it for a living, but have a connected history of bids to draw on.)

 

So when a school does make a bid what happens? Villiers School in Ealing did exactly that and it was summarily rejected without substantial reasons. You can judge for yourselves the quality of the bid because the outraged school has posted it at http://www.villiers.ealing.sch.uk/apbc At the very least it disproves the idea that no one is bothered or capable of mounting a serious counter-proposal. Sadly it also demonstrates the treatment P4S metes out to those who do not believe in the nirvana of long-term managed services monopolies financed by the usury that is PFI.

[CyberNerd]

Thank you for submitting the Alternative Procurement Business Case setting out Villiers High School’s argument not to become part of the proposed BSF area wide ICT managed service being developed by Ealing Borough Council.

In accordance with the Guidance provided to you by Partnerships for Schools, Villiers High School’s Alternative Procurement Business Case was reviewed by an adjudication panel, chaired by Partnerships for Schools and with representatives from DCSF, Becta, KPMG and Naace. In reaching its decision the panel acknowledged that Villiers High School provides a high standard of education and they recognised the school’s desire to take forward its own ICT strategy. However, a decision to reject the school’s business case was reached for the following reasons:

 

The school has not demonstrated a sound understanding of the risks and costs associated with running its own ICT procurement and has not accounted for the costs of managing the procurement including, but not limited to, legal costs, staff time and additional consultancy.

 

The school has not identified the costs associated with integrating their ICT solution with the building management systems nor incorporated these costs into their calculations.

 

There is a lack of clarity around the proposed interface arrangements and risk transfer between the LEP, the D&B contractor, the school’s chosen ICT supplier and the school. If these elements are fully costed, they have an adverse effect on the Value for Money of the business case.

 

Whilst recognising that the school has high aspirations for the ways in which its ICT solution will promote and facilitate international collaboration, the panel felt that there was insufficient evidence to show that the school’s systems would support local collaboration as effectively as if they were participating in the area-wide service.

 

 

 

 

The panel noted that Villiers High School’s business case did not demonstrate understanding of the full offer to be provided by the ICT managed service planned for Ealing’s schools. The panel also noted that the financial information supplied by the school did not correctly represent the Total Cost Ownership of ICT.

 

In its business case the school indicated that it would be not be willing to participate in the aggregated procurement nor accept the area wide ICT managed service. I ask you to re-consider your position on this. However, if you decide to still proceed on this basis, there will be a financial implication for the school. The school will not receive its share of the £1450 per pupil Capital Grant payment to fund the cost of equipment, software and content and establishing a shared learning platform. However, it will still receive the £225 per pupil payment to cover the cost of renewing passive network infrastructure as part of its remodelling.

 

I am sending a copy of this letter to Simon Hurrell, Programme Director, Building Schools for the Future, Ealing Borough Council. Mr Hurrell will shortly be contacting you to discuss what should happen next.

 

It is important that a meeting between the School and Ealing Borough Council is organised as soon as possible. At this meeting you will need to agree the extent of Villiers High School’s engagement with the ICT managed service offered and discuss the financial implications for the School.

 

Yours sincerely

 

ouch......

[wesleyw]

Sounds like b*@@*#ks to me. However the £225 per pupil for "passive" network infrastructure is interesting, what do they mean by passive? Does the pupil head count include 6th form students?

 

 

Wes

[wesleyw]

Interestingly our school ground is owned by a trust so I wonder if they could charge rent for the land if BSF come and dump a school on it? £1.4m a year should put them off

 

 

Wes

[sahmeepee]

It's a bit like having a turkey decide what you have for Christmas dinner really.

 

I'm glad you have brought that to our attention, but it has still put me in a very bad mood!

[Theblacksheep]

It's a bit like having a turkey decide what you have for Christmas dinner really.

 

Chaired by PFS.

 

Why is any of this even about a 'business case'?

 

I'm getting angry.

[Face-Man]

Sounds like b*@@*#ks to me. However the £225 per pupil for "passive" network infrastructure is interesting, what do they mean by passive? Does the pupil head count include 6th form students?

 

 

Wes

 

Remember that the £225 is just a one off payment for 5 years it the part of the funding allocated to use with the building work to replace network points,fibre,cabinets that may work but they are going to dig up and replace. Passive means it doesn't let you get switches with it which means it not much use anyway..

 

"why does my fibre lead not fit in this square point"

[Butuz]

Wow - if a business case like that gets rejected there is no hope for any of us.

 

The school has not demonstrated a sound understanding of the risks and costs associated with running its own ICT procurement and has not accounted for the costs of managing the procurement including, but not limited to, legal costs, staff time and additional consultancy.

 

So basically - one of the reasons the business case was turned down was because the school has decided not to waste hundreds of thousands of pounds on Consultancy, Legal babblings, and extra staff to "manage" the change.

 

I have to admit I am shocked at reading this. It seems there is no way out. Sureley there must be some kind of legal avenue in Europe? If they can legislate on the shape of our bananas I am damn well sure they can legislate on schools being railroded into accepting inferior, overpriced managed services!

 

Butuz

[wesleyw]

That'll be fine I'd rather not have the huge lump sum as when all the equipment fails we aren't left with a big problem.

 

Anyone got a business case from one of the BSF bidders? Be interesting to see how different they are?

 

Wes

[sahmeepee]

So basically - one of the reasons the business case was turned down was because the school has decided not to waste hundreds of thousands of pounds on Consultancy, Legal babblings, and extra staff to "manage" the change.

 

It is baffling, yes. Basically they have failed on the criterion "not enough bureaucracy". If that's where the goalposts are then BSF will win every time.

 

Surely the school's argument is that it's so far beyond the BSF offering that it doesn't need a step-change in its IT setup. They will need a hell of a lot of change management when a MSP comes in and demolishes the service they already provide.

[TerryTibbs]

Publishing a successful bid document would be dynamite. They'll almost certainly be covered by confidentiality agreements but any leaked successful proposal would terrify P4S. It would expose their selection process and show a route forward to building successful counter-bids.

[GrumbleDook]

Presently there are no successful alternative business case proposals to work from and I have asked for an example but each case is tied in with who that particular BSF project works ... how it fits in with the LEP etc.

 

Ok, problem one with the ABCP - the strategy for how the school will improve or continue to improve is tied up with the whole LA strategy, and so you have to argue that moving out of the contract does not risk that for the school.

 

So far the schools that have put things forward are those that are pretty much happy to be out on their own anyway ... perhaps that is part of the problem, fighting to stay *too* far removed from the LA line.

 

Problem two ... it needs to be written by someone that *really* understands the system and how it works. There are not that many of these people around and they are usually consultants ... and often working for the BSF bidders at that. Those that aren't there are working for LAs, DCSF, etc ... and the handful that are left tend to be tied up with other projects (open source, handheld learning, etc)

 

Problem three ... this is an outcomes led project. Until it can be shown that a high performing school takes a significant dip and the principle catalyst for this the forced change away from an established IT/ICT provision and vision ... then it is going to be hard to fight this.

 

I am still writing up my notes from the NAACE conference last week but the session there with Steve Moss showed a number of positive changes which will hit wave 7 onwards really ... but some of it still comes down to having the right bidders in teh partnership and schools getting in there early with what they want and need. The idea that coming to a gentleperson's agreement between teh 3 parties (School, LA, MSP) to relax or ignore KPIs in a particular area to allow for the school to try something different they *they* want, but if it fails because teh school has made the wrong choice then the MSP does not get the penalties applied as they might do otherwise. So ... if the MSP or the LA is not willing then this is where things fall down.

 

It is also worth saying that another session at the conference was led by a BSF company and I am still struggling how to word some of it so that the positive things about the session (change management) are not outweighed by the attitude that this is not just about suppliers 'doing' things to the school but also 'doing things' for / to the LA because the supplier knows best.

[KarlGoddard]

say what you will, edit as you see fit...

 

but this is a carve up

 

'nuff said

 

Edited March 11, 2009 by KarlGoddard

[SimpleSi]

This is just so sad

Si

[broc]

Sadly, we are all just 'little' people, caught up in politics on a grand scale. The authorities behind BSF don't want to talk to people in schools because we make their life difficult by telling them why their grand vision won't work.....

 

BSF is a good idea, gone bad because of dogma, greed, arrogance from the people who are driving the program who all think they know better than the people who work in schools.....

 

BSF is all about the political mileage to be gained from convincing the public that their children will somehow be better educated by having bright shiny new schools that look good, never mind the fact that they are not 'fit for purpose'.

 

It's all about architects keen to show how wonderful their designs are, even if it means ignoring the wishes of the schools.... just as long as it looks good.....

 

It's about LAs trying to regain control over schools after years of being forced to devolve management & responsibility to the schools....

 

It is all about PFI, as years of neglect (by governments of all political colours) means that our schools are falling down, and the Govt has no money to pay for their rebuilding so they have to go cap in hand to persuade private financiers to fund the rebuilding to keep the capital costs 'of the books'. The irony is now 'we' the taxpayers are having to bail out the financiers so they can lend the builders the money to build the schools that we are going to pay over the odds for......

 

PFI is all about profit for shareholders, even if it means fleecing the taxpayers for years to come.... ICT is the icing on their cake....

 

Take the BSF school plans that show ICT suites will have no A/C, and no opening ventilation. The science prep room will be less than half the minimum recommended for Health & Safety, with inadequate ventilation, forcing the science technician to carry highly concetrated acid solutions between storage cupboards and the prep room along corridors while students push past....

 

What about the 'green' feature of collecting rainwater, then flushing it down the drains because the budget won't stretch to using it to flush the toilets ....

 

Don't forget the pathfinder school where the architects, builders & LA are currently arguing about whose fault it is that the main entrance doors are already falling off their hinges after a year or so...

 

Apparently the school is using the doors too much.....

 

Rest assured though, the people who are driving the process won't let these minor issues prevent them from earning their nice big salaries, maybe a few of them will collect an 'honour' or two.... for services to Education

[ICTHUS]

BSF and IT SUPPORT

 

There really are a few important elements here. IT Support needs to remain a permanent people resource on site in high schools, colleges and universities. The IT support staff needs to be there for instant on site actions such as setting up equipment, moving equipment, fixing faults, etc...

 

It is important for trained and knowledgeable IT Support staff to be on-site being involved with teachers, the curriculum planning, pupils, the school’s leadership/management team and the Local authority. Managed IT cannot even hope to understand and be involved to such a degree. You have to be there full time and be involved to fully understand.

 

I agree with the BSF strategy that can see centralised purchasing agreements for bulk buying servers, networks, Laptops, software and other such supplies. The LA or a major supplier could easily have an agreed shopping list for IT managers to pick from at agreed prices. That makes some sense and does help to unify and bring all schools up to a agreed level of resources and technology. BUT that does stifle those schools that are really innovative and have an existing excellent IT provision. We all can see that some schools do need a leg-up when it comes to IT management and provision.

 

This needn’t be done with a fully outsourced IT service. In fact it is better not to farm-out IT support totally. What BSF should do is offer the best of both for schools. The schools should retain IT staff on site, employed by the school or LA. There should be meetings and forums setup where the LA or a single supplier would meet with school all of IT managers and agree what should be supplied and how. That way all schools can input and innovate and all schools can get on a more level playing field. Then local IT managers can liaise with the School leadership and move IT forwards in schools. Sharing best practise, ideas and knowledge can also be achieved between schools. There should also be a second level of IT support available again from a single company or LA employed that is available to schools as a technical resource working across many schools to ensure IT is being implemented in a consistent manner across the LA. If you like this level of support is your MS accredited and technical expert that the school cannot afford to employ full time.

 

No-one gains from outsourcing IT support and resources except the outsourcing companies who have to make a profit. So either service is cut or prices increased form initially agreed levels. IT expertise is lost form schools and local authorities. IT support and innovation becomes distant and hard to reach. IT becomes less important to schools and starts to diminish and be less innovative. The use of Open Source and other great innovative and creative services would cease to exist as we now see happening. In short IT support should not be outsourced because of BSF. BSF money should not be used as a noose around schools necks or a bribe to get schools to make bad choices.

 

I used to work for a company that was heavily into PFI bids and managed services. The level of detail even went down to what toilet roll was provided when taking over a building management contract and what type of mouse to use when taking over an IT facility. So the outsourcing supplier really does end up going into ridiculous details and then the company or authority is really tied to that for 5 to 10 years. That really is a big constraint. The level of details also means the outsourcing supplier then starts to increase prices when extras and changes are required (such as different soap in the toilets!) and that is where the big money is made and the LA or school ends up being forced to accept less or a service or pay more for the same service they would have got if they have not outsourced in the first place. We need to learn that PFI and BSF in its current all-or-nothing existence do not really work. So let’s take the best bits of BSF and use them, and make the rest of our schools support and provision of services work for us in a positive manner.

 

Will no-one ever learn from mistakes from the past, or are we just destined to repeat the same mistakes. Just look at the privatised industries left by the last conservative government and this Labour government. We now pay more for poorer services. I can quote gas, electric, trains, buses, post, telecommunications etc..... These industries were sold off to raise quick funds in the short term and the long term financial and service planning was completely forgotten about. It makes me wonder if these sold off industries had remain nationalised if we would have been hit quite so bad by the current credit crunch.

 

I am happy in my IT management job and as my school has good IT support and provision we should be able to opt out without being penalised financially.

[bossman]

@ICTHUS:

 

I totally agree with you and everyone else who has striven to exceed the limitations of their LA who themselves really haven't got a clue about delivering a first class IT service.

 

It is a sad day for all as you say, when the government go against the very fibre of their core policies which were made many years ago, one of them was not to privatise education, so now they are using the taxpayers money to do just that, privatise the education system.

 

The next item on the agenda is the full privatisation of the NHS.

[TerryTibbs]

The BSF process is already being used to cloak further privatisation outside education. One of the most interesting/alarming aspects of the OJEU tender that went out from my LA was that it invited responses for services outside education if cost savings could be demonstrated. It is nothing other than a process of privatisation of the local state. I suppose it's worth mentioning also that the two consortia to have responded (Bouygues and BAM) are not based in the UK - effectively ensuring that local education and possibly other local state services are run for profit by foreign multi-nationals.

[bossman]

@TerryTibbs:

 

Exactly and when all the capitalist states have outsourced all their major infrastructures to other foreign national countries for cheap savings and massive profits for the short term, long term will see the erosion of their whole system infrastructure which will cost 100s of billions to set back up in their own countries when the cost escalates as these foreign national companies begin to get greedy, not to forget the security of our data.

 

We will become a third world country dependent on handouts from foreign states.

A little like Dubai.

:mad:

[NewOrder]

Opt out for Academies look at this

[jamesb]

We will become a third world country dependent on handouts from foreign states.

A little like Dubai.

:mad:

 

What's the national debt again...?

[ICTHUS]

More than £11m 'wasted' on consultants as MPs condemn school build plans - Telegraph

[terry]

Does anyone have a copy of the Villier's APBC as it no longer seems to be available?

 

I'm in the process of putting together an Alternate Procurement Business Case for my school and having looked through the related posts, I feel quietly confident that if steered in the right direction, I have every chance of putting forward a successful case. I anticipate full support from the HT & Governors and our school has piloted and already implemented many of LGfL's managed services, something which our LA is very keen for the chosen MSP to deliver to schools in the borough.

 

Signing over to the MSP will clearly not represent VFM in our case...

 

Any help and guidance will be most appreciated... I may need to start a new thread regarding this as I’m under no illusion as to how much work this will entail!

[terry]

Hi Mike, thank ever so much for your PM, unfortunately I couldn't reply as I haven't posted enough, so I have to put it here instead! If anyone else reading this can help my plight, please do contact me as I need all the help I can get right now!!

 

___________

 

Thank you for contacting me! It's reassuring to hear that you have been successful!!

 

Unfortunately I do not have the time to employ consultants before I put forward an initial case as I am meeting the headteacher and the SLT to discuss this on the first day I get back, and then I have a meeting with the MSP the day after. Basically my situation is as such that I was informed on the last day of term that the contract with the MSP was just about to be signed but firstly the head wanted me to cast an eye over our ICT Vision before it was included as something that the MSP would be tasked to deliver. I believe that they were going to use this as their strategy for change, but I am not sure...

 

I hadn't written this vision nor had any input on it and was horrified to see that it was mainly based around what was achievable with our MLE. We have already bought into the 'BSF' MLE and are in fact pioneers in the borough for its effective use. I had to let the head know immediately that signing over to the managed service would have little, if any, impact on the vision in its current form.

 

Almost everything that the managed service contract proposes, we already have - the BSF MLE, Full USO integration, the same MIS supported by the contract, uptake of the necessary core services provided by our RBC etc...

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-managed service as I feel that for a lot of schools this is the way to go - just not in our case... For our school, moving to the managed service would mean that the majority of the capital funding would be spend on 'uniforming' our school with others in the borough (a backwards step) and this would ultimately affect the quality of teaching and learning. Our school is already one of if not the most advanced in the borough and we have invested over 1m in the last 3 years. Simply put, the capital funding will be better spent advancing what we already have rather than ripping it out and starting again!

 

We have most policies and procedures in place as we're at good level of maturity with our FITS implementation but obviously as things needs to be water tight, I'll need to ensure that we have absolutely everything in place!

 

I don't suppose that you'd be able to share any extracts from your APBC so that I know the best way to move forward? I cannot express how much this would be beneficial to our school.

 

Thank you very much in advance :-)