GUIDANCE FOR USING THE FRAMEWORK:

NATIONAL DESKTOP AND NOTEBOOK AGREEMENT

1 September 2017 – 31 August 2020

Permitted extension to 31 August 2021

2017/S 028-050664

Main ContactMike Kilner

LUPC Senior Contracts Managerm.kilner@lupc.ac.uk(W) 020 7307 2768(M) 07932 347182

[Version 9 – 7 January 2019] Acer via Centerprise added as reseller

Restricted Commercial

Contents

1. Can I Access this Agreement?......................................................................................3

2. What Does this Agreement Cover?..............................................................................3

3. What are the Benefits of Using this Agreement?.........................................................4

4. Who are the Suppliers?...............................................................................................5

5. Supplier Scoring by Lot................................................................................................6

6. Pricing..........................................................................................................................8

7. How Do I Call-Off / Run a Further-Competition from the Agreement?........................8

8. What are the Standard Terms and Conditions?.........................................................11

9. How do I issue my Call-off Contract?.........................................................................11

10. How Will the Supplier’s Performance be Measured?................................................12

11. Who are LUPC?..........................................................................................................13

12. Glossary.....................................................................................................................14

13. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)...........................................................................14

Please note the following information can be found on the HE Contracts database (https://www.hecontracts.co.uk/agreements/472):

A - The Main Contact Points for Mini-Competitions and Escalations (one page overview)

B - The Originally Issued ITT including Framework Agreement and Call-Off Terms and Conditions Specifications, Bidder Clarification Q&A and Evaluation Criteria

C - Detailed Buyers Guides on behalf of each Vendor (route to market) including sales and support contacts and organograms, areas of added value and similar

D - The completed Evaluation Schedules

E - Additional attachments received on behalf of each Supplier in support of bid

F - The Vendor Price Lists

G - The Panel Clarification Q&A with each Vendor

H - Agreed Variations to the Terms and Conditions

I - Hardware evaluation letters and methodology (scoring sheets)

1. Can I Access this Agreement?

This framework agreement has been arranged by London Universities Purchasing Consortium (LUPC). To learn more about LUPC, please visit their website at www.lupc.ac.uk. Members of the following organisations can access this framework agreement:

Advance Procurement for Universities and Colleges (APUC)Higher Education Purchasing Consortium Wales (HEPCW)London Universities Purchasing Consortium (LUPC)North Western Universities Purchasing Consortium (NWUPC)North Eastern Universities Purchasing Consortium (NEUPC)Southern Universities Purchasing Consortium (SUPC)

The main contract contact details are:Contract Manager Mike KilnerLUPCTel: 020 7307 2768Email: m.kilner@lupc.ac.uk

A full list of NDNA working party members is shown on the next page.

2. What Does this Agreement Cover?

The purpose of this framework agreement is to deliver an efficient and compliant route to market for participating public bodies, by minimising the resource and providing value for money.

This framework agreement was procured via the Open route and a notice was published on 9 February 2017 in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) under reference 2017/S 028-050664.

The agreement covers the purchase of the following equipment types under all standard operating systems (Windows, Linux and Chrome for example) with the exclusion of Apple OS, which is covered under a separate HE framework:

(i) “Desktop” PCs including standalone case-based systems from Micro and NUC (Next Unit of Computing) devices through to Full Tower, All-In-One (“AIO”) PC devices where either the entire system including processing unit and device is housed within a single piece construction or alternatively, the processing unit is within a separate case and VESA mounted (or equivalent) on the reverse of the display, PC Workstations and Thin-Client end user units;

(ii) “Notebook” PCs including traditional ‘clamshell’ PC notebooks/laptops, units where in order to provide notebook and tablet multi-functionality as a ‘Hybrid/2-in-1’ device, the keyboard can either

be detached and re-attached from the processing unit or can fold itself back-to-back to the processing unit, Tablet devices, mobile PC Workstations and mobile Thin-Client end user units.

Open MS Word version:

3. What are the Benefits of Using this Agreement?

There are several benefits to using this framework:

Average savings of 14% compared with best available market pricing Minimum 3 year collect and return warranty included in price on all TPM devices* with

enhanced on-site warranty services with some suppliers Additional benefits and savings available for volume-related purchases A range of value added services available including for example, imaging, holding customer

‘gold stock’ for call-off, enhanced self-maintainer training Terms and Conditions that include the means of institution reparation through agreed

liquidated damages if service levels are breached in any one of four core areas; time to quote, Delivery times, Dead on Arrival (DOA) response and Field Service Warranty response.

Suppliers capable of integrating with institutional e-procurement solutions No price increases are permitted under the agreement until at least 1 March 2018 and

regularly benchmarked and reviewed Agreement Prime Contractors are Original Equipment Manufacturers permitting direct

escalation and negotiation over all key matters arising Provides compliance under latest EU Procurement Directives 2015 Multiple methods of call-off including direct via ranking, desktop exercise and full mini-

competition including permitted variation of weightings Improved performance incentivised by the inclusion of dynamically adjusted awarded scores

and positions of the Supplier every six months from the commencement of the Agreement to accurately reflect their Agreement pricing or for example, to reflect any failure in the implementation of the tendered service

Full software support is provided and facilitates access for Member Institutions and their buyers to obtain patches, bug fixes, new software releases and documentation (including BIOS firmware releases) as required

Full performance management through several managed KPI’s to be monitored over the life of the agreement

Electronics Watch Terms and Conditions either agreed or in the process of being agreed with suppliers on the framework

*notebook batteries have traditionally been excluded from the main system warranty and covered by separate charges. Purchases from Acer, Lenovo, Dell, HP, Toshiba and Fujitsu are all inclusive of 3-year battery warranty on a fair usage basis (minimum 350 charge cycles).

4. Who are the Suppliers?

The awarded OEM supplier and reseller routes to market can be summarised as follows:

Lot 1

OEM Sell Direct Reseller 1 Reseller 2 Reseller 3Dell Yes - - -HP Yes Academia DTP XMA

Lenovo No CDW Getech Insight*Stone Yes - - -XMA Yes - - -

Please note the awards to Lot 3 are identical to those above with 1) Stone in partnership to sell both Acer and Toshiba and 2) XMA in partnership to sell both HP and Toshiba.

*SCC were replaced (for all Lots) as a Lenovo reseller by Insight with effect 1 September 2018.

Lot 2

OEM Sell Direct Reseller 1 Reseller 2 Reseller 3

Acer No

European Electroniqu

e Stone CenterpriseDell Yes - - -

Fujitsu No Bechtle Insight -HP Yes Academia DTP XMA

Lenovo No CDW Getech InsightToshiba No Stone XMA -

A further overview of the awarded parties on Lots 1, 2 and 3 including a minimum of two sets of

Contact Details and a route for mini-competitions for every OEM and reseller can also be found on this Bids and Escalations single-page overview (please see note reference Misco within the

overview):

5. Supplier Scoring by Lot

The Award Criteria were established as follows:

Criterion Weighting

Hardware Evaluation 17.5%

Pricing 40%

Quality 30%

Terms and Conditions 5%

Sustainability 7.5%

The Agreement award of Lot 3 is made up of 80% carried forward from the evaluation of Lots 1 (45%) and 2 (35%) and 20% from the Written Response to Schedule B (Lot 3). Further granularity to each sub-section can be found on the evaluation sheets on HEC.

LOT 1 EVALUATION SCORINGMAXIMUM PERMITTE

DACER DELL FUJITSU HP LENOV

O STONE XMA

Written Response to Quality Section (Schedule A)

30.0% 19.97% 22.05% 22.03% 20.81% 23.12% 27.99% 26.06%

Written Response to Sustainability (Schedule C)

7.5% 0.00% 5.13% 3.02% 3.07% 4.65% 5.16% 5.27%

Response to issued Terms and Conditions 5.0% 5.00% 3.00% 3.00% 2.00% 4.00% 5.00% 5.00%

Hardware Evaluation stage 17.5% 12.06% 17.19% 14.51% 10.96% 16.78% 16.29% 13.59%

Pricing Evaluation 40.0% 0.00% 27.12% 3.96% 21.03% 7.82% 35.44% 28.74%

Final Total 100.0% 37.03% 74.49% 46.52% 57.87% 56.36% 89.88% 78.66%

Final Ranking (1st to 7th) 7 3 6 4 5 1 2

LOT 2 EVALUATION SCORINGMAXIMUM PERMITTE

DACER DELL FUJITSU HP LENOV

O TOSHIB

A

Written Response to Main Quality Section (Schedule A)

30.0% 20.30% 22.10% 22.04% 20.89% 23.29% 24.46%

Written Response to Sustainability (Schedule C)

7.5% 0.00% 4.89% 2.58% 2.79% 4.89% 3.85%

Response to issued Terms and Conditions 5.0% 5.00% 3.00% 3.00% 2.00% 4.00% 3.00%

Hardware Evaluation stage 17.5% 12.96% 16.12% 15.96% 15.58% 15.38% 16.06%

Pricing Evaluation 40.0% 23.28% 30.01% 18.65% 32.22% 26.66% 10.72%

Final Total 100.0% 61.54% 76.11% 62.23% 73.48% 74.22% 58.09%

Final Ranking (1st to 6th) 5 1 4 3 2 6

LOT 3 EVALUATION SCORINGMAXIMUM PERMITTE

DACER DELL FUJITSU HP LENOV

O STONE XMA

Written Response to One-Stop Shop (Schedule B) 20.0% 7.79% 11.56% 9.81% 14.16% 15.13% 19.35% 18.18%

Final Total 100.0% 46.00% 71.72% 52.52% 65.92% 66.47% 81.33% 79.29%

Final Ranking (1st to 7th) 7 3 6 5 4 1 2

* worth 20% of the overall Lot 3 award when combined with Lot 1 (45% of total) and Lot 2 (35% of total)

N.B. The above scores are based on Stone/Acer and XMA/HP

Note: Stone alt. for Lot 3 with Toshiba scores: 80.13%Note: XMA alt. for Lot 3 with Toshiba scores: 73.91%

6. Pricing

The tender was conducted under open-book pricing principles with a number of different sample specifications used in the evaluation for each Lot. The Bill of Material (BOM) was priced at component level for each specification with operational expenses (OPEX), OEM mark-up (profit) and reseller mark-up (where applicable) added to calculate the final cost of each unit.

Prices are applicable from 1st September 2017 and dedicated price lists and/or Discount off List (DOL) rules applicable for each and every supplier are available for viewing on the HE Contracts database (HEC).

7. How Do I Call-Off / Run a Further-Competition from the Agreement?

Providing the framework agreement has been tendered in accordance with the EU directives, for call-off requirements institutions do not need to go through the full procedural steps of these directives again. The NDNA framework has been awarded to five suppliers in Lot 1 and Lot 3 and six suppliers in Lot 2. Section 5 above details the distribution of marks by supplier and the score they achieved across the overall evaluation criteria.

As with the previous agreement, dynamic scoring applies during the course of the agreement. This permits LUPC working with the fellow members of the NDNA working group to dynamically adjust the determined score and position of a Supplier every six months from the commencement of the Agreement to accurately reflect their Agreement pricing, any failure in the implementation of the tendered service or any other tendered requirement. Should a section score be subsequently adjusted, this guide will be amended and re-circulated around the regions, which is typically achieved via the Main Purchasing and Computing Group contact lists.

There are two principal ways in which a call-off contract can be awarded. These are:

Apply the terms of the Framework Agreement

Where the terms laid down in the framework agreements are sufficiently precise to cover the particular call-off, institutions can award the call-off without reopening competition. The Directive does not specify how this should be done. In order to ensure value for money, the institution should award the call-off to the provider who is considered to provide the most economically advantageous (vfm) offer based on either:

i.) The award criteria used at the time that the framework was established. If this case applied, the supplier would be Stone for Lot 1, Dell for Lot 2 and Stone for the supply of Stone desktops and Acer and/or Toshiba notebooks in Lot 3.

ii.) By selecting the provider on the framework identified as offering the most economically advantageous (VFM) against its specific requirements and using a permissible variance of the original award criteria or reason for not selecting the provider(s) above the supplier selected in the original scoring; for example, the institution wishes to procure a number of all-in-one small-footprint systems and neither supplier X and supplier Y manufacturing one within their system portfolio.

Call-off from this framework agreement is by means of ranking, a desktop exercise or running a competitive further-competition as set out below:

Option One - Ranked

Institutions are able to contract directly with the first-ranked supplier, unless: The first ranked supplier confirms that they do not have capacity to undertake the work; or Cannot respond within the required timescales as detailed in the specification of

requirements; or There are other relevant issues such as conflict of interest.

If any of these criteria are applicable, then the second ranked supplier should be appointed. If the second ranked supplier cannot meet the need (by reason of issues detailed above), the third ranked supplier should be approached and so on.

This award of a contract will take place after the institution has discussed its specific requirements with the supplier and agreement has been reached as to timescales, methodology/approach, specific service requirements and key milestones and performance indicators to be met. The Standard Terms and Conditions of any call-off contract shall be as those stated in the Call-Off Terms and Conditions and only minor points can be amended with the consent of the supplier and the institution such as Payment Terms. For individual assignments under longer term call-off contracts, instruction will be given and received as per the Specification of Requirements section of this ITT.

Option Two - Desktop Exercise

If time is of the essence and institutions are comfortable with the terms of the proposed contract, and these do not require amendment or supplementary conditions then institutions may amend the criterion to reflect their local requirements by a factor of between 50% and 200% i.e. within the boundaries of halving and doubling the original percentage as stated in Section 5 (see above) and provided the sum of the new criterion still equals 100%. Once complete, you should place your contract with the highest scoring supplier.

Option Three – Further-Competition

Institutions wishing to undertake a further-competition may do so. A further-competition may apply to a selection of products or may be for the purposes of selecting a single source supplier for a fixed period of time. All capable supplier(s) appointed must be invited to submit responses to the institution’s further-competition tender document, which may include participation in an eAuction for example or the re-submission of the Suppliers product catalogue. The original framework agreement evaluation criteria should be applied in the further-competition tender document, though the criteria weightings may be adjusted by a factor of between 50% and 200% i.e. within the boundaries of halving and doubling the original percentage as stated in Section 5 (see above) and provided the sum of the new criterion still equals 100%.

General Advisory Information

The further-competition must not be issued to suppliers that have not been awarded a place on the framework agreement.

It is important that as far as possible, questions which have already been asked in the original ITT are not re-evaluated at further-competition stage. The evaluation criteria, and weighting applied to each, must be stated to suppliers when inviting them to quote. For a full break down of questions asked at ITT stage please refer to the HEC Contract Database reference ‘Tender Evaluation Schedules and Overall Marks’. Contact details for each supplier are available within Section 4.

Examples of questions that can be asked during a further-competition are:

1) Seeking confirmation that the institution’s image can be deployed within a suitable timeframe.

2) Confirmation of product lead times if requirements are particularly urgent.3) Details of how multi-delivery drops will be handled specific to a particular institution.4) Confirmation that the supplier will be capable of handling electronic ordering and invoicing

through the institution’s preferred marketplace or trading portal.5) Individual terms specific to the particular products/services that will be provided to meet a

particular requirement under the framework e.g. small energy ‘footprint’.

The further-competition must be simultaneously issued to all suppliers on the particular Lot via your preferred tendering system, where applicable. It is extremely important that all suppliers are treated equally and that a reasonable timeframe for responses is set, and which reflects the complexity of the requirement, allows sufficient time for clarification and avoids potentially favouring an incumbent supplier for example.

Responses must be evaluated on the basis of Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) using the previously stated award criteria.

Once the evaluation stage is completed, the call-off contract can be awarded. All Suppliers must be notified of the outcome of the further-competition.

There is no requirement to send an award notice to the OJEU for call-off contracts under a framework agreement, or indeed to send award notification letters to the bidders or to hold a standstill period. However, the remedy of "ineffectiveness" is potentially available to a challenger if call-offs are awarded without following the rules on mini-competitions as set out in the 2015 Regulations. There is however a "safe harbour" for contracting authorities. Provided that a contracting authority believes it has not infringed these rules, the ineffectiveness remedy will not available to a challenger if the contracting authority has voluntarily sent an appropriate form of award notification letter to all the bidders and voluntarily held a valid standstill period.

The HE Consortia generally considers it good practice to provide reasonable feedback to unsuccessful suppliers, particularly where a mini-competition has been undertaken, as a means of potentially improving their bidding process for future m/c.

A Desktop Calculator is enclosed below for those requiring assistance with either a desktop exercise or a mini-competition:

If you would like any further clarification on the process, please contact the Contract Manager Mike Kilner, m.kilner@lupc.ac.uk

8. What are the Standard Terms and Conditions?

LUPC have overarching Terms and Conditions that govern the framework agreement, and separate call-off contract terms which have been agreed as part of the award of the framework agreement. The framework terms govern the relationship between LUPC and the Suppliers, and can only be changed by them.

The call-off terms, which govern the relationship between the institution and the supplier can be amended; however, due consideration should be given to ensure these amendments meet your own requirements for EU compliance.

9. How do I issue my Call-off Contract?

All orders via the webpages:

A call-off contract or a Purchase Order should be issued to the relevant supplier for each order to be placed. Order frequencies can be daily, weekly, or as otherwise agreed with the supplier in line with your preferences and needs. Institutions should have contacted the supplier to finalise the request.

Purchase Order’s should ideally detail, as a minimum:

Text that states “This Purchase Order forms a call-off contract from the NDNA framework agreement ITS5042 LU” or words of an equivalent basis

Name and address of the institution for invoice purposes Description and Product Code Quantity of products required Deliverables and timescales Delivery address and any special delivery instructions (e.g. lock-ups/ cages) The charges including any special discounts (where applicable) Invoicing arrangements and settlement terms (nominally 30 days)

Call-off template (optional)

10. How Will the Supplier’s Performance be Measured?

The following tables detail the KPIs that the Supplier is required to comply with. The Supplier is required to establish a suitable process to monitor its performance against the agreed KPIs in order to report progress to LUPC. These reports will be reviewed and monitored to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the Supplier to perform its obligations to fulfil the Framework Agreement.

The Supplier’s achievement levels against the KPIs shall be reviewed during Contract Review Meetings held with the LUPC Contract Manager and other interested parties, which are normally held twice per year. If service levels fall below the minimum KPIs then the supplier will be required

to take immediate remedial action and this will be taken into consideration when deciding overall performance on the Framework.

FRAMEWORK LEVEL KPIs

Performance Target Key Indicator Performance Measure

Appropriate timelines and supporting evidence given for price changes.

Timeliness and Information Provided

100%

Quarterly spend information correct and submitted on time

Accuracy and Timeliness 100% of quarterly returns are correctly fully completed and submitted on time

Service management information correct and submitted on time in advance of meetings

Accuracy and Timeliness 100% of returns are correctly fully completed and submitted on time (dates will be advised well in advance of all meetings)

Written response to all member issues within 24 hours of notification from Consortia.

Provision of Written Response

100%

INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL KPIs

Performance Target Key Indicator Performance Measure

Guarantee to deliver all Supplies covered under this Framework Agreement within the lead-times specified to member locations throughout the UK.

Delivery of Supplies 95% of products delivered on time in full

Stock availability of products listed in the catalogue throughout the Framework Agreement Period

Product Availability 95% of products available at all times

Product reliability Hardware failure rate of PCs under Warranty

Less than 2% Dead on Arrival (20 Days of Delivery) and 5% First

Year Failure Rate unless agreed otherwise

Initial response to all operational enquiries within four working hours

Provision of Response 95%

Invoice accuracy Accuracy 95% of all invoices are submitted accurately

Invoice timeliness Timeliness 95% of all invoices are submitted on time

Reliability of all ordering systems utilised under this Framework including online ordering system, telephone, email, punch out from e-marketplace

Availability and Down Time Ordering systems are reliable 97% of the time during the Framework period (excluding pre-notified maintenance periods)

Response to Mini-Competition Provision of Written Response

Responding to 85% of Mini-Competitions within the permitted scope of the Supplier where a reasonable time to respond has been given

11. Who are LUPC?

Established in 1968, London Universities Purchasing Consortium (LUPC) is a not-for-profit professional buying organisation, owned by its Members, for its Members.

LUPC exists to generate savings and better value for our Members through the collaborative procurement of goods and services.

LUPC’s membership is made up of universities and colleges of higher education in and around the capital. However, around half of LUPC’s membership is also drawn from other not-for-profit organisations from our neighbouring sectors in the arts, sciences and education. Our members have access to a wide range of professionally tendered, EU-compliant agreements. By using our agreements, members can purchase competitively priced goods and services across a variety of commodity areas. These agreements can save members both time and money.

LUPC is one of the six regional University Purchasing Consortia in the UK which together form the United Kingdom University Purchasing Consortia (UKUPC) group. LUPC is also a member of Procurement England Ltd a partnership supporting collaborative procurement in England.

More information about LUPC can be found at: www.lupc.ac.uk

12. Glossary

Buyer’s Guide

A document produced by LUPC which provides an overview of the agreement that has been let and guidance on how Institutions can access and use the agreement.

Call-Off Contract

The call–off contract is the legally binding contract between the institution and the framework agreement supplier which defines the goods/services to be provided.

Framework Agreement

A framework agreement can be described as a general term for legally binding agreements with providers which set out terms and conditions under which specific purchases (call-off) can be made throughout the term of the agreement.

Further-Competition

A further-competition or mini-competition are terms used to describe one of the processes for selecting a supplier on a framework agreement to place a call-off contract with. The terms ‘further-competition’ and ‘mini-competition’ can be used interchangeably.

OJEU Notice

Advertisement issued in the Official Journal of the European Union in respect of this framework agreement.

Supplier

The successful supplier who will be party to the framework agreement with responsibility for supplying the goods and/or services.

Lot

A discrete sub-division of the authority’s requirements. These sub-divisions can be based on region, technical / service requirement or any other relevant criteria.

13. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: A supplier isn’t listed on the framework agreement; can I invite them to quote / mini-competition?A: No; you must only invite the suppliers who have been appointed to the framework agreement. No additional suppliers can be invited.

Q: Can I invite suppliers from multiple framework agreements to quote / further-competition?

A: No; you must only invite the suppliers who have been appointed to the framework agreement.

Q: Can you ‘de-select’ a supplier from the framework agreement because you don’t like them or have had issues in the past?A: No; you must invite all the suppliers who have been appointed to the framework agreement for the lot you wish to call-off against. Any issues must be raised with the contract manager or via the contract uptake website; however, the Public Contract Regulations 2015 do allow for past performance to be considered.

Q: Can you ask for references or evidence of a supplier’s relevant experience?A: No: This is non-compliant with The Public Contracts Regulations (2015). The suppliers appointed to the framework agreement will already have proved their capability to fulfil the requirements of the framework agreement. You may, however, seek relevant information to demonstrate key personnel’s capabilities if they are directly involved in delivery of the framework agreement.

Q: The NDNA framework agreement has only six months left to run – can we call-off a two year specific contract? A: Yes, provided that this is a typical call-off and the purpose is not to distort competition. Call-off contracts can continue after the relevant framework agreement has expired. The “new” EU Directive, the source of the 2015 Regulations, expressly states at Recital 62 that that, “while contracts based on a framework agreement are to be awarded before the end of the term of the framework agreement itself, the duration of the individual contracts based on a framework agreement does not need to coincide with the duration of that framework agreement, but might, as appropriate, be shorter or longer. In particular, it should be allowed to set the length of individual contracts based on a framework agreement taking account of factors such as the time needed for their performance, where maintenance of equipment with an expected useful life of more than four years is included or where extensive training of staff to perform the contract is needed”.

That said, there is a general prohibition on using framework agreements improperly or in a manner which distorts competition and this should be kept in mind when setting the term of a call-off contract.

It should also be remembered that the call-off contract must be awarded before the framework agreement expires.

Q: What is the maximum length of time we can award a call-off for?A: The response follows the same guidelines given above; the recommended advice is for the length of the institution’s call-off to be congruous with previous call-offs for the particular goods and services. A commonly held up example of ‘questionable practice’ is a five-year call-off for office supplies towards the end of the existing framework when the last two mini-competitions have been for 12 months. An award for a total of three years on perhaps a 2 year +1 basis is not particularly unusual for the NDNA and could be utilised if that has been previously applied.

Q: Do we need go sole-source and select just one supplier?A: Whether institutions can appoint more than a single supplier arising from their own mini-competition in a dual-supplier scenario has been a matter of debate for many years. The Directives

state that creating ‘frameworks within frameworks' by selecting 2 or 3 approved suppliers either with or without some form of due process and then simply re-opening competition for each requirement should be avoided. It does not however exclude user requirements being sub-divided within their specification; for example, low-spec lab PCs, high-spec workstation-class machines, low-energy footprint PCs, all-in-one solutions and the like. Provided they are separately specified up front, these may be bid for within the mini-competition as can equally, distinct volumes e.g. one supplier winning business for an early summer roll-out, another for a separately specified late-summer delivery. The level of diversity can therefore be greater than perhaps envisaged, it however should be included up front within the mini-competition.

Q: The cost for us to change is likely to be quite a significant sum of money, could we just stay with our current supplier if it was deemed to be the most economically advantageous option for us? A: It is firstly worth noting that doing so may inevitably reduce the appetite of bidders to win the business and the incumbent may feel they don't have to sharpen their pricing model quite so tightly to retain the business. It would therefore be advisable to weigh up the pros and cons of its inclusion very carefully before commencement. The use of a cost-of-change value is often considered by institutions wishing to standardise around two manufacturers to maintain a competitive edge while acknowledging that the introduction of a 3rd or 4th would be increasingly difficult to support and manage.Present thought is that it is very difficult to state a reasonable account of the cost of change into your decision process, even where the institution is able to quantify and justify the figure arrived at and include up-front within the mini-competition. What appears to be perfectly reasonable to include is a requirement for any new supplier to put the institution in the same (or better) position as existed under the outgoing agreement, even if this requires financial cost/ investment on behalf of the new supplier. Examples of this would include any hot-spares provisioning, on-site engineer knowledge and training, any particular software tools/ programs that may be required and so on.

Q: Can we amend and suitably score the questions (i.e. sub-criteria) ascertained in the original ITT to reflect our local requirements in the issued mini-competition?A: Centrally issued guidance states that an institution may not re-negotiate basic terms or substantively change the specification used in setting up the framework (i.e. the main criteria). It seems perfectly acceptable to include additional terms/questions that fit with the nature of the framework and flow from any of the matters asked in the issued NDNA framework ITT. The limited examples in the central guidance refer to particular delivery timescales, invoicing arrangements and payment profiles and security needs; the list is however non-exhaustive.

Q: Is it fine for us to remove sustainability or one of the other listed areas altogether from our criteria? A: Based on the pre-stated permitted weighting variance of “between 50 and 200%” in the issued ITT, it would probably be prudent to reduce sustainability (in this example) to half of its original weighting rather than remove it altogether. There is no compulsion on the contracting body to re-evaluate the same areas again; the scores given in the tender can be applied again with the new weighting.

Q: The OEM (manufacturers) are the contract primes on the NDNA although a number include reseller partners are their chosen route to market and in the case of HP for example, both indirect and direct channels are available? Do we need to involve them all in our competition and to whom do we sign with?A: The institution undertaking the procurement need only involve the contract primes capable of meeting the particular need in order to meet its obligations under the EU directives. This can be fulfilled by either approaching the OEM directly, by approaching one or more of its appointed resellers directly or by a combination of both. There is no requirement to issue the mini-competition against all routes to market. Each appointed OEM has signed to a mutually agreed set of terms and conditions as part of their agreement award. Although the pricing terms and general contract to supply will be agreed between the institution and a reseller in the case of an indirect service for example, the same agreed OEM terms apply (unless mutually agreed otherwise in the case of a local variation). The OEM is obligated to underwrite the performance of its appointed resellers including any warranty obligations undertaken as part of the contract. Although there is no requirement to do so per se, for peace of mind as part of larger procurements, an institution may wish to sign a master agreement with the reseller and a memorandum of understanding with the OEM.

Q: We have noted that in the case of HP, Fujitsu, Toshiba, Acer and Lenovo that they have more than one fulfilment partner (reseller) under the NDNA. Are we under any obligation to run a mini-competition between the two/three resellers available for that manufacturer?A: Further to the previous response, you are not under any obligation to include all when running a mini-competition. Likewise, in situations where a direct award can be given without competition, the institution can select either the direct route or a single, preferred reseller to approach (where applicable).While not significant in level, it should however be noted that the resellers’ agreed margins are particularly price-elastic to ordering volumes. The inclusion of competition between resellers may therefore be very worthwhile from both a price and service perspective where a volume opportunity is being offered.

Q: Further to Schedule A of the evaluation, there are a number of questions we would like to ask as part of our mini-competition process. However, as they have already been asked by LUPC and answered by each manufacturer, can the question be re-asked as part of a university’s mini-competition process?A: If re-asking one or more of the questions that were included in the original tender, they should ideally be limited to those that can be framed and appropriate to the ‘local’ service to the institution. The mini-competition can include new questions that follow or flow from the first time around. Institutions should be minded to avoid introducing new sub-criteria that couldn’t have been contemplated by the original tenderers and which could have for example, changed the nature of the original competition and in turn allowed an unsuccessful tenderer to have improved their score.

Q: If the above is permitted, can we change the weightings of those questions? A: Again no specific issues as long as a) the main criteria (price, quality, sustainability et.al.) stay within the percentage boundaries outlined in the Framework Buyers Guide and b) it’s not done in a way that could be seen as discriminatory and favouring one or more of the bidders such as in

knowledge prior to commencing, highly weighting a number of questions that HP for example would most successfully answer.

Q: If using ‘Schedule A Main Requirements’ as a starting point for our questions, can we remove questions if they are deemed to be irrelevant or already answered as part of the tender response?A: Yes, the call-off via competition is not required to open up the original tender in its entirety.

Q: Are we permitted to add our own sections & questions to ‘Schedule A Main Requirements’ and ‘Schedule C Sustainability’?A: Yes within the boundaries of the response to question 2 above. Any new questions or sub-sections would have to be appropriate and relevant to the scope of the agreement if they were being scored rather than for information only purposes.

Q: Are Microsoft Surface devices available under the NDNA? A: Although the group undertook pre-tender discussions with Microsoft, they declined to bid in the end either on their own or in partnership. Our view is that MS knew their devices would have been uncompetitive and therefore unsuccessful against the other bidders as well as unable to accept the issued Terms and Conditions. When discussions were under way between themselves and another OEM, it became clear that the non-MS 2-in-1 device would be put forward for the hardware evaluation and not Microsoft’s.

Product related issues with the MS Surface also continue to arise: https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3015599/microsoft-blames-intel-skylake-for-surface-borkage?utm_medium=email&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=INQ.Weekly_RL.EU.A.U&utm_source=INQ.DCM.Editors_Updates&im_edp=lupc.ac.uk&im_company=

https://www.consumerreports.org/laptop-computers/microsoft-surface-laptops-and-tablets-not-recommended-by-consumer-reports/

And most recently (Aug 2018): “Surface Pro 4 owners complain of borkage following July firmware update”

https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3061535/surface-pro-4-owners-complain-of-borkage-following-july-firmware-update?utm_medium=email&utm_content=&utm_campaign=INQ.Daily_RL.EU.A.U&utm_source=INQ.DCM.Editors_Updates&utm_term=&im_company=&utm_medium=email&utm_term=10%20to%2024&im_edp=350800-6b16d06a2815211e%26campaignname%3DINQ.Daily_RL.EU.A.U

Mike Kilner

The author would like to thank the following persons for either their assistance with the evaluation of the quality (written) schedules or participation as part of the hardware evaluation:

Nick Cope (Loughborough), Mark Hardy (Sheffield), Matt Storey (Lancaster), Inez Scudder (Southampton Solent), Gordon Roberts (Bath), Henry Vivian-Neal (UCL), Ainsley Wilkins (Essex), Steve Varty & Tyler Benedek (Huddersfield), Ian Palmer (Sheffield), Martin Robinson (UHI Inverness),

Keith Chalmers & Jenna Harper (UHI Orkney), Joe Logan (Glasgow Caledonian), David Robinson (Bangor), Chris Andrews & James Harvey (LSE), Adam Davies (Cardiff), Martin Rudman (STFC RAL) and Ben Dishman (RCUK – PSU IS Polaris House).