Norton

I agree that Framework Agreements of this type can be enormously helpful in providing a list of quality assured suppliers for market testing through mini-competition every 3 or 5 years. Suppliers that were awarded contracts on the IMLS framework had to pass a rigorous testing and evaluation process. Frameworks previously let by Becta also involved an extensive testing process to ensure that suppliers could actually deliver what they said they would with active intervention if things went wrong. The recent trend of the Crown Commercial Service has been to reduce the amount of practical testing that it undertakes. Under frameworks like G-Cloud testing and evaluation is now left to the customer at the mini-competition phase. If further CCS framework for schools are forthcoming it will be important to check exactly what has been evaluated at contract award and what has not as many aspects may have been 'self-certified' by the supplier. However, there is plenty of experience of running mini-competitions under such frameworks if you need to access it. Whatever the level of evaluation undertaken there are still real benefits from undertaking a procurement using one of these Framework Agreements. Much of the OJEU process has been undertaken for you and there is minimal chance of challenge if you follow the process for the mini-competition described in the framework guidelines. Additionally all the legal work around the terms and conditions has been paid for and completed. There is scope in the schedules for flexibility to local needs but the main balance of the T&Cs has moved in favour of the customer rather than having to accept the suppliers terms unchallenged.

This proving to be a very interesting debate. The fundamental principle is that all schools and academies (as public bodies) are held to account on an ongoing basis for their effective use of public funds. This does not purely apply to MIS software but everything a school purchases. Testing the market on a regular basis to ensure that funds are being deployed effectively is simply best practice - there is nothing scary about it and it is part of the everyday running of a proficient school or academy chain. In my view whether the purchase price (which includes the full price over the total length of the contract) exceeds the OJEU threshold is irrelevant. It is simply best practice to reassure yourself that you have the best product for your needs at regular intervals. Typically you would not select the cheapest option but in procurement speak the 'most economically advantageous' option. Your evaluation would clearly include the functionality and price but also the cost of transition and essentially any end of contract transition costs. The latter (the exit plan and costs) is often forgotten both during evaluation and in negotiating the the contract with the supplier and results in the lock-in that many schools are experiencing today. The thread of this discussion seems to imply that if you test the market you are in danger of having to change supplier. If your current supplier comes out top in a fair, open and transparent evaluation that is fine. If an alternative supplier emerges then actually that will show the incumbent that they need to up their game. Market testing is proven to drive real benefits in the quality of software and associated services on offer to our schools. My final point is that although the move to Academy status may be a burning platform in licensing terms that initiates this market testing, those Academies that are 3 to 5 years in will now be coming to a point where they need to formally review their provision once again. Audit Committees will need to be on top of this if they are to apply appropriate governance to the school finances. The cycle continues and it is simply life in the public sector if you are accountable for the use of public funds.