[sims] FAO Phil Neal

[jayemm]

Phil, could you please explain for the benefit of all SIMS schools how they renew specifying the new IMLS framework terms and conditions and if there are costs associated with this.

[PhilNeal]

Jayemm, I’m not sure that I can answer this question.

 

The Becta report put huge pressure on LAs as it pointed out that they were breaking EU procurement law in not testing the market every so often.

 

The problem that LAs face is that tendering can be incredibly costly anything from £100K to £250K. The IMLS framework is designed to help reduce the cost of tendering by creating a framework that they can use to fulfil their legal obligations.

 

Individual schools can use the framework but there is no legal obligation to do so as the total five year contract price falls well below the limits imposed by the EU. I’m not sure what advantage there would be in a school using this framework.

[jayemm]

Hi Phil

 

firstly thank you for replying, although you have not answered my question, I will address the points you have raised.

 

The pressure is not just on an LA but a school too from the LA and their Financial Regulations. At our school and LA for example we are expected to tender for any goods or services where the expected costs over the lifetime not just in one year are over £30,000. For the case of SIMS this would be true when looking at a 5 year life time. To be fair it also makes sound financial sense to check that you are still getting a good deal? I am sure Capita do the same.

 

The framework, DfE site and the GPS site all refer to schools using this agreement and not LAs too.

 

Interestingly with more than 50% of secondary schools being academies and 85% of those (capita employee provided percentage) using SIMS I can see why Capita want the schools to relicence.

 

Is there an answer to the original question? How does a school renew with capita stating framework terms and conditions?

[localzuk]

Just to cover one of the points that Phil has brought up - why would a school use the IMLS framework? The information I've seen would indicate that it also offers a 'safety net' in that it prevents the possibility of another license charge in the future, should the school change status again to something else. The GPS and DFE have made this point pretty clear on their site and in communications to me.

[CyberNerd]

Just to cover one of the points that Phil has brought up - why would a school use the IMLS framework?

 

I think the deal is that if you decide to purchase SIMS through the framework, you don't have to re-purchase it if the school changes to academy status.

[localzuk]

I think the deal is that if you decide to purchase SIMS through the framework, you don't have to re-purchase it if the school changes to academy status.

 

Indeed - but also in the future, you're protected in that you won't need to purchase it again for other such status changes.

[PhilNeal]

If a school purchases its own licence it is transferable should the status of the school change to an academy anyway; there is no need to move to the DfE framework to achieve this. Edited April 21, 2012 by PhilNeal

[featured_spectre]

In that case, why have so many schools that do own their own licence been stung for £10k+ to transfer the licence. And I am not talking about schools the go through the LEA either. I know of 4 that had their own NON-LEA licence and got stung a hefty fee for transferring over the licence.

[CyberNerd]

If a school purchases its own licence it is transferable should the status of the school change to an academy anyway; there is no need to move to the DfE framework to achieve this.

 

what happens if the school or LA already has SIMS licenses and periodically reviews its contracts using the IMLS tendering framework? Does the license need to be re-purchased for it to be transferable?

[PhilNeal]

Nephilim, the situation in Bedfordshire is uniquie as schools have only had to pay for support for 20+ years. No payments have been made for core, curriculum or resources licences or annual maintenance during that period. This came about because I was employed by the LEA when I started programming SIMS as a hobby.

 

CyberNerd you are asking a commercially sensitive question and pre-tender I cannot reveal our hand.

[localzuk]

If a school purchases its own licence it is transferable should the status of the school change to an academy anyway; there is no need to move to the DfE framework to achieve this.

 

Not to be a stickler about it, but the fact that schools feel that they have basically been burned this time around would make any school want to ensure some protection exists in the form of a government sanctioned and managed contract for the future. Its not that we don't trust you but, well, actually...

[matt40k]

Not sure why this is direct at Capita personally. Schools\LAs choose Capita SIMS at the time because it was the best deal. If people think there was some back handed deal, they haven't worked for an LA!

 

The reason why the non-transfer license bit was most likely put in was to protect the LA's, by an LA, after all, as an LA, would you like it if you spend hundreds of thousands of pounds only for your neighbouring LA to pick up your schools? Unfortantely, the market has changed and now Academies are the way forward (at least for now), no offence, but if you had the chance to make money, wouldn't you? It sucks, but hey that's life. You can't have a contract that protects you first get it then changes to suit you later on.

 

It's like Nova, I bet people picked up a license before Capita took it over to save a few pennies. I know we did with Dinner Money, just before they released DM7 at an increased cost.

 

I suspect with the IMLS framework alot if not all LAs will be reviewing their recommend MIS - at least now you don't have to worry about a suppiler moaning that they weren't invited

[localzuk]

It doesn't really matter who is to blame - schools still are feeling burned by the process, as is the DfE, hence the parts of the framework where they talk specifically about the academy changeover aspects.

 

If the LAs were the ones who chose non-transfer clauses, then shame on them - their job is to use tax payer's money wisely, whether that means their nearby LAs can 'pick up' schools or not.

[matt40k]

If the LAs were the ones who chose non-transfer clauses, then shame on them - their job is to use tax payer's money wisely, whether that means their nearby LAs can 'pick up' schools or not.

 

We're talking about contracts signed over 15+ years ago... If any LA's signed a contract lately with the non-transfer clause, then I agree (Thinking about Norfolk maybe?). But I don't think anyone had a crystal ball back then which would predict the Academy scenario, if they did, can you PM me the win lottery numbers please for next week? In hind sight, yes, it's a bad choice. Still not sure why the DfE didn't force Capita to allow it, after all, the LA wouldn't mind, they transfer land\buildings that are worth millions.

[featured_spectre]

Nephilim, the situation in Bedfordshire is uniquie as schools have only had to pay for support for 20+ years. No payments have been made for core, curriculum or resources licences or annual maintenance during that period. This came about because I was employed by the LEA when I started programming SIMS as a hobby.

 

That explains that then! lol