[sims] Academies, 'new' SIMS licenses and the EU concept of 'Exhaustion rights'

[superfletch]

So all these schools have been through BSF in recent years and have managed service providers. These have BSF contracts for 5 or 10 years whereby the service provider supplies SIMS and SIMS support.

 

Just to get a bit of clarity here when you say the managed Service provider supplies SIMS what do you mean that the Managed Service provider actually supplies the license (and not just support / hardware / upgrades).

 

If so then I'd assume they are they in some way Capita accredited to do this and (on the techie side of things) then surely the managed service provider have to negotiate with Capita how to make the changes and apply a new Academy Database as for financials the details in the managed service contract will probably explain who has to stump up for the licensing costs though.

 

If the LA still actually supply the license to a BSF school but not the hardware/support then aren't you really in the same boat as other schools whereby you move your SIMS license over to Capita and the Managed Service Provider just starts dealing with them instead of the LA?

 

 

Sorry if I've missed the point...

Edited June 16, 2011 by superfletch

[GeneralDreedle]

Just to get a bit of clarity here when you say the managed Service provider supplies SIMS what do you mean that the Managed Service provider actually supplies the license (and not just support / hardware / upgrades).

 

If so then I'd assume they are they in some way Capita accredited to do this and (on the techie side of things) then surely the managed service provider have to negotiate with Capita how to make the changes and apply a new Academy Database as for financials the details in the managed service contract will probably explain who has to stump up for the licensing costs though.

 

If the LA still actually supply the license to a BSF school but not the hardware/support then aren't you really in the same boat as other schools whereby you move your SIMS license over to Capita and the Managed Service Provider just starts dealing with them instead of the LA?

 

 

Sorry if I've missed the point...

 

At risk of full disclosure...

 

1) A school pays £20K a year to an MIS provider for several years in a direct relationship. Then it is persuaded to join a BSF scam. As part of this it must use SIMS because that is what the managed service will provide. The contract is between LEP and Service Provider, (and in BSF land the details are assiduously concealed), BUT at no time in this story has the school been in any SIMS-based relationship with the local authority.

 

2) At commencement the Service Provider installs SIMS servers and facilitates migration, and supports and upgrades SIMS. School pays £250K annual fee to BSF project for managed service which includes this SIMS software/support/work/license.

 

3)Now the school becomes an academy it gets a £25K bill for SIMS. Surely SIMS cost is included in the managed service? So the service provider will now get a rebate from Capita? But BSF contracts are set up like life sentences, so the school gets no rebate passed on, and now pays twice. Remember, as an academy it is now in a Direct relationship with Capita, but the software and support it gets are worthless because it has no control of the installation and is already paying for SIMS and support. How can this be right?

 

Is our Service Provider obliged to sort this out? I bet they don't see any obligation to get into academy negociations with a supplier. They never costed that into the Dick Turpin plan... and Capita are knocking at the school's door with the milk bill.

 

To get back in your boat, are you saying that schools who have been receiving SIMS from LA never paid the LA for that service? And therefore gained no cost reduction from that on gaining Academy status?

[Sivadam]

Slightly off topic - but related:-

 

Contracts for Academies

As you may know, the DfE informed us that all academies that converted from an existing school would have to issue new contracts to staff. However, an academy contacted us recently to inform us that the DfE had told them that they did not have to issue new contracts. We asked the DfE about this and they have now confirmed that issuing of new contracts to staff is NOT necessary in all cases. It is therefore important that academies ask the DfE what position regarding new contracts applies to them and that the DfE response is passed to any party that is supporting the academy.

Unfortunately, we have added functionality to our School Workforce Census 2011 application to capture the date the academy was formed and to ensure that contract and absence information could not be supplied for periods before that date. We may now have to delay the SIMS Summer Release to remove this functionality.

 

Jim Haywood

Product Manager for Statutory Returns

[TABLE=width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD=class: tabletextsmall, align: left]Posted: 17th June 2011 by Jim Haywood

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[EdWhittaker]

A new article on this topic: Capita 'sheltering behind' competition law, says expert - News - TES Connect

 

Quote from a 'leading lawyer' "The charge of a fresh licence fee to an academy which in practice is stepping into the shoes of a predecessor school might be seen to be an exploitative abuse."

Ouch! Just say what you mean why dontcha?

[jayemm]

I have asked this question on another thread too, but is this issue now resolved as a result of the IMLS framework?

[localzuk]

I have asked this question on another thread too, but is this issue now resolved as a result of the IMLS framework?

 

What issue? The high cost new license costs? No, that hasn't changed as far as I know!

[matt40k]

Be nice if it did. Sure lot of Academies would welcome the refund.

 

This made me laugh "we have invested significant sums to provide academies with high-quality products and services" - Yer, changing the FMS icons

[jayemm]

@localzuk specifically the fact that academies that convert are required to purchase licences again.

 

This document appears to suggest companies on the IMLS framework should not do this. http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/academies%20and%20licence%20transfer%20costs.docx

[localzuk]

@localzuk specifically the fact that academies that convert are required to purchase licences again.

 

This document appears to suggest companies on the IMLS framework should not do this. http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/academies%20and%20licence%20transfer%20costs.docx

 

I wasn't aware of that. I have a meeting with someone from Capita next week, so will bring it up there. Anything to save the school some cash!

[EdWhittaker]

Half of secondary schools are now, or are about to become, academies, so if they are being charged for re-licencing somebody is making some handy money.

 

Half of state secondary schools 'turned into academies' - Telegraph

[Ecclesbury]

@localzuk specifically the fact that academies that convert are required to purchase licences again.

 

This document appears to suggest companies on the IMLS framework should not do this. http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/academies%20and%20licence%20transfer%20costs.docx

 

That's very interesting, would it be lazy of me to ask for any more detail on the context of that document? We are currently starting the process of becoming an Academy and I think our business manager would be very interested to read it but if I send him it as is, he is going to ask where it came from, and in response to what.

 

I tried deconstructing you link, but got deined permissions or broken links. How did you originally find it?

[localzuk]

I've just checked my work email and now have the quote for my school for our academy/SIMS migration - about £10k + support. So, it is a *lot* less than my other school but still nothing like a 'novation' of the license.

[GREED]

Tony, that is interesting news... not good news, interesting...

[localzuk]

That's very interesting, would it be lazy of me to ask for any more detail on the context of that document? We are currently starting the process of becoming an Academy and I think our business manager would be very interested to read it but if I send him it as is, he is going to ask where it came from, and in response to what.

 

I tried deconstructing you link, but got deined permissions or broken links. How did you originally find it?

 

It is available from this page - IMLS framework: advice and guidance - Schools

[localzuk]

Ok, an update on this. The IMLS does not cover existing licenses purchased through LEAs etc... It would simply be a mechanism to prevent a repeat of the issue in the future, should the school status change again.

[Ecclesbury]

Ok, an update on this. The IMLS does not cover existing licenses purchased through LEAs etc... It would simply be a mechanism to prevent a repeat of the issue in the future, should the school status change again.

 

This is venturing out of my depth, but that sounds like a major cop out to me! Capita have agreed to be part of a framework that describes this practice as "Patently Unfair" yet they are quite happy to keep doing it to schools that are already customers? The posted document deals specifically with schools opting out of LA control, but I wonder how many schools will actually be able to take advantage of this? It feels to me that in the current education climate this change will benefit very few schools, if any. I understand that it prevents it happening again in future, in other situations, but in that case why draw attention to it and mention opting out of LA control specifically? Isn't that just going to anger all those school who have already/are just about to forked out the money?

 

p.s. I may be mis-reading this, and would appreciate any expert guidance, but looking at the following quote from the posted document:

 

The reassurance provided by this condition applies where:

 

(a) Solutions are procured via the mini-competition process

(b) Where customers procure directly from the Framework by identifying the best value solution

© Where customers renew with their existing supplier (by identifying the best value solution) specifying the Framework Terms and Conditions

 

Can point © not be exploited somehow? So a school considering becoming academy would be best advised to renew their LA SIMS license before converting, specify the Framework Terms and Conditions, then convert and save some pennies?

 

Timing is everything it seems!

Edited April 17, 2012 by Ecclesbury

[CyberNerd]

Can point © not be exploited somehow? So a school considering becoming academy would be best advised to renew their LA SIMS license before converting, specify the Framework Terms and Conditions, then convert and save some pennies?

 

 

Good thinking. presumably you could go through the competition/tender process at any point as if you were choosing a new system.

[localzuk]

This is venturing out of my depth, but that sounds like a major cop out to me! Capita have agreed to be part of a framework that describes this practice as "Patently Unfair" yet they are quite happy to keep doing it to schools that are already customers? The posted document deals specifically with schools opting out of LA control, but I wonder how many schools will actually be able to take advantage of this? It feels to me that in the current education climate this change will benefit very few schools, if any. I understand that it prevents it happening again in future, in other situations, but in that case why draw attention to it and mention opting out of LA control specifically? Isn't that just going to anger all those school who have already/are just about to forked out the money?

 

p.s. I may be mis-reading this, and would appreciate any expert guidance, but looking at the following quote from the posted document:

 

The reassurance provided by this condition applies where:

 

(a) Solutions are procured via the mini-competition process

(b) Where customers procure directly from the Framework by identifying the best value solution

© Where customers renew with their existing supplier (by identifying the best value solution) specifying the Framework Terms and Conditions

 

Can point © not be exploited somehow? So a school considering becoming academy would be best advised to renew their LA SIMS license before converting, specify the Framework Terms and Conditions, then convert and save some pennies?

 

Timing is everything it seems!

 

It isn't 100% clear from their site to be honest, so I emailed them. Their response was:

 

The charge will not occur in future circumstances if your establishment purchases through the Framework. As your present contract is outside the framework then the terms do not apply.

[Ecclesbury]

Thanks again @localzuk

 

Seems that the implication in their response then is that if your contract is 'inside' (as it were) the framework then you're onto a winner. So it depends how they define 'inside'...

 

If only there were more clarity is this world!

[localzuk]

Thanks again @localzuk

 

Seems that the implication in their response then is that if your contract is 'inside' (as it were) the framework then you're onto a winner. So it depends how they define 'inside'...

 

If only there were more clarity is this world!

 

From the further parts of the email I have, it appears that they say that basically old contracts don't get cover from it, however the new framework could be used as leverage to try and get some goodwill else we could run a full procurement exercise under the new agreement to get a better deal from them.

[GrumbleDook]

From the further parts of the email I have, it appears that they say that basically old contracts don't get cover from it, however the new framework could be used as leverage to try and get some goodwill else we could run a full procurement exercise under the new agreement to get a better deal from them.

 

So it is a case of 'you will feel some pain but only this once'.

[GREED]

More like a case akin to getting a new mobile phone contract: Phone the cancellation line and wait for some freebies to be thrown in...

[Ecclesbury]

So it is a case of 'you will feel some pain but only this once'.

 

True, now that the cookie jar is closed, no more bruised fingers for Capita!

 

Chortle.

 

I jest, sorry that was below the belt!