We have been made aware of a Freedom of Information Request which has requested information on the Department for Education’s “position on procurement compliance in relation to the transition of MIS within schools, specifically concerning the discontinuation of ScholarPack and Integris by The Key Group and the migration of affected institutions to Arbor.”
The request asked for various pieces of information around this subject, including:
- What discussions or correspondence the Department had held on the matter
- Any planned communications by the Department to schools and local authorities regarding their procurement obligations when migrating between MIS providers
- Any legal or policy analysis conducted by the Department regarding whether such a transition would constitute a material contract change requiring a competitive procurement process
The response from the Department makes it clear that:
- Schools are autonomous and have the freedom of choice to make their own decisions
- Schools are responsible for complying with all applicable regulation and guidance in relation to their supply contracts
The response also makes reference to updated guidance published by the Department for Education on 6th March this year on commercial considerations when choosing a management information system – a link to that guidance is provided here.
Whilst this FOI request and the received response does not clarify any specific issues or procurement rules around this MIS transition, they do reinforce the fact that schools and MATs must comply with all applicable procurement regulations.
Schools and MATs should be aware that procurement obligations apply below the published, and often cited, threshold of £214,904 as as well as above this.
Below this threshold, schools are still expected to explore the market and, for contracts over £10,000, the DfE’s official guidance states that schools and MATs should procure via a framework or, if the contract value is less than £40,000, by at least getting three quotes from suppliers and assessing these fully and fairly.
It should be noted that, for MIS procurements, the contract value is regarded as being the full cost of the MIS across a 4-year period, including all associated costs (such as support costs, training costs etc.) and must also include VAT.
So, has this FOI request and response actually moved this discussion forwards at all?
Certainly, the DfE response makes it clear that responsibility lies with the school or MAT as the buyer. Given that position, it seems eminently sensible for schools and MATs to undertake due diligence and to get professional advice on this before making any final decisions.
Whether or not the transition from ScholarPack or Integris to Arbor requires a procurement process hinges a great deal on whether or not this is seen as being a ‘material change’ to the school or MAT’s current MIS contract and if it is seen this way then a new procurement process should be undertaken.
Under the new Procurement Act, a ‘material change’ is stated as being a ‘change to the type of goods, services or works to be supplied under the contract that was not already provided for in the contract.’
From an outsider’s viewpoint, a change of MIS platform seems likely to be construed as a ‘change to the type of goods, services or works’ and therefore requiring a new procurement to be undertaken, but unless this is clarified in a court of law, none of us will know for certain.
Given that best practice suggests schools should review their MIS regularly to ensure that it remains fit for purpose and continues to offer value for money etc., now would seem a good time for ScholarPack and Integris users to undertake such a review. They may well conclude that moving to Arbor is the best solution for them, or they may decide that exploring the market is sensible. Either way, the choice, and the responsibility, is theirs.
