On Friday 12 October 2001 20:04, Ian Lynch wrote:
On Friday 12 October 2001 11:23, you wrote:
my understanding is that because this was not a new contract - it was basically the re-wording and consiladation of many existing contracts - it didn't have to go to tender.
Kate Hanaghan Silicon Media Group +44 207 761 8219
Try this link for a more detailed view.
http://tap.ccta.gov.uk/doh/intpress.nsf/page/2001-0473?OpenDocument
When is an old contract not a new contract? So if I go to any of my clients that I have supplied previously they don't need to tender because I just keep the contract open? I don't think that would stand up with the National Audit Office in supply of schools. We tender for every round of funding no matter whether or not the school uses our kit. When was the contract initiated and at what time was it ever tested for value for money? I would quite like to test that one in court.
Just had another thought on that one. Since MS have completely revised the way they sell their software to a subscription basis, this must be a new contract because the basis of the supply is completely different from that of the original ones The previous contracts would also have been a mixture of different sets of terms and conditions with a variety of organisations eg NHS Trusts, GP fund holders etc. Some of these might even have completely changed their legal status since they last bought their software. A single contract with the NHS as a whole must be seen as a new contract especially when there are some new products involved. The NHS also claim that this saves £50m. On what basis did they arrive at that figure? If they are assuming that every user would upgrade everything in the next 3 years (the MS method) it is highly dubious. What reason would there be to upgrade Office 97 in a small doctors surgery? Have they the capacity to upgrade all their hardware? Does the NHS upgrade all its other technologies every 3 years whether it needs to or not? Does it let the supplier of kidney machines force them to upgrade to the latest technology every 3 years? In terms of patient care I would have thought that would be a far more reasonable priority. Let's not let the NHS Senior Management get away with incompetent negotiations and then portraying them as some wonderful money saving deal. This needs testing in court but unfortunately I personally haven't the finance. -- IanL