On Saturday 13 October 2001 13:27, Mark Evans wrote:
On Friday 12 October 2001 20:04, Ian Lynch wrote:
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
There is a way of doing things known as "quoting for a Rolls Royce" which is you choose who you want to win the contract then make sure that every other possible quote is higher.
I think I can quote someone from the DfES here. "The tax-payer should not be required to pay for a Rolls Royce when a Cavlier will do." Can't remember who off hand but that is definitely what was said. Skewing tenders in favour of one supplier is illegal. Proving it might be difficult but nevetheless that is the job of the National Audit Office. In fact, whether we believe something to be good value or not is irrelevant. The procedures require evidence that tendering procedures have been followed and that there is documentary evidence to support judgements about good value with comparative data. An independent consultant's report will help - I have acted as such on numerous occasions - but in this case I think the main point at issue is whether or not the required procedures have been followed. I rather suspect not and that is the line of attack. Might not work this time but the more often the position is challenged the more likely something will stick and the less likely officials will retire into complacency. -- IanL