NotAGeek

I'm sorry for the confusion I caused in my post about the £25k threshold and I hope to provide clarity in this response. The regs can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-sector-procurement-policy#public-contracts-regulations-2015 - where two thirds of the way down there is a section with the title 'Contracts Finder' where it says central govt bodies need to advertise all contracts over £10k, and wider public bodies need to advertise everything over £25k. In my LA, we include schools in wider public bodies and school GB's often adopt our model for procurement rules. However, I have just come across this PPN - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/667054/17_v1.0.docx__1___1_.pdf - where paragraph 11 says that schools are exempt from the legislation which is new news to us! So then we are left with the buying for schools guidance for schools and what other posters have written on here, which is a competitive process via getting quotes from alternative suppliers up to an amount (as opposed to advertising) and advertising once the contract is over a suggested value - suggested level being £40k. So a procurement exercise is still needed to be compliant with public procurement and schools procurement regs, there is just no legal requirement to advertise all opportunities over £25k. Again, apologies for any confusion to all!

Hello Associated products/services you need from the supplier, such as training, should be added to the specification when tendering and the cost should be considered. The point is that, just knowing how to use one product is not a reason to continuing with that product and we have a responsibility to check for more optimum products, even if it may mean needing to re-train. If you're assuming that costs associated with training for a new product will always mean new suppliers will not be able to compete, this is not true. I recently led a tender for a EMIS system, the 20+ year incumbent was also one of the bidding suppliers, and we chose an alternative new supplier as even with the training costs, there was a better supplier offering better value.

Hello there, Tendering goes beyond simply OJEU tenders. Your own school's buying rules and public sector contract regulations will mean you will need to tender on much lower thresholds than the OJEU threshold. For example, any contract over £25k (total value) must be advertised on Contracts Finder. I'm sure(!) your own schools rules approved by the GB will say that even lower value contracts should be subject to a competitive process.

Hello and thank you for your comments, Sorry for not being clear but my point on freebies was more about non-business freebies. For example, say you were a very intelligent person and supported the might Arsenal FC - and the supplier contact, who knew that you were an Arsenal fan, one day says they have a spare ticket to the next Arsenal match and they're happy to give it to you; no matter how tempting, you shouldn't accept! When it comes to business products where there is a clear benefit to your school/LA, and there is absolutely no future commitment to the supplier, then in many instances this is ok. Even if the suppliers are speculating about potential future business, as long as it isn't a personal benefit to you, it's normally ok. If you have a particular concern, do seek advice from a procurement/governance professional. Or post specifics here and I will do my best to help. Regarding incentives and public comments, again this could be ok in many circumstances. Provided your comments are genuine and the incentives are proportionate and non-personal again. The vast majority of the maintained mainstream schools in my LA use Capita's MIS and finance product. Along with a neighbouring LA, we were due to procure cloud services in the spring term but that is now delayed.

Hello and thank you for your comments. The DFE confirmed that this is how the regulations should be interpreted so yes, as far as governance is concerned, it is something that schools 'must' do as opposed to 'should' do. There is guidance on what constitutes a 'material change'. There could be some scenarios where applying/interpreting the guidance can be tricky in certain scenarios. But this is not the case when it comes to on-premise vs cloud software which has been the subject of specific clarification. The same rules apply to academies, MAT's, and LA-maintained schools. Independent/private schools will have greater freedoms. In the situation of your particular school and SIMS support, this is an interesting scenario. Because the LA is a public sector organisation, and the academy is a public sector organisation, there is greater flexibility with public-to-public relationships, so I would say your school is probably not breaking any rules. If you were purchasing SIMS support from a non-public organisation, then at the end of the contract for your support you would have to apply your own schools' buying rules as per your financial regulations. I understand what you mean about familiarity, but I'm afraid that is never a valid reason to favour a particular supplier. It's not in the public interest for public sector organisation to purchase goods/services on the basis that they are familiar with them. Public sector workers should be willing to learn how to use new goods/services that could provide better value - this is especially true when we're talking about technology!

Hello and thank you for your comments. Being new to Edugeek, that's how I thought it worked, with users remaining anonymous. I have worked for an inner London LA for over 15 years but you don't need my contact info and credentials to corroborate what I say. On point 1, all schools should have received a note from the DFE around Christmas 2018 saying that. If you don't recall receiving it, any experienced public sector procurement professional should be able to confirm. Especially one who is experienced in IT procurement. On point 2, you can search the Contract Tiering Tool from the Knowledge Hub and apply the tool yourself. The Cabinet Office will confirm that the guidance is relevant for schools. On point 3, you can search economic and financial standing of suppliers from the Cabinet Office and apply the guidance yourself. The Cabinet Office will confirm that the guidance is relevant for schools. On points 4, 5 and 6 - any experienced public sector procurement professional could confirm. If you don't have access to one, your LA might have someone who could help. If that doesn't work, there are private organisations you could buy in. If you get completely stuck, write back to me and I can point you to a few professionals who might be able to help

I have considerable experience leading the procurement function of a local authority - with a focus on education. Just wanted to add some points of clarification following some recent threads I saw: It is true what some authors have said about moving from server-based software to cloud-based software not being a simple 'upgrade' or contract variation. This becomes a material change to the product purchased by the school(s) and should be the subject of a new procurement. This could be via a framework as opposed to you undertaking an exercise yourselves When thinking about your procurement strategy for MIS, you mustn't define MIS as a bronze (simple, low value, low risk) contract. You can search for the 'Contract Tiering Tool' from the Knowledge Hub for help with defining gold, silver, bronze contracts. This will have a knock-on effect on how you undertake the financial assessment of bidders and suppliers. And it should mean that you will not rely purely on delphi scores from credit referencing agencies and you should undertake a full assessment. You can also search the Cabinet Office's assessing the economic and financial standing of suppliers for a guide on how to do the financial assessment. If you do not have the in-house expertise to do this, you can buy-in support. You assign a weighting to price. This normally depends on your assessment of how 'standardised' the good is - the more standardised the good (say taxi services, or waste collection) the heavier weighting you would assign to price. The less standardised (say alternative provision for pupils at risk of exclusion) the heavier weighting you would apply to quality. You can find advice online about how to decide price/quality ratios on government websites and from legal firms experienced in public services. If you see 2-3 recent tenders for MIS's and they have applied consistent price/quality ratios, it's probably safe to assume it has been well thought through Some frameworks will have undertaken the financial assessment of suppliers, but some will not have, so you need to check the particulars of the framework you're considering. An obvious point - but you need to be very transparent and very fair. Don't put yourself in a position where you could subconsciously favour a particular supplier. Or a position where you leave yourself open to challenge from unsuccessful suppliers. For example, if you are part of a group of schools, and a prospective bidder is already delivering in some of your schools so they have access to staff, make sure they do not receive any more information about the upcoming tender than other prospective bidders. Try not to accept any freebies from suppliers and don't allow relationships with contract managers to become more than just professional (barbecues, lunches, holidays - it happens more than you would think!) I'm happy to try to clarify any further procurement queries.

Hello, Has anyone gone ahead with plans to launch a new MIS and/or Finance system during the C19 disruption? We were planning to complete our procurement but we are now concerned if the training/change management is too much of a risk during this time? Would be good to understand any experiences (positive and negative) if anyone has tried? Many thanks