asynchro

I hope I can clarify a couple points. There are two types of lease, capital leasing (where you own the kit at the end) is not allowed in most authority areas due to accounting rules, so we can concentrate on revenue leasing (where you don't own the equipment at the end). As part of the BSF bid process, schools have to declare all and any contracts that extend beyond the data of the BSF start, including any outstanding ICT support contracts and lease agreements. If these extend into the BSF service their cost will be accounted for by the bidder, and passed to the Local Authority, who in turn will pass the cost back to the school, or the school will pay a one-off to buy out the lease. If entered into after the BSF start date is known this would have to be declared prior to going ahead, and would be actively discouraged by most LA's, or passed to the school. Of course the school could hang on to the kit and continue to pay for it and use it as legacy if agreed with the new BSF provider, but they wouldn't maintain it without charge. In most cases its best to save the money and buy additional kit at the start of the BSF service. The other query relating to ownership of schools. There are two types of build, a PFI, where you give over the building to the PFI contractor who keeps it all in good order for around 25 years, all inclusive. These are where 70% or more of the buildings are replaced. If less than 70% (i.e. where more than 30% of the buildings are retained and refurbished) are called Design and Build (D&B). These are handed straight back to the school governors, although the ICT managed service is a requirement, and the Facilities Management is often included as well.

The question that should be asked is why BSF insists on a managed service yet Academy's aren't required to have one. Academy's have the choice of how they run their ICT, and each one can be procured seperately as a standalone solution, they can employ their own technicians but they still get the money for the kit! Two-tier system if you ask me! Since Partnerships for Schools run both BSF and Academy's programmes, why is there this disparity? What's good for the goose ... (thought I'd add a Christmas reference!).

It could happen! DIY guide to winning an ICT Contract in BSF, Primary Capital Programme or Academy's. There are two ways school technical staff can influence their futures. 1. Write and publish a 'dream' ICT Output Specification that describes the service you think BSF should be using the standard documents downloaded from Partnerships for Schools website. Persuade your local schools and Local Authority to adopt it. 2. Bid for BSF contracts yourselves: 2.1 Organise yourselves and form a limited company for around £65. Probably a good idea to get some investment on board, perhaps from the schools who want your services or suppliers that want to sell their services. 2.2 Find out which wave each LA is in, and target some that haven't yet procured. 2.3 Persuade LA's to seperate the ICT Contract as a seperate Lot in their procurement. If necessary get schools interested and apply pressure to LA. 2.4 In the meantime work up a good bid proposition based on your target LA's published Strategic Business Case and Strategy for Change, or ask for a copy under Freedom of Information. 2.5 Look for OJEU procurement notices for Academy ICT, BSF and 'express an interest' for each one you want to target. You will then be invited to submit a Pre Qualification Questionaire. Can be found and subscribed to at HERE) 2.6 Assuming you have the required financial bona fides and some good references (no problem for Edugeek members as its your stock in trade) you may receive an Invitation to Proceed to Dialogue (ITPD). Submit your bid and it will go through an evaluation by the LA and schools. Successful bidders will then receive an 'Invitation to Continue Dialogue' (ITCD). Modify and improve your bid which will be re-evaluated, and you may be lucky enough to receive an 'Invitation to Submit Final Bid' (ITSFB). This is it! If you are lucky you then get appointed as a Prefered Bidder (PB), and provided you can close the deal, you have the ICT Contract. Whole process around 2-3 years! Note: Academies are usually tendered on a case by case basis so are a good first target in your area. There doesn't appear to be any money being provided for primary school ICT in the Primary capital programme. All ICT procurement must go through TED, so its worth getting using the RSS feed. Just a thought!

More of the same solutions ... Mmm, no bidder gets away with 'more of the same'. I'm not sure why centralised server farms, virtualisation etc. restricts the user experience. It does make it more reliable and consistent, and in the end the aim is to provide teachers and learners with high reliability, high availability and consistency, something lacking in a lot of schools. The emphasis is shifting rapidly to the browser for delivery of applications, content and integration. Think Google ... centralised server farms and online applications. 'The network is the computer' as SUN would say. Once the infrastructure can take high frame rates, we'll all be using thin client with virtualised desktops, just like a TV, it will all be in the content and the screen presentation. Its already a fact that the windows client doesn't cope well with multiple users on the same machine (profiles!). Shift this and all the network 'chatter' to the virtualised datacentre, and it all starts to slot into place. Check out Sun global desktop ... we're almost there.

No BSF ICT partner wins a lottery of instant cash when they win a BSF ICT Contract. They only get paid when a school is handed over, and profits are made over a (long) period of the ICT contract, from 5 years to 25 years. They'll be shelling out for some time before they start making money. The cost of bidding for BSF is colossal and there is an expectation that the ICT partner offers to be a shareholder in the LEP (Local Education Partnership) and so shares the risk with the Authority. Its therefore a long term commitment rather than a short term profit. No ICT partner wins them all and competition for BSF contracts is intense, so profit margins are low and expectations high. They are held to a contracted payment mechanism that means they pay penalties of they don't fix in a stated time. When an ICT partner bids they have to declare all profits and usually go low to win, and they have to have open-books with the Authority. They also have to calculate year on year reductions in their costs or profits (continuous improvment in technical parlance). Few (... and I would guess no!) ICT Contractor's in BSF have reached break-even. My guess is that RM have solid cash reserves because they deal with schools who unlike commercial customers pay on time and don't default. This probably gives them the cash they need to take the long view. As far as I can see, RM are the only large supplier that stands to lose out to BSF. Each time someone else wins, a large number of schools don't buy from RM for a long time. Most other ICT players in BSF can only gain market share and not lose it. RM knocking is easy, but lots of schools have used them for a long time so they can't be as bad as all that, and if they're winning contracts in a highly competitive market, its probably because they are putting together winning deals.

Hi Broc If a school decides to appoint a NM on a high salary that wasn't in place at the signing of the contract, they would be liable to pay the managed ICT service provider the difference between the amount disclosed under the 'due diligence'. This is the pre-signing phase when everyone sets out the assumptions of the contract. This is captured in the ICT contract 'cost model' (a complex spreadsheet states all cost assumptions of all parties that underpins the contract and becomes part of it). In practice this means that on signing of the ICT contract the wages bill is assumed to be as captured in the cost model, and this applies for the duration of the contract (could be 5 years, 10 years etc.), along with the on-costs, e.g. pension arrangements. Incidentally, the TUPE right continues at the other end of the contract, so if a different provider wins the contract renewal, or the school takes over its own service again, the employee has the rights to transfer with it; its not a once only deal. In practice though, most employees will apply for other jobs in the ICT service, and as soon as they do they relinquish TUPE rights. Things such as annual inflation are indexed as assumptions for the purposes of the cost model, and the risk for these is calculated and factored in. For instance, the rate of inflation has dropped signifacntly, so the assumptions for pay rises will drop and so the cost of employment will drop. In summary, if a NM leaves after contract signing (very possible) and the school has to offer a higher salary in order to recruit, then the school is liable for the difference unless the contractor has agreed to accept the risk, which they may up to certain limts. Most schools don't go this route for obvious reasons! This doesn't affect the individual; if they are appointed at an 'impressive' pay rate between contract sign and TUPE date, they have the right to continue on those pay and conditions. Thats the law! In practice the Local Authority, school and ICT contractor will either work up a temporary arrangement or a short term contract to avoid this. Typically this is an arrangement with the 'friendly' school next door for using some of their resource to plug the gap, or the ICT contractor recruiting early and passing the charge to the school until the handover date. This is usually the best route for the contractor, as they get a new body in place with the likelihood of a longer term of employment for that individual.

Primary Capital Programme does not mandate ICT as a managed service, and there's no investment in ICT in terms of specific funding, so its down to how creative your LA is! The approach to ICT will vary between Local Authority's, and can be found in a document called 'Primary Capital Programme Strategy for Change' that each submitted as part of the process. There are some good case study's from early work and pathfnders, but all have required investment by the LA. DCSF has the LA's fall in one of three categories: Primary Capital Programme (PCP) Primary Capital Programme: Latest News

Hi Broc, Fortunately UK Employment law is not that grey! TUPE has been around awhile. The date the ICT Contract is signed is frequently ahead of the date of transfer of staff. Other than where schools agree with the new service provider for a single early transfer of staff, the TUPE date for a particular member of staff is their school's 'service commencement date' which is obviously going to be different for each school. Some authorities (Kent for example) consulted their schools and as a result decided on a single early TUPE transfer date for all schools. This ensures tecnicians work for the ICT contractor ahead of their schools completion. In this way technicians change employer at the start of the programme and it removes the uncertainty. They can continue in the same job and on the same terms and conditions, and be part of their school's transition to the new service. It can otherwise be de-motivating for technicians to preside over the running down of the service they created without being part of the building of the new service, so I think the single TUPE approach has merit. Its also probable that technicians might leave before the new service starts due to the uncertainty, and for schools its difficult to recruit for a limited contract period.

The law on TUPE is clear. Once staff transfer they are legally entitled to TUPE. If employed after the TUPE date, they are employed directly by the service provider so new terms and conditions apply.

Hi Kyle The best background to BSF is the 4p's guide found here! 4ps Academies are not part of BSF and are free to enter into their own ICT contracts, but there is a growing expectation within some authorities running BSF programmes that Academies in their area will be offered ICT services under the same contract. This makes sense where the BSF programme has area based services that allow schools to collaborate and communicate with each other through a common infrastructure. Whether the Academy chooses to join the Local Authority fun is another matter. Users (e.g. data managers) are not subject to TUPE, however technical support (and facilities management) will TUPE if the new contract takes on their job role.

If you are from a Kent maintained school in wave 3, your school will have full details of the ICT change management, which was a particular focus of the ICT and partnering contracts. If you are in waves 4 and 6, then your school have been invited to an event next week to go through some of the key points of the ICT contract and should be able to give you more detailed information. Schools in BSF are expected to have a clear educational vision and plan a strategy that takes them through their construction phasing and into the new service. ICT change management is more effective where the school drives the process with clear aims. They are supported by the ICT partner who can offer advice and guidance on achieving the outcomes. The change management includes training and is supported by advisors. Its pretty much aimed at ensuring teachers have a good understanding of the technology they will be using, and how they might adapt their teaching. Each school has their own implementation plan tailored to match the construction phasing. Of course in Kent the technicians in wave 3 now already work for Northgate, and this should help with the transition as they will be part of it and involved in setting up the new networks at their schools.

The ink is dry on the Kent deal from 31st October. The LEP is Land Securities, BSFI (of course) and the ICT Partner on the LEP is Northgate Information Systems.