Tag Archives: outsourcing

MPs to publish report on Govt IT rip-offs – “time for a new approach”

Posted on 26/07/2011 | 2 comments

By Tony Collins

On Thursday the Public Administration Select Committee will publish “Government and IT— a recipe for rip-offs: time for a new approach”.

The report is the culmination of months of investigation by the Committee and its advisers into the way government buys and uses IT.

The Committee’s witnesses included representatives of SMEs who suggested that government IT is dominated by a few large suppliers that charge too much and suppress innovation.

One of the SME representatives, Martin Rice, said the IT industry should apologise.  He told the Committee: “I think the IT industry should  publicly apologise to the citizen for the rip-offs of the last 10 or 20 years.”

He added:
“We are reinventing the wheel and it should not be allowed.  As a taxpayer, I am very angry about this … A lot of these problems have been solved; they are not being brought to the Government because of the oligarchy.  It is not in a profitable interest to bring you these paradigms.  That is why I feel the oligarchy has to stop…”
In written evidence Rice said that prime contractors, being the gatekeepers for some projects, “can and do prevent deployment of innovation that can make subsequent change requests cheap or quick to do as they threaten their lucrative revenue streams”.
Lawyer Susan Atkinson was among those who argued in their written evidence that agile methods can be usefully adopted by departments.

2 Comments

Posted in Agile, innovation, managing change, public sector, public services, reforms, supplier relationships, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Siemens given extra £265m on passport contract

Posted on 26/07/2011 | 3 comments

By Tony Collins

Changing the culture of the Home Office will be quite a challenge – but not an impossible one.

The immigration minister Damian Green has revealed in a Parliamentary reply that Siemens received at least £265m more than expected on a contract to build and run passport IT systems.

The extra money to Siemens was funded by the fees charged to passport applicants. The Home Office requires that the Identity and Passport Service covers its costs from passport fees – which have more than trebled since the start of the contract.

In September 1999, the fee payable by a member of the public making a postal application for a standard 10-year passport was:

– £21 for a standard passport

– £31 for passports issued over-the-counter.

Today a passport costs:

– £77.50 for a standard passport

– £129.50 for one over-the-counter.

Campaign4Change asked the Home Office for an explanation of the extra payments to Siemens. Its spokesman gave only a general account which answered none of our specific questions.  

When we expressed gratitude to Andrew Bell in the Home Office’s press office for his quick response to our questions and pointed out that he hadn’t answered any of them he replied: “We have nothing to add”.

What’s clear is that the Home Office may be under new coalition management but its culture of non-accountability and secrecy haven’t changed.

It’s also clear that, with Gateway reviews remaining secret, Parliament has no certain way of knowing when any large IT-enabled change contract is deviating substantially from the contract in time, scope or costs.

In 2009 the Home Office replaced Siemens with CSC as the main passport IT supplier contract. Have extra payments been made to CSC under its £385m 10-year passport contract? Parliament has no idea, and neither do we.

Damian Green reveals extra payments to Siemens

This was Damian Green’s reply to a question by SNP MP Dr Eilidh Whiteford.

Dr Whiteford: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the original estimate, at current prices, was for the cost to the public purse of the Siemens IT system for the Passport Agency; what the final cost, at current prices, was at the time of completion; and whether additional costs have been incurred since completion.

Damian Green: At the time of contract award, the anticipated contract value was between £80 to £100m over a 10-year period. The contract duration extended to 11 years at a total cost of approximately £365m.”

Green added: “The increase in costs over the term of the Siemens contract can be attributed to numerous factors including additional demand for passports, enhancements of the IT infrastructure and business processes to accommodate changes in policy, response to changes in security threats and customer service improvements.”

How well did Siemens perform on its £365m passport contract?

Siemens had mixed success on its passport contract. It helped introduce the new  Passport Application Support System [PASS] in 1999 which failed badly, in part because of errors in scanning forms; and nobody realised until too late that extra processing time on applications was slowing down the issuing of passports.

The result was that  hundreds of passport applicants had to cancel their holidays or change their travel dates. A national roll-out of PASS was delayed, and the new work processes and system eventually stabilised.

When the contract finished in 2009, CSC was appointed to build and run new IT systems under a £385m 10-year contract which included replacing  the PASS. An  upgrade of PASS in 2007 destabilised the system temporarily.

The incident made staff at the Identity and Passport Service realise that they could not  subject the PASS system to further major changes without risking disruption to internal operations.

A year earlier,  in 2006, the Identity and Passport Service had a failure with its introduction of an electronic passport application system EPA2. To its credit the Service later published the lessons from the project. This decision on openness came from managers at the passport service,  rather than from within the Home Office HQ.

Home Office culture of secrecy remains

To see if anything has changed on openness and accountability since the last administration we asked the Home Office the following:

a)       Does the Home Office consider the contract with Siemens to have been value for money?

b)       Has, or will, the Home Office publish any information on the contract to justify or explain the extra spend, such as Gateway reviews?

c)       Any comment please on a suggestion that Parliament should be kept informed of such increases.

d)       Are there any plans to explain or tell Parliament about any increases in the cost of the [replacement] contract with CSC?

This was the reply of the Home Office’s spokesman Andrew Bell:

“The parliamentary answer – enclosed below – covers some of this.

“In addition, to note that Siemens contract was for developing and maintaining the IT infrastructure for IPS  [Identity and Passport Service] to issue passports. It also included support for processing applications such as the scanning of the documents required for passports.

“The Identity and Passport Service awarded this new contract for providing this service to Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) in October 2009.”

**

Campaign4Change has given details of the Home Office’s replies to us to a campaigning MP.

We are grateful to publicservice.co.uk for its article which drew our attention to Damian Green’s reply.

Link:

MP asks NAO to consider an inquiry after our article on the Siemens passport contract.

3 Comments

Posted in Campaign4Change, outsourcing, public sector, public services, supplier relationships

Tagged , , , ,

Did officials tell MPs the whole truth on NPfIT payments to CSC?

Posted on 15/07/2011 | 2 comments

By Tony Collins

Conservative MP Richard Bacon wrote to the NHS Chief Executive Sir David Nicholson yesterday warning that a failure to disclose information to the Public Accounts Committee was a “very serious matter”.

Bacon, a long-standing member of the Public Accounts Committee, wrote to Nicholson about advance payments to CSC under the NHS National Programme for IT.

The MP is concerned that the Department of Health did not mention a £200m advance payment to CSC at a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee on the NPfIT detailed care records systems on 23 May 2011; and the payment wasn’t mentioned in the Department’s subsequent memo to the committee.

Said Bacon in his letter:

“I understand that the advance payment of £200m to CSC was made in April 2011 but the Department of Health’s memo of 7 June 2011 doesn’t mention it. 

“The failure to disclose to the PAC an advance payment of £200m is a very serious matter.  The fact that the payment appears to have happened after 31 March 2011 is scarcely the point.

“What is going on? … 

CSC declared the £200m advance payment in regulatory announcement

CSC has told regulatory authorities in the US that on 1 April 2011, pursuant to the NPfIT contract, the “NHS made an advance payment to the Company of £200 million ($320 million) related to the forecasted charges expected by the Company during fiscal year 2012”.

The payment was reported by E-health Insider last month.

It appears that the Department decided to give the committee details of advance payments to CSC up until 31 March 2011. The undisclosed £200m payment to CSC was made the next day, 1 April.

As the Department of Health wrote to the committee on 7 June there is no clear reason for its choice of 31 March as the cut-off date for informing MPs of advance payments to CSC.

It would not be the first time the Department has withheld the latest information on the NPfIT from what it regards as outsiders, such as Parliament and the media.

When the National Audit Office was investigating the NPfIT several years ago it was not told of the latest Ipsos MORI survey on NHS perceptions of the National Programme.

The Department instead gave the NAO an older and more positive Ipsos MORI survey. The NAO confirmed to me it had not seen the latest survey [which had some negative findings on the NPfIT].  

Today some in the Cabinet Office are exasperated at the disdain with which some officials at the Department of Health – not all – treat outside supervisory organisations such as the NAO, the Public Accounts Committee and the Cabinet Office.

It appears that some in the Department regard these organisations as necessary by-products of democracy that must be tolerated but not encouraged.

Comment:

Major change is unlikely to happen in Whitehall or at least within the Department of Health and NHS Connecting for Health if officials are allowed, with ease, to dismiss their scrutineers with a wave of their hand.

The culture of allowing the DH to withhold the truth about the NPfIT needs tackling. All credit to Bacon and the Cabinet Office for trying to do just that. It’s likely that Katie Davis, the interim health CIO, will also seek to make the DH less introspective and defensive, at least in terms of the NPfIT and health informatics generally.   

**

Bacon’s letter to Sir David Nicholson

This is Bacon’s letter dated 14 July2011 to Nicholson, copied to the head of the National Audit Office Amyas Morse, the chair of the Public Accounts Committee Margaret Hodge, and the Cabinet Office. 

Dear Sir David

NATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR IT IN THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

I do not seem to have received a reply to my email of 27 June below.

Making advance payments of any kind at all is wholly at variance with the Department of Health’s long-stated boast that the NPfIT contracts “only pay for delivery”, but let us leave aside this basic point for the moment.

I understand that the advance payment of £200 million to CSC was made in April 2011 but the Department of Health’s memo of 7 June 2011 doesn’t mention it.  The failure to disclose to the PAC an advanced payment of £200 million is a very serious matter.  The fact that the payment appears to have happened after 31 March 2011 is scarcely the point.

What is going on?  Please reply to my email below with its various questions without further delay.

Yours sincerely

Richard Bacon MP for South Norfolk, Member of the Public Accounts Committee

Bacon’s earlier letter to Nicholson, dated 27 June 2011

Dear Sir David

NATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR IT IN THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

I am writing following the hearing of the Public Accounts Committee on Monday 23 May 2011, to follow up on two important issues that were raised during your evidence:

1.       ADVANCE PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS

In your supplementary memorandum to the PAC following the hearing you gave a total of advance payments made up to 31 March 2011, in respect of all contracts over the whole period of the Programme, of £2,532m of which suppliers have retained £1,328m. You also identified a further £119 million of advance payments to be earned or refunded.  Since the memorandum was received by the PAC, it has been reported that the NHS made an advance payment of £200 million to CSC in April 2011. http://www.ehi.co.uk/news/acute-care/6971/nhs-made-£200m-april-advance-to-csc

I should be most grateful if you would let me know the answers to the following questions:

1.       Is this report accurate?

2.       Why was this payment was not reported to the PAC, either during the hearing or in the subsequent memorandum?

3.       What was the justification for this payment and what value does it represent to the NHS?

4.       What will happen in respect of this payment if a new memorandum of understanding is not in fact signed with CSC?

5.       I would also be grateful if you would comment on the CSC filing with the US Security and Exchange Commission, which states that in the opinion of the company, if the NHS were to terminate the current contract “for convenience” it would owe fees totalling less than the $1 billion asset value CSC now has on its books for the contract.   How is this consistent with the claim at the PAC  hearing by Ms Connelly that the cost of terminating the CSC deal could “potentially leave us exposed to a higher cost than if we completed as it stands today”?

2. THE COST OF DEPLOYING CERNER MILLENNIUM AT NORTH BRISTOL

Second, I would be grateful if you could comment on the cost of deploying Cerner Millennium at North Bristol, reported in your memorandum as £21 million, including service for 56 months, and on the current expected go-live date.  Specifically:

6.       Can you explain why the delivery date agreed with BT at the contract “reset” was 4th June 2011?

7.       Why it was then revised to 2nd July 2011?

8.       And why it now appears that there is no agreed delivery date at all?

9.       Can you also give your best comparison of the cost of deploying the Cerner Millennium system at North Bristol, with the cost to University Hospitals Bristol of deploying the System C Healthcare Medway system outside the National Programme?  It would appear from media reports that this latter contract includes deployment of functionality including PAS, Accident and Emergency, maternity, theatres, clinical data collection, and a data warehouse and reporting system, as well as integration of third party and current Trust applications.  According to the National Audit Office, the average cost for each new site under the BT South contract is £28.3 million, but the cost of the Medway system to UHB has been reported as £8.2 million over seven years. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/healthcare-network/2011/may/19/university-hospitals-bristol-foundation-trust-awards-e-patient-contract)   What is the justification for this apparent difference?

10.   As the Senior Responsible Owner for the National Programme, can you give your explicit undertaking that the North Bristol contract represents value for money for taxpayers?

I look forward to receiving your reply.

With many thanks

Yours sincerely

Richard Bacon

2 Comments

Posted in Campaign4Change, improving communications, NHS, npfit, outsourcing, public sector, public services, supplier relationships, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Firecontrol shows how much Major Projects Authority is needed

Posted on 07/07/2011 | Leave a comment

When an investigative team from BBC File on 4 went to a business estate near Taunton, they saw an empty “hi-tech fortress” that looked like a NASA control room.

Nobody was working there. Nearly an entire wall of the control room was fitted with 50-inch monitors – 20 of them. They were blank.

That centre – and a further eight purpose-built buildings like it – remain empty because control room software has yet to be installed.

The £469m wasted on the centres and the failed IT project to support them – together called Firecontrol – was the subject yesterday of a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee.

Mistaken recommendation

At the hearing Sir Bob Kerslake, Permanent Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government, said that officials made a “mistaken” recommendation to go-ahead of a new IT and control centres for fire services.  

Kerslake accepted points made the Committee’s chair Margaret Hodge that officials recommended the go-ahead of the Firecontrol IT project without reliable figures on likely costs, savings or benefits

No finalised business case or project plan 

Also absent when the IT procurement went ahead was a finalised project plan or business case, MPs heard yesterday. The full business case for Firecontrol wasn’t published until June 2007, three years after the start of the IT project. A revised business case was published in 2009, the year before the project was cancelled. 

Rush to buy new systems – as with the NHS IT scheme

The Committee was told that procurement of new systems was underway by May 2004, amid a deep level of ignorance, because officials were in a rush.

It was a similar story on the NPfIT: officials were in a hurry to complete the procurement of new systems. And as with the NPfIT, there was no local buy-in. “Firecontrol was flawed from the outset because it did not have the support of the majority of those essential to its success – its users,” said the NAO.

Local fire services were under no statutory duty to use the regional control centres. As with the NPfIT, central government officials thought they could persuade local services to use the centres. They failed.

Firecontrol has lost a minimum of £469m, according to the NAO. The Department cancelled the scheme in December 2010 because of continued uncertainties. The coalition has approved a new project due to cost about £84m – which prompted MPs to ask yesterday why the original scheme could not have been done much cheaper.

What about the officials who made the flawed recommendation to go ahead?

Margaret Hodge, chair of the committee, asked Kerslake why his department did not seek a “ministerial direction” before embarking on a project that was so flawed. Ministerial directions are issued by departments’ most senior civil servants when they disagree with their minister’s decision so strongly that they refuse to be accountable for it.

Kerslake replied that no ministerial direction was issued because it was officials who were recommending the project’s go-ahead.

Said Kerslake: 

“I don’t think it came to that [Ministerial Direction] because the view of officials was to recommend, with some of issues identified as concerns, that the scheme went ahead. This was not a case where a Direction would have applied because the recommendation from officials, as I understand it, was to go ahead with the scheme.”

MPs heard that Kerslake was a non-executive director at the department when the decision was taken to go ahead with Firecontrol. Didn’t he object to the scheme’s approval?

Kerslake said he raised concerns to the board about the large scale of the investment compared to the problem. “The concern I had at the time, whether fire and rescue services were willing to take on this technology, were all points that were discussed. The view of the officials on balance at the time was that the benefits of doing the scheme outweighed the risks and costs.”

Kerslake said that as a non-executive he was on the board in an advisory role.

Conservative MP Richard Bacon, a long-standing member of the committee, asked Kerslake if his scepticism as a non-executive was recorded.

“It was clearly part of the discussion. I have not gone back and checked every note of the meetings.”

Comment:

MP Richard Bacon suggested yesterday that the only accountability for the failure of the project was Sir Robert Kerslake’s having an uncomfortable two hours before the Public Accounts Committee.

As for his officials, the only accountability for the waste of £469m was to sit in seats behind him, periodically passing him notes. An observer at the hearing said public seats in the committee room “seemed to be packed full of advisers passing notes to the four people hauled before the committee”.

It’s a civil service tradition that officials are not generally held responsible for recommendations because the final decision on major projects is taken by the department’s minister; yet ministers will tend to know only what they are told by department’s civil servants. 

If the officials are incompetent in drawing up their recommendations, they may be incompetent in the briefings they give their ministers.

Even so it would be a brave minister who rejected the recommendation of permanent and supposedly expert staff.

That’s why the coalition’s setting up of the Cabinet Office’s Major Projects Authority is such a good move: it will challenge departmental complacency and over-confidence in its own abilities and decisions. 

Cabinet Office Francis Maude announced on 31 March 2011 that “from today all major projects will be scrutinised by the new Major Projects Authority”. 

Most importantly it has powers from the Prime Minister to oversee and direct the effective management of all large-scale projects. Though there are still uncertainties among Cabinet Office officials about the extent to which the Major Projects Authority can intervene in major projects, it has an enforceable mandate from Cameron to scrutinise proposals for major projects; and the Authority is run by the redoubtable Australian David Pitchford who reports to the Cabinet Office’s Chief Operating Officer Ian Watmore whose brief includes making efficiency savings.

With the Major Projects Authority central government has the chance to stop flawed projects such as Firecontrol going ahead. Yesterday’s PAC hearing showed how badly the Authority is needed as an independent challenge. The existence of the Authority is one of the most important developments in government IT for decades – provided it makes effective use of the PM’s mandate. 

Firecontrol chiefs list reasons for project’s collapse.

Leave a comment

Posted in Campaign4Change, npfit, public sector, public services, supplier relationships, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , ,

What the FireControl disaster and NPfIT have in common

Posted on 01/07/2011 | 1 comment

By Tony Collins

From today’s National Audit Office report on FireControl project which wasted at least £469m:

“FiReControl was flawed from the outset because it did not have the support of the majority of those essential to its success – its users”

Were the Fire and Rescue Service’s FireControl project and the National Programme for IT in the NHS launched to discover all that can go wrong with a large IT-based project?

One could be forgiven for thinking so. The two projects were conceived in the early part of the new millennium as national, centralised schemes which, in the main, did not have any support from the people who would be using them.

The schemes were launched by civil servants and ministers with good intentions and little or no experience in the many IT-related project disasters that went before.

The projects that had failed since the late 1970s and early 1980s went wrong for similar reasons. As early as 1984 the Public Accounts Committee met to question civil servants on the common factors in a succession of “administrative computing” failures.

Since then every department has come to its IT-based projects and programmes with little understanding – and very little interest – in the lessons from history; and it’s said that those who don’t learn from history are destined to repeat past mistakes.

The FireControl system, which is the subject of an NAO report today, and the NPfIT, had something striking in common: the fact that the system users were the ones with the control of money and decisions on how they spent it – and they did not want technology imposed on them by civil servants in London. That was clear from the start. But it did not stop either the NPfIT or FireControl going ahead.

Indeed a Gateway Review by the Office of Government Commerce in April 2004, after the FireControl project had been approved, found that the “extraordinarily fast pace” of the project was introducing new risks to its delivery, and was escalating the risks already identified. The review concluded that the project was in poor condition overall and at significant risk of failing to deliver.

That review was, at the time, as with similar reviews on the NPfIT, kept secret, so those outside the project, including MPs and the media, were unable to challenge the projects with a credibility that could have influenced decisions on the future of the schemes.

New gateway reviews are still kept secret today, despite the coalition’s promise of openness and transparency.

The good thing about the FireControl project and the NPfIT is that the Cabinet Office has taken control. A Cabinet Office Major Projects Review Group in in July 2010 concluded that negotiations should begin to terminate the FireControl contract – and indeed a settlement with the supplier EADS was reached successfully and amicably in December 2010. The Cabinet Office’s Major Projects Authority is now  reviewing the future of CSC’s £2.9bn worth of NPfIT contracts.

The bad thing is that the FireControl scheme has wasted at least £469m, according to today’s report of the National Audit Office. The NPfIT may have lost a great deal more.

NAO’s conclusion on FireControl

This was the NAO’s conclusion on the FireControl project. Much the same could be said of the NPfIT:

“This is an example of bad value for money. FiReControl will have wasted a minimum of £469m, through its failure to provide any enhancement to the capacity of the control centres of Fire and Rescue Services after seven years.

“At root, this outcome has been reached because the Department, without sufficient mandatory powers, decided to try to centrally impose a national control system on unwilling locally accountable bodies, which prize their distinctiveness from each other and their freedom to choose their own equipment.

“At the same time, it tried to rush through key elements of project initiation and ended up with an inadequate IT contract, under-appreciating its complexity and risk, and then mismanaged problems with the IT contractor’s performance and delivery.”

 Links:

FireControl project a comprehensive failure.

The failure of the FireControl project – NAO report.

1 Comment

Posted in legal disputes, NHS, npfit, public sector, public services, supplier relationships, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

NHS IT supplier “corrects” Health CIO’s statements

Posted on 30/06/2011 | 3 comments

An IT supplier to the NHS has written to MPs to “correct” statements made by Health CIO Christine Connelly.

The implications of the supplier’s corrections are that Conservative MP Richard Bacon might have been right all along:  that the Department of Health may be paying BT as much as £200m more than necessary to install the “RiO” patient record system at 25 trusts in the south of England.

The corrections by CSE Healthcare Systems – supplier of RiO – call into question some of the Department of Health’s justifications for the high costs of NPfIT versions of RiO.

RiO is an electronic patient record system that is supplied to mental health trusts and community service organisations. Trusts can buy directly from CSE Healthcare or via its partner BT Global Services which is the local service provider to London under the National Programme for IT.

Through the NPfIT, BT is installing RiO at 25 trusts in the south of England under a £224.3m NPfIT deal – £8.9m per site, compared with £500,000 to £1.5m per site if supplied to the NHS directly by CSE outside of the national programme.

At a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee on 23 May 2011, Conservative MP Richard Bacon asked Connelly to explain why RiO costs so much more when it is supplied by BT.

Connelly told the Committee that the Department of Health had investigated the RiO costs at Bradford District Care Trust, which is a mental health trust.

Bradford bought RiO outside the NPfIT, using the ASCC framework contract, which enables trusts to buy systems directly from suppliers without going through NPfIT local service providers.

The total cost of RiO at Bradford was £1.3m, which Connelly said was for a 59‑month contract.

She told MPs:

“So the comparison: in terms of the services that we provide, there are a whole set of services that are not within that £1.3m that are inside the Local Service Provider contract.

“Earlier somebody said, ‘Well, doesn’t everybody have disaster recovery.’  Well, actually, no, and at this Trust only 25% availability is provided in their local arrangements, which are not included in these costs.

“So we have a cost in terms of the BT LSP in the South for the same period, which includes the hardware, the support, the disaster recovery at 100%, the Spine connectivity, all of which are not supplied inside this Bradford system.

“If we looked at those costs through BT’s cost profile, it would be valued at £2.5m.”

Bacon pointed out that £2.5m was still much less than £8.9m being charged by BT. He wanted the difference explained.

Connelly said:

“So first there is the period. So we need to take a look at the average period that you would expect to be there, because we pay a one‑off deployment charge and then we pay a monthly charge.  So in terms of the figure that you quote, it is generally for about a four-year period, and the figure we quote is generally for about a six-year period, sometimes a little more.  I think what we get is 24/7 support.

“We get full disaster recovery.  I think it is fine to say, “Oh, anybody has that.”  The cost of full disaster recovery is significant, when you look at the costs that BT have; we invited an external auditor to go look at the cost build-up, and they have audited these costs.  We looked at BT’s profit margin, and they have taken a significant reduction in their profit margin between the original contract and the contract that we have today…”

To which Bacon replied:  “But it is not the taxpayer’s fault if BT has unbelievably high costs.”

Bacon said that one reason the costs are so high is that CSE cannot talk directly to NHS trusts and must go through BT.  “That is the problem with this structure,” said Bacon. “It is like having you over here, and the customer over there, and an enormous thicket, a forest of lawyers, in between.”

Connelly replied that a change to the programme means that suppliers of RiO are now on site “talking to Trusts themselves”.  In London and the South, for RiO, a new user group brings together all the Trusts. Cerner, the supplier of NPfIT patient administration systems in London and the south of England, also deals directly with trusts rather than through BT, said Connelly.

Taking issue with Connelly’s comments about Bradford, this was CSE’s written statement to the Public Accounts Committee:

“During the evidence presented by Ms Christine Connelly, one of our contracts for RiO,  Bradford Mental Health Trust was referenced.

“Ms Connelly’s statement was that Bradford is receiving a lower standard of service than provided by BT in London and hence the lower price charged by CSE Healthcare Systems to Bradford.

“CSE Healthcare Systems wishes to correct the evidence given.

• Ms Connelly stated that the service is NOT 24*7 hours – the service is a 24*7 service.

• Ms Connelly stated that Disaster Recovery (DR) was NOT included in the service – a DR service is included.

• There was no mention of Facilities Management – we provide remote Facilities Management

• The service contract is for five years – not four years as stated.

• Ms Connelly implied that the system only had 25% availability – our records demonstrate that this is not true; the system is architected to achieve an availability of over 99%.”

**

Another NHS IT supplier Maracis has provided evidence that RiO costs several times more under the NPfIT than outside the programme, for similar levels of service, disaster recovery, availability and support periods.

On its website CSE Healthcare says its system is compliant with the NPfIT data “spine” and supports established standards for interoperability such as HL7 and XML.

The Public Accounts Committee is finalising a report on the NPfIT detailed care record systems. Its findings will be based on its questioning of Connelly and other witnesses, written evidence from CSE and others, and a report of the National Audit Office in May.

Connelly, who is Director General of Informatics, has announced she is leaving at the end of this month, after three years. She is being replaced in the interim by Katie Davis, who is from the Cabinet Office.

3 Comments

Posted in Campaign4Change, NHS, npfit, outsourcing, public sector, public services, supplier relationships, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,

MP questions why IT costs at two nearby hospital trusts are vastly different for similar systems

Posted on 28/06/2011 | 4 comments

By Tony Collins

A Conservative MP has asked the NHS Chief Executive Sir David Nicholson to explain why an NHS trust is deploying a centrally-chosen Cerner patient record system at more than twice the cost of a similar but non-NPfIT system at a nearby Foundation trust.

University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust is deploying the Medway system from System C  (now owned by McKesson] at a reported cost of £8.2m over seven years. The acute trust is one of the largest in the country.

With support for less than five years, the nearby North Bristol NHS trust is taking the Cerner Millennium patient record system under the NPfIT at a cost of £21m from BT – and the go-live date in June has slipped to July.

Now Richard Bacon, a member of the Public Accounts Committee, has written to Sir David Nicholson asking for an explanation of why the two trusts are paying vastly different amounts for systems that do similar things. Bacon has also asked Nicholson whether he believes the higher sum is value for money.

The average cost of BT Cerner go-lives under  the NPfIT is £28.3m according to the National Audit Office.

Bacon’s letter is part of evidence which suggests that continuing NPfIT contracts is costing hundreds of millions of pounds more than necessary.

The coalition government, despite its plan to cut public sector IT costs, may spend a further £3bn to 4.bn with the NPfIT’s two major suppliers, BT and CSC, though the Cabinet Office’s Major Projects Authority is reviewing CSC’s £2.9bn worth of contracts.

Bacon’s letter also questions advance payments to CSC, and whether a recent hearing of the Public Accounts Committee was told the full truth.

An unwavering defender of the NPfIT, Nicholson is likely to defend the cost of the North Bristol implementation, and the advance payments to CSC. On costs, he will argue that North Bristol’s systems have better resilience than at non-NPfIT sites.

If that were true – and there is no evidence it is – the extra costs of having a “hot”, or real-time standby data centre, may not justify a doubling of a rival’s prices. 

This is Bacon’s letter to Sir David Nicholson:

Chief Executive, National Health Service, Department of Health, Richmond House, London SW1A 2NS

27 June 2011

Dear Sir David

NATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR IT IN THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

I am writing following the hearing of the Public Accounts Committee on Monday 23 May 2011, to follow up on two important issues that were raised during your evidence:

ADVANCE PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS

In your supplementary memorandum to the PAC following the hearing you gave a total of advance payments made up to 31 March 2011, in respect of all contracts over the whole period of the Programme, of £2,532m of which suppliers have retained £1,328m. You also identified a further £119 million of advance payments to be earned or refunded.  Since the memorandum was received by the PAC, it has been reported that the NHS made an advance payment of £200 million to CSC in April 2011.

I should be most grateful if you would let me know the answers to the following questions:

Is this report accurate?

Why was this payment was not reported to the PAC, either during the hearing or in the subsequent memorandum?

What was the justification for this payment and what value does it represent to the NHS?

What will happen in respect of this payment if a new memorandum of understanding is not in fact signed with CSC?

I would also be grateful if you would comment on the CSC filing with the US Security and Exchange Commission, which states that in the opinion of the company, if the NHS were to terminate the current contract “for convenience” it would owe fees totalling less than the $1 billion asset value CSC now has on its books for the contract.  

How is this consistent with the claim at the PAC  hearing by Ms Connelly that the cost of terminating the CSC deal could “potentially leave us exposed to a higher cost than if we completed as it stands today”?

2. THE COST OF DEPLOYING CERNER MILLENNIUM AT NORTH BRISTOL

Second, I would be grateful if you could comment on the cost of deploying Cerner Millennium at North Bristol, reported in your memorandum as £21 million, including service for 56 months, and on the current expected go-live date.  Specifically:

Can you explain why the delivery date agreed with BT at the contract “reset” was 4th June 2011?

Why it was then revised to 2nd July 2011?

And why it now appears that there is no agreed delivery date at all?

Can you also give your best comparison of the cost of deploying the Cerner Millennium system at North Bristol, with the cost to University Hospitals Bristol of deploying the System C Healthcare Medway system outside the National Programme?  It would appear from media reports that this latter contract includes deployment of functionality including PAS, Accident and Emergency, maternity, theatres, clinical data collection, and a data warehouse and reporting system, as well as integration of third party and current Trust applications.  According to the National Audit Office, the average cost for each new site under the BT South contract is £28.3 million, but the cost of the Medway system to UHB has been reported as £8.2 million over seven years. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/healthcare-network/2011/may/19/university-hospitals-bristol-foundation-trust-awards-e-patient-contract)   What is the justification for this apparent difference?

As the Senior Responsible Owner for the National Programme, can you give your explicit undertaking that the North Bristol contract represents value for money for taxpayers?

I look forward to receiving your reply.

With many thanks

Yours sincerely

Richard Bacon

MP for South Norfolk, Member of the Public Accounts Committee

4 Comments

Posted in Campaign4Change, NHS, npfit, outsourcing, public sector, public services, supplier relationships

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Who’ll support the NPfIT now?

Posted on 23/06/2011 | 5 comments

By Tony Collins

The departure of Christine Connelly as health CIO at the end of this month will leave the NPfIT’s main civil service supporter, Sir David Nicholson, Chief Executive of the NHS and Senior Responsible Owner of the NHS IT scheme,  more isolated.

That Nicholson is a supporter of the continuance of the NPfIT is not in doubt. He spoke about the NHS IT scheme last month in terms of life and death. At a hearing of the public accounts committee on 23 May 2011, Nicholson said:

“We spent about 20% of that resource [the £11.4bn projected total spend on the NPfIT] on the acute sector. The other 80% is providing services that literally mean life and death to patients today, and have done for the last period.

“So the Spine, and all those things, provides really, really important services for our patients. If you are going to talk about the totality of the [NPfIT] system … you have to accept that 80% of that programme has been delivered.”

But without Christine Connelly, who put detailed arguments in favour of continuing with iSoft’s Lorenzo, and who was solidly behind the costly implementations of Cerner by BT, Nicholson may not have the civil service backup he needs to promote the continuance of the NPfIT.

The Cabinet Office’s Major Projects Authority, under the directorship of the independently-minded David Pitchford,  is now reviewing CSC’s £2.9bn worth of NPfIT contracts. It is known that the Authority regards the new proposals worked out between CSC and the Department of Health as poor value for money, even with CSC’s willingness to reduce the value of its contracts by £764m, to about £2.1bn.

That promised reduction comes at a cost. A leaked Cabinet office memo said that the CSC’s proposals would double the cost of each Lorenzo deployment.

The easiest thing for Nicholson and the Department of Health would be for the Major Projects Authority to approve the deal worked out between CSC and the Department of Health, and simply sign a new Memorandum of Understanding which would be, in part, legally binding.

Strong grounds for ending CSC’s NPfIT contracts

The more difficult but more practical alternative is for the Cabinet Office to require the Department of Health to end CSC’s NPfIT contracts, which would leave the NHS more able to decide its own IT-based future.

Indeed the signs are in some trusts that officials are not unhappy about Connelly’s departure in that they perceive it may weaken the centre’s control over NHS IT.

Legally it appears that an end to CSC’s contract would be feasible. The Department of Health has accused CSC of a breach of contract because of its failure to achieve a key milestone; the Department has also notified CSC of “various alleged events of default under the contract” which are “related to  delays and other alleged operational issues”. The Department is considering its position on termination of all or parts of the contract.

But the Department has not taken its claims to arbitration; its allegations are only a formal legal manoeuvre at the moment.

CSC accuses NHS of failures and breaches of contract

CSC has reacted by accusing the NHS of a breach of contract. The company’s formal legal position is that it has cured or is preparing to cure the faults that led to the alleged breach; it says that failures and breaches of contract on the part of NHS have caused delays and issues.

The DH could end CSC’s contract for reasons of convenience which could trigger a request from CSC for a large sum in compensation. But the Department could give strong legal reasons for not paying. Although CSC could pursue its claim for compensation, it may be on soft ground because of its failures. Also, CSC, if it pursues any legal action, could jeopardise its other work for government: some of its other major contracts with the UK government are with the Identity and Passport Service, which is part of the Home Office.

The Coalition is now supervising its major suppliers, including CSC, in the round, which is reason enough for CSC to do all it can to maintain a good relationship with the Cabinet Office.

CSC would support NHS trusts even if its contracts ended

The  Department of Health is concerned that if it ends the NPfIT contracts with CSC, the supplier may leave unsupported many trusts that have CSC’s iSoft software installed. That is highly unlikely, however, because CSC has a $1.03bn investment in the NPfIT contracts according to the regulatory reports to US authorities.

In the NHS CSC has a large customer base. Through its acquisition of iSoft, CSC will want to capitalise on its investment in iSoft’s Lorenzo software by selling it across the globe. That’s its stated plan. So CSC’s continued support for NHS trusts that have installed iSoft software is not in doubt.

What NHS Trusts want

The best outcome of the negotiations with CSC, for NHS trusts that have installed iSoft software, is that they have the:

-choice to continue with CSC if the price is right

– buy support elsewhere, or

– choose a different product.

Will CSC’s NPfIT contracts end by mutual agreement? – it’s possible

The question is: does the Cabinet Office have the courage to end CSC’s contract, freeing up billions of pounds that would otherwise have been spent on the NPfIT without a commensurate return for taxpayers, the NHS or patients?

It seems  so, even if it means paying a relatively painless sum to CSC as compensation for termination.

Leaked memo reveals CSC’s plans.

A sign that coalition reforms will change behaviour of major suppliers.

Health CIO resigns – Cabinet Office executive steps in.

Example of a trust that’s succeeding without the NPfIT – Trafford General Hospital.

Connelly at odds with PM over NPfIT value for money?

NHS CIO in dramatic resignation.

5 Comments

Posted in NHS, npfit, outsourcing, public sector, public services, supplier relationships, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BT doubles the value of its NHS IT business, to £4.1bn, in eight years

Posted on 08/06/2011 | 1 comment

By Tony Collins

BT’s NPfIT business today is worth £4.1bn – nearly double the cost of the original NHS IT contracts, according to a calculation by Campaign4Change.

In December 2003 the Department of Health awarded BT three contracts under the NHS IT programme:

– a ten-year deal, worth £620m to design, deliver and manage the Spine, a national patient record database and transactional messaging service that was essential to the NHS Care Records Service.

– a ten-year deal, worth £996m to become the main IT supplier – local service provider – to all London trusts. The contract was to design, deliver and operate integrated local patient record applications and systems for the NHS in London.

– a seven-year “N3” broadband network deal, worth £530m, to replace the NHS communications network NHSnet.

The three contracts were worth a total of £2.15bn in 2003.

Now BT has confirmed that the total value of its NHS contracts is £4.1bn. This is after change control notices and further NPfIT work, including taking over from Fujitsu at seven NHS sites in the south.  Of this £4.1bn, BT has so far received £2.8bn – about £700m more than the cost of its original contracts; and BT has confirmed it is bidding for further NPfIT work, under NHS Connecting for Health’s Additional Supply Capability and Capacity (ASCC).

On the basis of what they have said in the past, the NPfIT senior responsible owner Sir David Nicholson and officials at the Department of Health and NHS Connecting for Health, will defend all payments to BT as value for money.

Indeed, when Nicholson, the NHS Chief Executive, was asked last month by the chair of the Public Accounts Committee Margaret Hodge whether he was claiming that money spent to date on the NPfIT  had not been wasted and will potentially deliver value for money Nicholson confirmed that he did say this.

“Yes, yes,” replied Nicholson.

However the original NPfIT contracts set down plans for fully-integrated London-wide care Records systems by 2010, which has not happened.

The scale of the increases raises questions of whether officials at the Department of Health are too close to the NPfIT suppliers to be regarded as independent arbiters on contract negotiations and change control notices.

There’s a strong argument for the DH to transfer control of the NPfIT contracts to the Cabinet Office. Nicholson, the DH and CfH will not give up their hold on the NPfIT or the LSP contracts, or disputes. Perhaps David Cameron, who has taken a personal interest in the NPfIT, should order that the Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude take control.

Improvements in the NHS in ways of working, such as the standardising of medical forms for data collection,  and IT-based innovation, are much needed. But not at any cost.

1 Comment

Posted in NHS, npfit, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , ,

Cabinet Office publishes SME action plans today – a good start.

Posted on 03/06/2011 | 1 comment

By Tony Collins

The Cabinet Office has today published SME “action plans” for each department.

It says the  reforms are “designed” – which is not the same as a commitment – to   “significantly open-up the public sector marketplace to small businesses”.

The new  plans support what the Cabinet Office calls an “aspiration” for the Government to spend  25% of its budgets on SMEs.

The actions range from:

  • breaking large contracts into smaller lots
  • working with major suppliers to increase SME access to sub-contracting opportunities
  • increasing the amount of information that is available to SMEs about contract opportunities
  • holding “product surgeries” for SMEs to pitch innovative ideas
  • piloting new procurement methods that are more open to SMEs.

Some of the documents published today could be more aptly  described as goodwill gestures to SMEs rather than  action plans.  Indeed, when read carefully, some of the action plans appear to be a civil service response to an unwanted ministerial decree.

HM Revenue and Customs, which is tied into an £8bn IT outsourcing deal with Capgemini, uses phrases in its SME action plan that are vague and non-committal, such as “build on the work done …”

These are some of the promises HMRC is making to SMEs:

– From June 2011, HMRC will develop and maintain information on its website relevant for SMEs. The information will include, but will not be limited to, signposting for SMEs to access relevant procurement details and how they can work with the Department. The Department will provide clear contact points for additional information and queries.

– Work with the 12 largest prime HMRC suppliers (representing c80% of 3rd party spend) to ensure they identify and engage with their own SME supply chains, including 3/4th level suppliers and agree actions (such as advertising suitable sub-contracting opportunities on Contracts Finder) with them to increase value of spend.

– Build on the work done on the recent open procedure procurement for Debt Collection Services …

– HMRC to consider appropriate procurements that are suitable for SME competition.

The Home office’s action plan is better, though.  It says it will:

– review forthcoming procurements and develop standardised processes and procedures to remove barriers to SMEs. “This will ensure the method used is as SME friendly as possible for the contract on offer.”  By June 2011.

Alongside publishing the action plans the Cabinet Office is creating a central team, Government Procurement, which will contract for widely-used goods and services for the whole of Government at a single, better price.

This, says the Cabinet Office, will end the “signing of expensive deals by individual departments” and “end poor value contracts such as those where government departments and agencies paid between £350 and £2,000 for the same laptop and between £85 and £240 for the same printer cartridge from the same supplier”.

Central procurement of common items is expected to save more than £3bn a year by 2015 – 25% of the Government’s current annual spending on these items.

Francis Maude says the Government is on track to have saved more than £1bn from tighter spending on discretionary goods and services including consultants and agency staff in the last year.

“Changes to make Government contracts more accessible to SMEs have already led to one not-for-profit SME successfully undercutting larger competitors and winning a £1.6m contract to provide office support services to HM Revenue and Customs,” says the Cabinet Office.

Maude said:

It is bonkers for different parts of Government to be paying vastly different prices for exactly the same goods. We are putting a stop to this madness which has been presided over for too long. Until recently, there wasn’t even any proper central data on procurement spending.

“So, as Sir Philip Green found, major efficiencies are to be found in Government buying. The establishment of Government Procurement means that the days when there was no strategy and no coherence to the way the Government bought goods and services are well and truly at an end…

“We are also determined to press ahead with measures to create a more level playing field so that small organisations and businesses can compete fairly with bigger companies for Government contracts. SMEs can provide better value and more innovative solutions for Government and the actions set out today will support their growth as the economy starts to recover.”

The Cabinet Office says that greater use of the ‘open’ procurement procedure  has increased by 12% across the public sector between March and April alone, helping to ensure that all suitable suppliers have their tender proposals considered.

And following the Innovation Launch Pad, five further Dragons’ Den style ‘product surgeries’ are planned so that innovative SMEs can pitch their proposals directly to Government.

The Government bought £66bn  of goods and services in 2009/10. An Efficiency Review by Sir Philip Green, which was published in October 2010, found that the Government had not made the most of its size, buying power or credit rating.

Green wanted the mandation of “centralised procurement for common categories”.

Are officials undermining ministerial plans to boost SME work?

There is some evidence emerging, however, that the civil service is misinterpreting ministerial will and standardising contracts by taking work away from SMEs and putting it with a few large companies. Campaign4Change will be looking at this in coming weeks.

We also hope this will be investigated by the new Government Procurement team which will be headed byGovernment Chief Procurement Officer, John Collington.

Link:

Home Office SME Action Plan.

HMRC SME Action Plan

All departmental action plans.

1 Comment

Posted in innovation, outsourcing, supplier relationships, Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , ,