Search the Community

Our PFI partner is under the impression that they will need to rip all the cat 5e cabling out of their 8 year old building and replace it with cat6 in time for the BSF hand over in 2012. The person stating this couldn't tell me what the difference would be but I don't think it was him that made the decision either. As this will no doubt cost the school is there an arguement to support this? We have fibre between the cabinets and most desktop machines are still only 100Mb/s. I accept that data use will go up but I don't anticipate it going up that much that 1Gb/s to the desktop will be an issue and IIRC cat6 only supports speeds greater than this over short runs. Even at the end of the first BSF contract (approx 8 years from now (IIRC its a 5 year contract and we get handed over in 3 years)) I don't think 1Gb/s to the desktop will be limiting based on our progress over the last 8 years and everyone's predictions that everything is going wireless to personal learning devices. Please let me know your comments. Polite ones, so that I can use them to support my argument that this replacement is not necessary. Thanks

A post I saw today: News - Education Executive - Bursars, school managers and senior administrators

Luton have chosen Civica as there ICT supplier for BSF Luton selects QED Wates and Civica consortium as preferred...

Northgate has recently been appointed preffered bidder for the first parts of the Kent BSF contracts and our school will be one of the first to change over. I'm interested to know what system they have put in place in the past in schools with regard to servers, desktops, student and staff laptops etc.... It appears from my Googling that in the past they have largely sub-contracted to RM but they were bidding against RM for the Kent contract so there seems to be a conflict there. I'm also obviously interested in what they do about existing staff and what areas of ICT support they leave to the school to sort out themselves. I would be interested in any on or off the record comments and can be emailed directly via [email protected] if you would your comments not to be on a public forum.

I have been watching this forum with interest since BSF first appeared on the agenda in my LA last year. Having been a Technician and Network Manager, I think I have helped significantly to shape the current excellent ICT infrastructure and associated services and facilities which are currently enjoyed within my School today. More importantly though I feel that I (and my team) have proactively encouraged the innovative attitude of our most ambitious ICT literate staff via a ‘can do’ attitude. Very rarely have we come across a new technology that we had to say “sorry, it wont work”. Having read a lot of the threads on this forum it seems I am not alone. It seems there are lots of people employed by schools, often under paid and under valued, but fully committed and dedicated to the education of the young people who attend their School. What appears to be lacking so far though, is a concerted effort to question the validity and quality of the BSF process and more specifically, the “managed services” scenario. Having spent sometime Googling the BSF programme it seems very few people involved within the process have dared to question it (except in these forums of course). It seems equally difficult to find any information about BSF, with the exception of the propaganda spouted by the Council’s and Government. Maybe it is time this changed? Maybe it is time an alternative viewpoint was offered to all involved, parents, teachers, headteachers, politicians and the general public at large? Maybe it’s time the public realised how much money is being spent on “expert” ICT consultants for example? Maybe it’s time the public realised that most of the BSF schemes are essentially PFI projects and thus will be costing the tax payer a fortune for years to come? Maybe it’s time the public realised the huge education experiment that is occurring in the UK at the moment which will potentially adversely affect a whole generation of children? Make no mistake, BSF is a political process. This is true at national level within the government and local level within Council’s. This fact alone means it is essentially a changeable process. BSF is not set in stone. Managed services are not mandatory. What is needed is a, counter-BSF voice and we are the people to provide it.

This is obviously not for everyone but I know there are some experienced project managers in our midst, an ideal chance to get a long contract in BSF implementation and managed service delivery.... I can't go into details as to who it is but I welcome cv's to [email protected] Paid on a daily basis and depending on experience around £300-340 per day Implementation Project Manager –initial 6th month contract Implementation Project Manager required for an IT company involved in the BSF programme. Responsible for a small number of high profile projects you will be working with Education Stakeholders to capture requirements, manage implementation activities including deploying hardware and software including VLE and MIS, managing technical staff, co-ordinating with school clients, procurement, liaising with other third party suppliers to the schools, quality management and reporting. You will have a hands on PM background, flexibility as the projects demand, Prince 2 certification, an in-depth knowledge of either Education or the wider PFI market, excellent understanding of ICT again ideally within the education sector. CV to apply Education Support Professionals

Word on the street is that Balfour Beatty & Northgate have won this one.

Throughout the BSF threads there are many references to the apparent lack of alternative business case proposals in the face of BSF managed services. The more fair-minded/knowledgeable posts recognise that this is mainly due to leverage, not to say blackmail, from the LA/LEP/P4S to force compliance with the programme. The most routine pressure is to claim that opt-out jeopardises the entire BSF programme. Another common mechanic is simply to compress the time available to develop an alternative proposal, which in any case is a truly Herculean task for any school, as they generally don't have many years of experience building comprehensive business cases, (unlike the pre-qualified bidders who not only do it for a living, but have a connected history of bids to draw on.) So when a school does make a bid what happens? Villiers School in Ealing did exactly that and it was summarily rejected without substantial reasons. You can judge for yourselves the quality of the bid because the outraged school has posted it at http://www.villiers.ealing.sch.uk/apbc At the very least it disproves the idea that no one is bothered or capable of mounting a serious counter-proposal. Sadly it also demonstrates the treatment P4S metes out to those who do not believe in the nirvana of long-term managed services monopolies financed by the usury that is PFI.

came across this article today - Outsourcing ICT as part of Building Schools for the Future (BSF) | Education | The Guardian Interesting section on Jim Knight's reaction to being asked id PFS has powers to prevent a school opting out of managed services, "This has caused such concern in schools across the country that questions have been asked in parliament. Ken Purchase, Labour MP for Wolverhampton, raised it with the minister for schools, Jim Knight, whose response was unambiguous: "Partnerships for Schools does not have powers to prevent a school opting out of proposals for authority-wide ICT programmes. Where a school wishes to opt out of the managed service, it must submit an alternative business procurement case. This must demonstrate that the school's alternative provision will be at least of an equivalent standard to the managed service proposed by the local authority, that it is able to link up to the area-wide solution, and that it passes a value-for-money test to ensure taxpayers' money is being well spent." I'm sure GD has mentioned this before somewhere but I can't locate it.

I see that Vosper Thorneycroft brought their nuclear submarine fabrication expertise to bear in providing IT for 'wave 0' authorities Greenwich and Lewisham, but appear to have done nothing since under the BSF programme. Does anyone have any experience of or insight into how VT run school IT in these boroughs? Does anyone know why they appear not to have won other contracts - did they not bid, did they bid and lose etc. Any information about life under VT would be helpful. Thanks

How do RM and the like actually go about delivering managed services under the BSF contracts. Is it a case of having in-house technicians, backed up by a team of mobile technicians, and a call centre/3rd line support somewhere? Or is it a lot more simple than that? Quite curious about how they actually go about doing this, since the way these companies are delivering on these contracts clearly isn't working out. Thanks

Hi All, Just a question to see how many schools are actually sticking with the managed service provided from the BSF service provider once your initial (5 years?) contract is up? Are you happy with the service? Are you renewing? Are you looking elsewhere? Be very interested in hearing peoples thoughts / stories...

Can this be right? I though that BSF was struggling. With so many schools listed above surely some are 'Edugeek establishments?' What is your perspective? Link: DCSF News : Department for Children, Schools and Families

Schools face axe in spending cuts. Whoopee! It carries on to say that it will 'anger' parents who have been promised new or refurbished schools. In the town where I work, this is not necessarily so - many parents are considering trying to to send their primary school children to the local catholic secondary which is immune to BSF; simply so their child's education isn't disrupted half-way through their school life. A major concern is because we are 4th top in the county for results, whereas our planned merger is with a school that is, well... 'not' 4th in the county.

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!

Hi All, I'm a senior ICT techie at a fairly large secondary school that have just started the process of planning BSF. I have been asked to be a member of the "Transformational Team" - a small group of people responsible for drawing up the core values the BSF. (the first phase of the process) I was considering starting up a blog to detail for you guys what I am going through and even uploading copies of the guidance notes etc so you can see exactly what I'm are given to work with (with particular interest given to the whole managed service situation of course) The simple question is.....are you interested?

If anyone is interested, here are the guidance notes for producing an Alternative Procurement Business Case (attached). Shame it took a FoI request and 22 days' wait to get them, but that's typical of this scheme I suppose. So there you have it. If your school is looking to make a start you should at least have a little more than the ridiculous 42 day deadline to put something together. Obviously I have seen the likes of Villiers in Ealing and Notre Dame in Sheffield getting turned down despite having excellent ICT in place and a very clear vision so I am not particularly hopeful, but I hope it at least levels the playing field a smidgen. APBC Template.doc APBC - School Guidance.doc APBC - Appendix 2 - ICT Output Specification.doc

I heard that LBHF have contracted with a supplier under BSF to deliver all school IT services using thin client tech and schools have agreed to pay (presumably index linked) £300 per head per year for the privelege. Does anyone know anything about this?

Becta signs Consultancy Services Framework deal with 17 suppliers to education :: PublicTechnology.net :: e-Government & public sector IT news + job vacancies: Anyone used /h ad dealings with any of these companies? Hows about speaking to the staff instead of spending millions on consultants