I have been listening to Marvin Gaye quite a bit lately (as I do from time to time when shuffle pops it up). This is one of his less well played classics;
So far as we know all the minor, technical mistake, CDS appeals, errors in either PQQ or ITT, have been successful. These determinations were notified yesterday much to the relief of those kept hanging over this particular abyss for the last couple of weeks.
We have not heard word yet from those who had more significant disputes.
UPDATE
Apparently an "unsuccessful PQQ publication" appeal has been successful too!
Why they could not do something more personalised than this generic questionnaire is beyond me. I bet they are not going to get good scores on the "On time delivery" factor from Mental Health lawyers right now.
"This survey will take no more than 10 minutes to complete"
If it takes more than 2 you are thinking too hard.
Once again, communicated after 5pm, here is what Mental Health practitioners were told today;
Dear Applicant,
The results of the Tender Process for Strategic Health Authority Areas were due to be communicated to Applicant Organisations on 26 April 2010. However, we will not now be able to notify Applicants of the result of the tender process before 6 May 2010. Following the election, we will need to discuss the outcome of the tender process with any new ministers, and it is likely that notification to Applicants will take place shortly after this. We hope to be able to notify Applicants of our initial decisions before the end of May, thereby giving them over 4 months’ notice before the new contract starts.
We will inform all Applicant Organisations of the result of the tender process through the messaging system in the eTendering portal.
We will be using some of this additional time to carry out due diligence checks to confirm whether Applicant Organisations are in a position to deliver the services they have tendered for.
Regards
Policy Team
Legal Services Commission
Read into it what you will with regard to the other, more complex and competitive processes. (As you will guess I have a view on this involving the binning of the Family scoring process).
We have decided to have a break from the weekly webinar due to other work commitments and me going on holiday shortly.
W e intend to get back to the the every Friday format from the 4th June.
Back in the Queensway office for what seems like the first time in ages. I have a pile of CDS 12s* to do (still having problems with the "save" function) and two in-house training events to prepare for this week and one next week too.
After that I have a weeks holiday hooray.
*CDS 12 deadline now Friday 7th - but do it sooner than that!
That is what I am doing today.
With an hour to go the phone traffic seems, finally, to be slowing down. Not that today has been without some final scares including a reoccurrence of this issue on a significant multi-office bid.
My R&R plans for after noon today have however hit the buffers as Gil Scott Heron has not been able to get into the UK, due to the volcano, to perform in Edinburgh tonight. Might end up being the much less interesting Rudds Arms Wednesday music quiz instead.
Very glad this madness is shortly to come to an end and can we wish all bidding readers all the best. I suspect however discussion of this topic will continue for some time.
Here is some “clarification” about making concurrent Generic Family and Specialist Services for Children bids. We discussed this last week. Read it and tell us if it has clarified things for you.
My take is that this does not contradict the advice given below.
Am now at the fag end of the busiest phone day on record. Mopping up the final stragglers before starting again tomorrow morning. I have the feeling that this round, though much longer, is going to go to the wire and that we will be just like this on Wednesday.
One issue which has arisen again today, in the context of bids changing due to Resolution exam results being announced, is replacing already uploaded Tender Forms. This does seem to involve a need to “save” after you delete the previous one and before re uploading the amended new version. Failure to do this has lead to the original not being over written. Do check that any such last minute alterations to your ITT have worked.
Given the post below there was only one choice this week – which is also by one of Mrs SPs favourite bands from her disco years.
For the first time, in nearly 15 years, a client professed their love for me today.
I have no doubt that there are many more of you out there just a little too shy to do the same and waiting for a similar opportunity, but the first is always, well, the first. That it was over the phone, with someone I have never met, takes a little of the romance out of it I appreciate, but still, it was special.
The reasons to love me are, obviously, legion. In this case however it was imparted knowledge about Specialist Services for Children Contracts (SSC) which replicated Cupids arrow.
Here was a firm, with a borderline bid (in Tender Selection Criteria terms), for which Public Law Children work represents 50% of their fee income. It has been with these firms in mind that we have tried to tie down the LSC (and even TLS) to a definitive answer about the interplay of bidding in the current procurement round.
It has been my view, from the start, that it is entirely acceptable to bid for BOTH a generic family contract and an SSC, concurrently. I further accept that it is NOT possible to hold both of these contracts concurrently.
The LSC refer you to Q 6.a.1 in the final Q&A document linked to in this previous post. This is a particularly unhelpful and vague answer which does not nail the key concern – does applying for an SSC prejudice a generic family bid?
My answer to my own last question is NO – were that not the case they would surely have said so, if for no other reason than to discourage bid traffic. (I accept that they have a legitimate concern about stupid, speculative bids). They did not say YES, rather, in trad. fashion, they fudged it and created confusion. When reading it be clear, the Specification A/B issues about family public law are immaterial here; the difference is between working ONLY for CHILDREN, EVER, or the next 3 years at least, and a generic family contract, be that in an A or B procurement area.
To put the confusion to one side, a JRS phone correspondent rang the “help desk” today and was told outright that he could make simultaneous bids. (I have the details and I am sure he will allow them to become public if necessary)
If you are about to follow the advice that follows you should, of course, read all the IFAs, Q&As and form your own view (you are the lawyers) however here goes;
Most firms will want a full family contract i.e. all levels of service (LH, FH, LR) in all 5 family sub categories.They will want this regardless of the A/B demarcation of their PA.
The generic Family procurement round is competitive and the Selection Criteria scoring process will lead to “bids failing” and some firms losing their family contracts.
Those concerned that they will fail will want a fallback position – especially, if as above, children work constitutes an important element of, or a future opportunity for, their family practice. (The post bid landscape might even make this an exciting opportunity).
If you are suitably qualified – LS Children’s Panel having advised/represented 25 children in the last year – an SSC bid is a simple, non-competitive fall-back.
There is no prejudice in making BOTH applications.
To the LSC readers of this blog (if there are any still left) if I am wrong please tell us in the comments box.
My new admirer knew nothing of this, and why should she, this whole process has been opaque from the start. Maybe I might just have saved her firm from being completely wiped out – in which case, as I am sure you all agree, her affections will have been well placed.
Just no spare time to post and I really want to do something about protective Specialist Services for Children bids.
I will try tomorrow - but this already looks like being equally as mental as today has been - liewise the day before, and the day before etc.
Probably therefore if you are interested in the Specialist Services fo Children issue - book a call about midday on Saturday.
UPDATE
The Saturday phone call thing was a joke/ironic please don't book a call for the weekend too busy checking family bids.
The CDS 12 has now been modified and apparently works. I have not had time to have a go myself so please leave your comments below if this is not the case.
I am covering how to complete this on Friday's webinar.
HAT TIP
Russ Myners
Well Legal Aid has made it into the Election campaign, however not in a way any of us would have wanted.
Doubt there will be an "At the Hustings 2" post here before May 6th.
I was asked if a new key card had been produced last week and had to say that I had not seen one. Well it has just turned up on the LSC website for those who like one of these in preference to the online calculator.
Full of cold (could even be the man flu) and had my head down the e-portal since first thing.
Not much exciting to report save an amendment to the Family/SWL IFA - technical mistakes about cross references to the appeals section I think and nothing to worry about. The immigration notifications have been delayed further - plus they are now, completely wrongly in my view, suggesting that they can't announce anything during the election campaign. We will have to wait and see.
Oh for Wednesday week, cue for a Monday (ran out of time Friday) song.
The final version of the Family/SWL Q&A document is now published. On a quick scan this does not say anything radical and the important questions, asked by us and some of our clients, have not been included. For instance one firm submitted a detailed exposition of the likely Selection Criteria scores in one of their Procurement Areas and asking what contracts and NMS allocations would follow (I wish I had thought of doing it!). They received a direct response but it has not been included in the above despite clearly being of general interest to all suppliers. One of my concerns – the making of protective Services for Children applications – has not been properly addressed either, Answer 6.a.1 is particularly vague.
You should all download and have at least a brief scan however so happy reading.
We will be holding one final, procurement based webinar (which will include guidance on the CDS 12) on Friday 16th April. As usual this will start at 1pm and will provide a comprehensive guide to the completion of your Family/SWL and Low Volume Category bids.
If you have not completed yours or just want a little more confidence that you got it right this is definitely an hour worth taking out of your day and converting into a CPD point.
The anticipated new CDS 12 has been published. Similarly foreseen is that it is now an “e-form” which must be sent via the message function at the e-portal.
You have until April 30th
UPDATE
Thanks to Steve in the comments who points out that the current version doesn’t actually work so those trying, unsuccessfully, to complete it do not worry it is not you that is at fault.
Those preparing family bids will be well aware now of the competitive Selection Criteria, in the Tender Form, by which they will be judged. I doubt I will have to impress on anyone the importance of maximising this score.
SC 2 deals with membership, or otherwise, of the LS Advanced Family Panel or the equivalent Resolution Accreditation scheme. One significant concern has been the 2 dropped points those on either scheme, but who did not take the “domestic violence/abuse” module, suffer. There was seemingly no possibility of reversing this error of fate inside the bid deadline.
Resolution now however seem to have come up with the goods for their specialists caught in this position. Existing Resolution specialist can therefore sit the DA module, get it marked and pass in advance of the Procurement round deadline.
Get writing your essays.
UPDATE
I have just spoken to Resolution to confirm how this announcement helps you maximise your bid score, and reproduce my understanding of that here. Not least I hope that this helps keep phone traffic to them to a minimum (you can ring me too if you like).
There are 2 possible avenues to gaining extra points at SC 2;
2 for EXISTING Resolution Accredited Specialists who now want to add the DA specialism to their accreditation and thus score 5 and not 3 points.1 extra point, for a NON EXISTING RAS, who submits a properly completed application before the April 21st deadline. You cannot gain all 5 points from scratch within the bid deadlines.
Loads to say on "procurement", but no time. More later.
Today feels like an attempt to set a Guinness World Record for the most Family/SWL applications in one day. In addition there will be the now standard constant phone enquiries and a bag of e-mails to sort at close of play (please try and ring rather than the latter).
Hopefully with Mental Health over today will be a bit quieter.
On a more traditional note we will shortly be adding this letter to the “resources” section on the side bar. It deals with Crown Court means testing (I think – Andy prepared it). Enjoy!
PS - Congrats to all successful CDS bidders.