Details of the changes and the relevant documents are contained in the file above
- Introduce a new obligation with the Obligation ID ‘OPSNP.6a’, Obligation Description ‘Migration Addendum’ to Statement of Obligation to read ‘The HSCN Supplier shall ensure that HSCN Consumer migrations are delivered in accordance with the HSCN Migration Addendum.’ The Evidence required for HSCN Compliance column should read ‘Stage 1 – Declaration, Stage 3 – Adherence to the Migration Addendum’
- A new definition should be added to the Obligations Framework as follows: “HSCN Migration Addendum” means the document titled HSCN Migration Addendum as updated from time-to-time, the latest version of which is available for review at https://www.digital.nhs.uk/health-social-care-network/connectivity-suppliers
- Proposed changes are in the enclosed document:
- Introduction of the Migration Addendum document embedded below
The following CN-SPs were consulted
- Convergence (Group Networks) Limited
- MLL Telecom Limited
- Redcentric Solutions Limited
- AdEPT Telecom PLC
- British Telecommunications PLC
- Piksel Limited (Carelink)
- Daisy Communications Limited
- Exponential-e Limited
- IT Professional Services Limited
- KCOM Group Public Limited Company
- Level 3 Communications UK Limited
- Node 4 Limited
- NYNET Limited
- OCSL Managed Services Limited
- Updata Infrastructure (UK) Limited
- The Networking People (Northwest Ltd)
- Virgin Media Business Limited
Status – The change is accepted with the following comments
The migration targets are accepted providing any action by the customer, or outside the control of the CN-SP, that causes a delay in the migration date specified in the tender documentation, does not penalise the CN-SP involved.
Response from NHS-Digital – It is recognised that a CNSP should not be penalised for customer caused delay, but such instances would need to be tracked as part of the migration analysis. Allowable assumptions will be agreed with the successful CNSP during each aggregated procurement bid stage relating to areas outside of its control.
It is recommended that there is an opportunity for the HSCN consumer and the CN-SP to review the priorities and jointly agree changes after contract signature.
Response from NHS-Digital – There will always be the opportunity to manage change through the appropriate governance mechanisms, however any such re-prioritisation would need to be done in conjunction with the HSCN Programme Deployment Office
Re 3.2.4 – If NHS Digital want to make a change, why is it the CN-SPs responsibility to negotiate it with the consumer? Can something be added to the customer connection agreement to ensure that the consumer will consent to these changes? Should this be on a ‘reasonable endeavours basis’ rather than “shall ensure”
Response from NHS-Digital – The HSCN Programme Deployment Office and HSCN Regional Migration Managers will be in close contact with any affected consumer organisations as part of this process. 3.2.4 is about uplifting the HSCN Consumer Contract between the consumer and CNSP and this would only need to occur where the change in prioritisation has been agreed (which naturally is likely to require consumer assent)
Re 3.2.5 – This section does not reflect that changes to priority may results in additional charges. Suggest that wording is amending to include “or that the request will incur additional charges.” Consideration for situations where the plan change would incur additional cost.
Response from NHS-Digital – If additional charges would be incurred, then under 3.2.5 a CNSP could demonstrate that it would be impacted adversely.
Re 3.2.1 – Migrations are dependent on customer testing, so any delays that are due to customer delays should be excluded
Response from NHS-Digital – It is recognised that a CNSP should not be penalised for customer caused delay but such instances would need to be tracked as part of the migration analysis.
Re 220.127.116.11 – We accept that the CN-SP undertake reasonable endeavours, however if we don’t meet this it should not be deemed a breach of the deed. CN-SPs will be endeavouring to meet these timescales as it is in their interest; however, very often circuits are delayed for reasons outside of our control (e.g. way leave issues).
Response from NHS-Digital – Assuming that this comment relates to 18.104.22.168 – Allowable assumptions will be agreed with the successful CNSP during each aggregated procurement bid stage relating to areas outside of its control.
Re 3.3 – We do not feel that this is appropriate wording and seek that an alternative approach would be to introduce service credits into the AP to cover this, however it would increase the cost to the customer as CN-SPs would typically need to include contingency in the pricing to cover this.
Response from NHS-Digital – Service credits will apply to services delivered under the terms of the CNSP/Consumer contract. The purpose of 3.3 is to provide NHS Digital with assurance that if aggregated procurement migrations are delayed, it has the ability to instigate appropriate action. Any such action under the Deed need to be reasonable and appropriate given the circumstances and wherever possible NHS Digital would be looking to work with the CNSP to understand the issues and encourage migration delivery as that is a jointly held objective.
Re 3.3.4 – We would need reassurance that the Authority would react reasonably, for example by confirming that if a CN-SP can demonstrate that delays are due to circumstances beyond their control, they will not be penalised. Also additional costs will be incurred by the CN-SPs if required to provide the reporting, especially if multiple projects are running simultaneously.
Response from NHS-Digital – It is recognised that a CNSP should not be penalised for customer caused delay but such instances would need to be tracked as part of the migration analysis. Allowable assumptions will be agreed with the successful CNSP during each aggregated procurement bid stage relating to areas outside of its control. We would expect a CNSP to be able to report on the progress of its migration schedule as it should track this as standard operational practice.
Re 3.3.5 – This appears to contradict 3.3.3. Please clarify.
Response from NHS-Digital – We believe that the two paragraphs are consistent. 3.3.3 lists the metrics for the prioritised sites and 3.3.5 explains why these are listed in 25% increments such that there is visibility of progress against these prioritised sites at regular intervals.
Re 3.3.6. – This assumes that the migration timescales that are set are reasonable. We have seen examples of tenders with very aggressive migration targets. If this approach is taken for HSCN circuits, CN-SPs may need to consider not bidding procurements with tight timescales.
TResponse from NHS-Digital – This is noted albeit the HSCN programme has a clear objective to migrate sites from the TN to HSCN efficiently and so speed of migration will be a key driver, however we will engage with CNSPs to ensure required timescales are in fact, achievable.