TonySheppardNCC Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 On the query about whether additional suppliers can join a framework there is the following advice to suppliers from BuyingSolutions at Buying Solutions - about us - supplier zone - procurement plans and current framework agreements. Once a procurement has been completed, additional framework agreements cannot be awarded. However it may be possible for you to sub-contract your services to suppliers on existing Government Procurement Service framework agreements. If you are interested in potential sub-contracting opportunities, please contact the relevant supplier directly. As far as I am aware, this would meant that once the procurement process of creating the framework is completed a supplier cannot join it directly but could operate as a sub-contractor instead. It is also important to remember that when a company is purchased by a larger company the framework provider (in this case DfE and GPS) will check to ensure that the original conditions are still met (financial security, suitability to deliver, suitability of product, etc) and may remove the company from the framework if these are not met to the required standards (ie those established in the original SoR). 1
GREED Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 As long as that other provider is part of another framework from the GPS... that is how that reads. So if a company not on ANY framework buys a company that is on this framework, they cannot assume they can buy the contract as well...
jayemm Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere, but does this not now mean that Capita cannot and does not charge for re licensing where a school converts to an academy?
GREED Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Suppliers cannot discuss the contents of what was asked as part of the response. However, @PhilNeal should be able to answer this away from the subject of the framework.
jayemm Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 I was relating specifically to the document on the DfE website entitled academies and Relicence costs
penfold_99 Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 On the query about whether additional suppliers can join a framework there is the following advice to suppliers from BuyingSolutions at Buying Solutions - about us - supplier zone - procurement plans and current framework agreements. As far as I am aware, this would meant that once the procurement process of creating the framework is completed a supplier cannot join it directly but could operate as a sub-contractor instead. It is also important to remember that when a company is purchased by a larger company the framework provider (in this case DfE and GPS) will check to ensure that the original conditions are still met (financial security, suitability to deliver, suitability of product, etc) and may remove the company from the framework if these are not met to the required standards (ie those established in the original SoR). If I am reading this right if you are not currently on the framework you have no chance of being added to the list?? If this is correct it sound very protectionist and anti competitive. Any new entrant in the MIS market would not be able to join the framework and so be at a disadvantage.
GREED Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 That is correct. This is because the framework was a pre-selection process of sorts to ensure suppliers are deemed 'good companies', stable and reliable, among other things, so that the same lengthy and potentially costly processes don't need to be done by each school. New suppliers would need to go through the same hoops to do this, and the GPS won't be running this on demand any time soon! I believe the framework lasts only a few years, so the next session (where we might have to go through all of this again!!!) will be the next opportunity.
GREED Posted April 12, 2012 Posted April 12, 2012 I was relating specifically to the document on the DfE website entitled academies and Relicence costs Schools are not forced to choose from the list, the list and the process is a pre-screening thing (of sorts) only to eliminate some procurement requirements, as well as demonstrate that all suppliers adhere to the rules the framework introduces. As I understand it, if one wishes to procure from the list, there is a procedure to follow, which then a supplier must abide by the rules. If one wishes not to choose via the framework, then said supplier does not have to abide by the framework 'rules'.... at least that is how the framework pages reads... so... that doesn't answer your question at all!
vikpaw Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 Here's something interesting information that you can find on Google https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/which_software_schools_use_to_re 1
matt40k Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 [TABLE=width: 128] [TR] [TD=class: xl67, width: 64]MIS[/TD] [TD=class: xl65, width: 64]Count[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68]CCS-SIMS[/TD] [TD=class: xl66]18050[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68]RM SMS G2[/TD] [TD=class: xl66]1618[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68]Serco[/TD] [TD=class: xl66]1292[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68]Pearson e1[/TD] [TD=class: xl66]307[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68]WautonSamuel[/TD] [TD=class: xl66]188[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68]ScholarPack[/TD] [TD=class: xl66]38[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68]Bromcom[/TD] [TD=class: xl66]22[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68]xmlTemplate[/TD] [TD=class: xl66]12[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68]Aspen[/TD] [TD=class: xl66]5[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68]DatabridgeMiS Census[/TD] [TD=class: xl66]3[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68]9070[/TD] [TD=class: xl66]2[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68]9200[/TD] [TD=class: xl66]1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68]1[/TD] [TD=class: xl66]1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68]1234[/TD] [TD=class: xl66]1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68]AltovaXML[/TD] [TD=class: xl66]1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68]9080[/TD] [TD=class: xl66]1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68]9120[/TD] [TD=class: xl66]1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68]886[/TD] [TD=class: xl66]1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68][/TD] [TD=class: xl66]1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68]Arbor[/TD] [TD=class: xl66]1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68]7250[/TD] [TD=class: xl66]1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68]CCS-ONE[/TD] [TD=class: xl66]1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=class: xl68]REMS[/TD] [TD=class: xl66]1[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]
scholarpack Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 How old is this? We have over 150 schools now!
matt40k Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 84% of Schools in England use Capita SIMS* 9/10 of the largest schools in England use Capita SIMS In the top 10 of MIS by the number of schools, Capita SIMS has over 5 times the number of schools using their MIS then the other 9 MIS providers 4/5 of the smallest schools in England use Capita SIMS** * I've rounded up ** I've included the NULL I feel a bit dirty now, sound like Capita marketing rep just without the money
matt40k Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 How old is this? We have over 150 schools now! Autumn 12 - only England as well.
PhilNeal Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Last time I try to help your members Vik
scholarpack Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Autumn 12 Positively ancient!! So many academy's are running mini tenders for different systems now.
vikpaw Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Last time I try to help your members Vik After all of that positive marketing 'at no extra charge'
vikpaw Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Positively ancient!! So many academy's are running mini tenders for different systems now. If there's some more up to date public domain info i'd be glad to see it. edit: those 300 ish E1 will all be up for change soon ...
PhilNeal Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 So have you spotted that the #3 supplier is no longer on the IMLS framework? The framework didn't allow for novation in change of ownership.
matt40k Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 @scholarpack still really good, look at the company vs customers compared to others. @GREED I couldn't really do much analysis with 5. Maybe next year when your in double digits @vikpaw yer do still feel a bit dirty re-reading - still looked better then the depressing SQL store procedure I was unpicking.
GREED Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 @GREED I couldn't really do much analysis with 5. Maybe next year when your in double digits I'll do better and let you know when we in triple digits... long past double
scholarpack Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 @scholarpack still really good, look at the company vs customers compared to others. I'm not sure what you mean Matt. Anyhow, this kind of data is supplied (on request to suppliers) once a year by the DfE in January but someone usually posts a FOI and that's how it gets in the public domain. Will be even more interesting now the Pearson schools are being forced to move. As a (relatively) new supplier we obviously keep a close eye on the market movements. 1
matt40k Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 @scholarpack You've got more schools then Bromcom who's been around longer. You're market growth for a "young" company is really good. I think what the data shows is that it's key to get in at the LA level - you need to get that LA platform in first. 1
GREED Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 @scholarpack You've got more schools then Bromcom who's been around longer. You're market growth for a "young" company is really good. I think what the data shows is that it's key to get in at the LA level - you need to get that LA platform in first. Totally agree Matt... even if it does make me chuckle
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now