Dear Enfield Council,

With regard to the Council’s response to https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...
I have some follow-up questions.

Q1:
The Council’s report to Members contained the following section:

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
1. Do nothing stay with existing OLM on premise solution and purchase/develop the additional functionality required.
2. Move to a hosted/managed service provided by OLM and purchase/develop the additional functionality required.
It is noteworthy that the only options presented to Members were OLM-based.
The report to Members stated “An evaluation of the leading systems in the market place (Microsoft and Careworks) was undertaken” Furthermore, Careworks was the only other supplier named in Part 2 of the report.

7.4.1 of the report states the following:
“The risk of direct award is that by not competing the requirement it is difficult to demonstrate that the price is competitive and also that the product is the best solution”.
8 – “Key Risks” – of the report states:
“The risks in detailed in 7.4.1 have been mitigated by undertaking market testing as detailed in the Part 2 report”.
Yet there was no credible market testing in Part 2 of the report – Careworks was the only supplier considered, and – as noted below – they have negligible market share.

Microsoft’s market share is zero. Careworks have a market share of 3% in England or 6% in the UK.

Two other suppliers – Liquidlogic and Corelogic – have 40% and 30% market share respectively. These suppliers do not feature in your market evaluation. Please explain why.

Who provided the statement that Microsoft and Careworks provide the leading systems in the market place? Please state whether the source of this suggestion was internal ie a member of staff, or an external agency eg OLM.

Q2: The same report to Members contained the following statement:
“To note that in accordance with the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules, a parent company guarantee shall be provided by OLM’s parent company, OLM Group Limited”
Could you explain why a parent company guarantee was considered necessary?

Q3: One of my previous questions, and the Council’s response:
“ If we decide to keep it longer than 5 years, how much will it cost in year 6?
This is not known at this time”
Could the Council review this response, please? IT systems are often in place for 10 years+. It seems improbable that the contract does not include an agreed annual charge at the end of the contract.

Q4: Another question in the previous FOI was:
“Which councils provided reference sites for this system?
Although Eclipse is live for Children’s services it is not yet live for Adults – LB Enfield will be the first Council to go live with Adults.
Bromley was the main reference site for Mylife. Bromley and Brighton were the reference sites for Guardian”

I’m sorry, you appear to have misunderstood the question. First of all, Eclipse is not live anywhere for children’s social care, according to the OLM website. It is live in early help at Wolverhampton.

Secondly, MyLife and Guardian are irrelevant – these are legacy systems from OLM which pre-date Eclipse, and are built on separate software platforms.

If there were no reference sites for Eclipse, please state this, for the avoidance of doubt.

Yours faithfully,

Mark Proctor

complaintsandinformation, Enfield Council

Thank you for your email.

We will respond as soon as possible.

Regards,

Complaints and Access to Information Team,
Enfield Council.

[1]Campaign

[2]Facebook[3]Follow us on Facebook [4]Twitter[5]Twitter
[6]Enfield[7]http://www.enfield.gov.uk

show quoted sections

This email has been scanned for viruses but we cannot guarantee that it
will be free of viruses or malware. The recipient should perform their own
virus checks.

References

Visible links
1. http://new.enfield.gov.uk/connected
2. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Enfield-C...
3. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Enfield-C...
4. https://twitter.com/EnfieldCouncil
5. https://twitter.com/EnfieldCouncil
6. http://www.enfield.gov.uk/
7. http://www.enfield.gov.uk/

complaintsandinformation, Enfield Council

Classification: OFFICIAL
Dear Mr Proctor,

Thank you for your email.

Please note that we have logged a new FOI request for your follow up questions and will respond to you in due course.

The reference number for the new request is above, crm foi 3491

Many thanks,

Daniel Ellis
Complaints & Access to Information Officer
Complaints & Access to Information Team

Phone: 020 8379 2808
Email: [email address]
Website: www.enfield.gov.uk

Enfield Connected puts many Council services in one place, speeds up your payments
and saves you time – to set up your account today go to www.enfield.gov.uk/connected

show quoted sections

Dear complaintsandinformation,

This FOI is significantly overdue - it is 2 months since I sent my follow-up questions.

Your reference is crm foi 3491

Yours sincerely,

Mark Proctor

Dear Enfield Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Enfield Council's handling of my FOI request 'Alternatives to OLM'.

This request is now 4 months old, despite reminders from me.
I request an internal review so that I can then either receive the information requested, or go to the ICO for an external audit of your response (or lack of response).

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...

Yours faithfully,

Mark Proctor

complaintsandinformation, Enfield Council

Classification: OFFICIAL

Dear Mr Proctor,

 

Please find below additional comments in bold in relation to your request.

 

With regard to the Council’s response to
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...

I have some follow-up questions.

 

Q1:

The Council’s report to Members contained the following section:

 

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED:

1. Do nothing stay with existing OLM on premise solution and
purchase/develop the additional functionality required.

2. Move to a hosted/managed service provided by OLM and purchase/develop
the additional functionality required.

It is noteworthy that the only options presented to Members were
OLM-based.

The report to Members stated “An evaluation of the leading systems in the
market place (Microsoft and Careworks) was undertaken” Furthermore,
Careworks was the only other supplier named in Part 2 of the report.

 

7.4.1 of the report states the following:

“The risk of direct award is that by not competing the requirement it is
difficult to demonstrate that the price is competitive and also that the
product is the best solution”.

8 – “Key Risks” – of the report states:

“The risks in detailed in 7.4.1 have been mitigated by undertaking market
testing as detailed in the Part 2 report”.

Yet there was no credible market testing in Part 2 of the report –
Careworks was the only supplier considered, and – as noted below – they
have negligible market share. 

 

Microsoft’s market share is zero. Careworks have a market share of 3% in
England or 6% in the UK.

 

Two other suppliers – Liquidlogic and Corelogic – have 40% and 30% market
share respectively. These suppliers do not feature in your market
evaluation. Please explain why.

Enfield ICT’s model is to reduce the number of systems and suppliers it
uses in order to develop and take advantage of working in partnership
arrangements with key partners.  OLM were already providing a software
solution  for this service to Enfield and this provided us with the
opportunity to become a development partner with OLM.

 

Who provided the statement that Microsoft and Careworks provide the
leading systems in the market place? Please state whether the source of
this suggestion was internal ie a member of staff, or an external agency
eg OLM.

Internal

 

Q2: The same report to Members contained the following statement:

“To note that in accordance with the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules, a
parent company guarantee shall be provided by OLM’s parent company, OLM
Group Limited”

Could you explain why a parent company guarantee was considered necessary?

 

The Council's Contract Procedure Rules outline circumstances where a
Parent Company Guarantee should be considered as a form of security from
contractors.

 

Q3: One of my previous questions, and the Council’s response:

“ If we decide to keep it longer than 5 years, how much will it cost in
year 6?

This is not known at this time”

Could the Council review this response, please? IT systems are often in
place for 10 years+. It seems improbable that the contract does not
include an agreed annual charge at the end of the contract.

 

A decision will be taken nearer the time of renewal,  figure not known at
this stage.

 

Q4: Another question in the previous FOI was:

“Which councils provided reference sites for this system?

Although Eclipse is live for Children’s services it is not yet live for
Adults – LB Enfield will be the first Council to go live with Adults.

Bromley was the main reference site for Mylife. Bromley and Brighton were
the reference sites for Guardian”

 

I’m sorry, you appear to have misunderstood the question. First of all,
Eclipse is not live anywhere for children’s social care, according to the
OLM website. It is live in early help at Wolverhampton.

 

Secondly, MyLife and Guardian are irrelevant – these are legacy systems
from OLM which pre-date Eclipse, and are built on separate software
platforms.

 

If there were no reference sites for Eclipse, please state this, for the
avoidance of doubt.

No reference Sites - solution to be developed for Adult Social Care.

 

If you are remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have
the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should
be submitted within two months of the date of receipt of the response to
your original letter and should be addressed to:

 

Complaints and Access to Information Team

Email – [1][Enfield Council request email]

 

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information
Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9
5AF

 

Regards,

 

 

Daniel Ellis

Complaints & Access to Information Officer

Complaints & Access to Information Team

London Borough of Enfield

 

Phone: 020 8379 2808

Email: [email address]

Website: www.enfield.gov.uk

 

Enfield Connected puts many Council services in one place, speeds up your
payments

and saves you time – to set up your account today go to
www.enfield.gov.uk/connected

 

show quoted sections

Dear complaintsandinformation,

Thank you for responding – several months late. I note that you have not conducted the internal review which I requested.

Q1: You state: “Enfield ICT’s model is to reduce the number of systems and suppliers it uses in order to develop and take advantage of working in partnership arrangements with key partners. OLM were already providing a software solution for this service to Enfield and this provided us with the opportunity to become a development partner with OLM”
I don’t see how this achieves your objective of reducing the number of systems and suppliers. It would have been logical either to use OLM for children’s and adult social care, or to use Liquidlogic for both services. The approach you have taken keeps the Council with two suppliers.
You also state that the information about Careworks and Microsoft being the leading suppliers in the sector came from within the Council. This person’s advice was so inaccurate that it calls into question their competence. Still, I am reassured that the information did not come from OLM, which would have suggested an unhealthy relationship with a supplier.

Q2: You have not answered the question. Your response is circular. Please state the specific circumstances which triggered the requirement for a parent company guarantee. I would remind you that the Council has been requested to answer this question since January – you are already in breach of the legislation

Q3: I am simply agog that the council has not negotiated pricing to apply at the end of the current contract term. I trust that you will resolve this quickly.

Q4: Thank you for clarifying. The Council took the decision without any reference sites. I have to say, I’m beyond disappointed that you have paid so significantly over the odds to act as a development partner for a system which appears not to be live anywhere. I would remind the Council that this is public money - if IT companies want experimental partners, let THEM foot the bill - rather than the taxpayer.

I would be grateful for a comprehensive response to Q2 with no further delay.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Proctor

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org