First Meeting of the “3825 Club”
Thursday 1st February 2018 Institute of Directors
- Mike Thomas Innopsis (Centurylink)
- Lynne Magennis Innopsis (Daisy)
- Richard McAlpin KCom
- Adam Williams KCom
- Andy Pigott BT
- Keith Smith Virgin Media Business
- Chris Wade TNP
- Ian Wilcox MLL Telecom
- Clair Dawson MLL Telecom
- Chris Allen Daisy
- Darren Turner Piksel
- Dave Morrison ITPS
Apologies Adept Telecom
Not present Convergence Group, NyNet, Exponential-e
Introductions were made.
Chatham House rules apply.
Freeform discussion regarding issues with RM3825 covered a number of points.
- Terms were agreed with one supplier in December which ought to have been propagated to the greater community of both suppliers and customers. This doc should be dated 15th December or later.
- These terms addressed a number of the issues which were brought to the table at the meeting including
- IPR claims Main Agreement Clause 20.2.2
- Unmanaged services MA Schedule 2 Part A Clause 3.1.3
- Reporting re legitimate procurement route MA Schedule 9 Clause 4
- Call Off Contract Clause 10.1
(i) removal of the Service Credit Cap (there were quite a few questions on this)
(ii) requirement to reimburse Charges already paid for affected Services and
(iii) express call out of persistent breach entitling termination of Call Off Contract
- Service Credits Call Off Clause 32.2
- Latency Target Call Off Schedule 4 Part B Annex 2 Sev 1
- SLAs due on breach of target not threshold Call Off Schedule 6 Part A Clause 1
- Threshold VS Target Call Off Schedule 6, Part A, Clause 3.2 and 3.3.1
- Targets and Thresholds for ‘unmanaged service’ and content of Targets Call Off Schedule 6, Annex 1 to Part A
- Termination Assistance Call Off Schedule 9, definition “Termination Assistance”
These items were coded Red by the Supplier. A section of amber issues were not addressed but still pose a commercial risk, this opinion was shared by the group.
- The impact of the unpublished changes on current and forthcoming procurements. (The Group was unaware of any successful procurements on RM3825 thus far?)
- Use of a standard worded clarification question to be used in future procurements asking for confirmation of the use of the correct contract version. Example “The Supplier Community would like the Customer to ensure that the most up to date version of the RM3825 Framework Agreement and Contract is in use within this procurement process”
- If the amended terms are published then they should be put to the Supplier Community for further review and comment.
- Lack of response from NHS Digital and Crown Commercial Service on contract and compliance issues. Appears to be concentrated within the smaller providers?
- Changes in Security compliance mechanisms, apparently without notification – could commercially impact early compliant providers adversely. (CHECK vs CREST)
- Two different pages on CCS site had two different sets of terms and conditions
- The very onerous pricing form which appears to have been issued as a guidance document for current procurements. This document is unwieldy and unnecessarily detailed. Impossible for a reseller to complete as more than one option may be available per cell. The Group seemed to think that a more complex version may be released with a ‘monthly payment’ aspect.
- The requirement for a VRF to the internet has been dropped. This was discussed with the original suppliers and clarity regarding this is required.
- ‘Conditional Compliance’ was quoted in early webinars etc but one of the suppliers present has been told this is ‘no longer a thing.
The discussions resulted in 6 Points that the Group wanted to put before CCS and NHS Digital
Visibility and acknowledgement of the amended terms agreed with one supplier on 15th December 2017.
Including the following points
A single master document suite in one place
All suppliers to be given review and comment
Advice to customers regarding the amended document suite
Serious review of the advisory pricing schedule and publication of new guidelines and template pricing schedule.
Point not addressed in the amended terms is the Termination Assistance – this requirement needs to be reviewed and hopefully changed.
“Clause (b) is in our opinion too broad, and that “any activity” presents an unqualifiable and potential unlimited set of requirements. We suggest that Suppliers should be able to set out the assistance options they shall offer – either as part of a service’s definition or as options that Customers may procure separately.
This is particularly important because clause 41.5.1 now makes exit management a mandatory part of every service contracted via this vehicle.”
Service Levels – the incident fix formula does not add up. Needs to be amended.
The following formula relates to calculation of Incident Fix Time Achieved
Service Level achieved % = (TI-FI) x 100
TI means the total number of Incidents raised by the Customer during the Service Period for the service instance; and
FI means the total number of Incidents raised by the Customer during the Service Period for the service instance that were not Fixed within the Incident Fix Time.
However this formula “rewards” greater number of incidents occurring that are fixed within time, if an incident has already failed to be fixed in time in that service period as opposed to an incident failing to be fixed in time and no other incidents occurring at all that period (For November Version: 1 failed fixed time and no other incidents is 0% achieved and full 15% service credit, 1 failed fixed time and 9 other incidents fixed within time is 90% achieved and no service penalty. I am sure customer would prefer situation 1 occurred and not situation 2, but calculation contradicts this behaviour)
Clarity required around the Security levels required for compliance. Why was the CHECK qualification changed to CREST?
Dropped requirement for VRF to internet, the Group would like clarity on this requirement.
The Group would like to publish these points to both CCS and NHS Digital and invite them to the next meeting of the 3825 Club to discuss how to address them to the satisfaction of the supplier community. The Group proposed that this meeting take place within 2 weeks of the acceptance of the wording of the points for discussion by the Group.
Lynne Magennis, Innopsis.