On Saturday 13 October 2001 05:47, Mark Evans wrote:
On Friday 12 October 2001 11:23, you wrote:
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.
My exerience, from the other side so to speak, is that whilst auditors are very fussy about *hardware* (and also services) requiring written justification for choosing one supplier over another. When it comes to software little to no justification is required.
I think that is because on an individual school basis the sums of money are smaller and there is confusion because eg Windows comes with the machine and auditors no zilch about technology. (Incidentally the £70m does not count the cost of stuff that is bought with a macine ie the Operating system and in some cases if machines come bundled with say office, they are paying twice. On the NHS website the argument is about compatibility and transfer of information which really is a nonsense in this day and age. You have to ask yourself why it is so vital to upgrade say Word 97 in a hospital admin office in any case. Given the state of the NHS I would have thought that was a pretty low priority) The point is that in the past alternatives like Star Office and Linux were not available and so the mindset is that there isn't an alternative. When we get to sums like £70m there clearly are possibilities - even writing the stuff from scratch! All this needs to be challenged regularly enough to get back into the habit of checking value for money. E-mail the NAO and point out what it says in their own guidance eg don't pay just anything for compatibility. For this to be effective, largish numbers of people need to point out where the rules have clearly been broken and we really need one or two big organisations like Sun to take legal action where their interests are compromised. Eventually the custom and practice of just assuming there is only one solution will be eroded and proper competition will start to come back. Then MS can take their chance with everyone else.
One time when I tried to get a straight answer on if we should even be considering buying something where there was only one supplier or if there were special procedures for such a situation I was met with disinterest.
It depends on how you say it. Start gently and without threat, never become at all heated, but point out their own criteria, and ask them how these have been applied? If they are still disinterested ask for their name and department and say you will check this with their boss and that you suspect that what has been done might be illegal so the local papers will be interested in value for money issues. Run through what you have. "Mr Smith. an official of XXXX accountants when auditing the accounts declared that they would not be investigating the payment of X thousand pounds for a product that was bought without checking value for money despite the fact that the rules clearly stating that all purchases over Y thousand pounts require a tender and that tenders should not tilt the provision in the favour of any particular supplier". Note say nothing about MS. The argument is far more powerful if its a generic case that breaks the rules everyone else has to use.
The issue is really first and foremost about competition and monopolies, not the evils of MS. History shows that any organisation that is given monopoly
But it does mean that you need to go over any contract with them very carefully, since they are known experts at exploiting loopholes to their favour.
So fight fire with fire. Use the NAO office criteria and the school governors rules on tendering or whatever. The Civil Servants only understand paper so that is what you have to hit them with. Technological arguments are doomed to failure before they start.
power ends up abusing it. Whatever the contracts, there is deemed to be a single point of supply in this case. Therefore there is a monopoly and in all other cases monopolies are regulated or specific action is taken to
In which case they need to be very tighly regulated, otherwise chaos results.
We all know that, but the question is how to achieve it? On the one hand burying heads in sand and hoping it will go away won't work but neither will arguments based on technical superiority or emotional attacks on MS as an organisation. In the USA its the application of existing laws that have prevailed. I believe that this will also be the best approach here. Use the press too. "NHS in dodgy £70m deal" makes a better headline than MIcrosoft get cut costs to NHS by £50m which is what the NHS press release says. E-mail any stories you can in the style of the appropriate paper but play down the MS connection and play up apparent fraud, breaking the rules etc by the *purchaser*. The Sun and Daily Mirror both invite E-mail stories and we all know what types of stories they prefer to print.
inject competition. So the Government should either appoint a regulator who then has the power to determine a fair profit margin based on comparisions with other products, development costs etc or put the same funding into say Open Source development to provide viable competition. I know in education, even a fraction of this money would enable full support of the NC with Open
Full support in a sustainable way regardless of what might happen to the curiculum in future. (Let alone that the software would be in *English*, or Welsh, or Cornish or whatever other native UK language you care to choose. Rather than children first having to understand American...)
Again, think of the audience. These issues might be of particular importance to you or some specific groups. Don't get bogged down in the detail. Convey a clear and unambiguous message about competition, costs and the law on monopolies. There is already the test case evidence in the USA which is only the start so "leverage" it (how I hate that word :-) ). Make that the consistent thrust of every complaint and the message will get across. Look at the politicians and how they do it. Simple concepts and buzz words. Social Inclusion, stakeholders, etc Keep it simple and don't get bogged down in the detail, it dilutes the message.
Source and in the longer term billions would be saved. This is nothing to do
Any money which was spent would tend to stay in the EU most likely even in the UK, even in the local area of the school. Adgenda 21 anyone?
Quite, which is the main reason any small business that actively promotes MS is a turkey voting for Christmas. As a specific example, I have saved an organisation £14K on MS licenses which I would make nothing on. Of that 14K, a significant proportion is being spent on my products and services. Its simply good business. regards, -- IanL