NATIONAL DESKTOP AND NOTEBOOK AGREEMENT

FRAMEWORK GUIDANCE NOTES AND ESSENTIAL INFORMATION

AGREEMENT BACKGROUND

The second NDNA frameworkagreement, whichcommenced on the 1st August 2013and under contract reference K/002, is again let on a 3 (+1) year basis and split into three Lots; Desktops (Lot 1), Notebooks (Lot 2) and One-Stop Shop (Lot 3).

The NDNA is open nationally to all Consortia-affiliated Universities and Colleges of Higher and Further Education (including staff and students), together with the Research Council, in all six of the regional Consortia: APUC, LUPC, SUPC, HEPCW, NEUPC and the NWUPC.

The scope of the NDNA covers Desktop, Laptop/Notebook, Workstation, Thin-Client, Tablet and associated IT devices. It does not include devices running Apple OS X as well as hand-held devices where telephony forms a principal function (i.e. ‘smartphones’), both of which being covered by existing agreements managed by other contracting bodies.

Following an extensive tender process, an award under Lot 1 has been subsequently made to six suppliers based on best overall value for money: Viglen, Stone, HP (available through HP Direct, Misco, DTP and XMA), Dell8(available through Dell Direct and Softcat), Acer (available through Getech, Stone4and Gaia) and Lenovo (available through Getech, Softcat and SCC).

Lot 2 awards were similarly made to six suppliers:Dell8(available through Dell Direct and Softcat), HP (available through HP Direct, Misco, DTP and XMA), Lenovo (available through Getech, Softcat and SCC), Toshiba (supplied via Academia, European Electronique and Viglen), Acer (available through Getech, Stone4 and Gaia) and Samsung6 (supplied via Stone and Getech).

SixLot 3 awards have been made; Viglen for the supply of Viglen desktops and Toshiba notebooks, Stone for the supply of Stone desktops and Acer/Samsung mobile devices6, Dell8(available through Dell Direct and Softcat), HP (Direct and via DTP5 and XMA7), Acer (available through Getech, Stone4 and Gaia) and Lenovo (available through Getech, Softcat and SCC).

In addition, the two following routes to market have been evaluated and are available for students wishing to purchase under the DSA (Disabled Students’ Allowances) scheme against the OEMs below: see also -

(1)Remtek via Getech: Acer, Lenovo and Samsung

(2)Iansyst: Toshiba and Viglen

A 1-page 'cheat sheet' can be found at well as the mirroring notebook site and the GeM contract database providing for each manufacturer and reseller on the agreement, two key escalation points and a column to identify where bids/ mini-competitions should be sent to. The file also an award summary and a ‘Then and Now’ view of the three lots comparing the present framework and the outcome of the first, which commenced back in 2009 and ran until 31st July 2013.

The NDNA web site includes the individual Buyers Guide, the Tender Evaluation Report, this Framework Guidance on Mini-Competitions, Terms and Conditions, Management Information, Minutes and Matters Arising from Meetings, Price Lists/ Flyers, Industry-related Articles, Presentations, Roadmaps, Financial Information and any ongoing Competitive Analysis as part of the overall management of the agreement.

OVERALL AIM

The aim of this document is to provide basic guidance for contract managers and buyers who are responsible for or involved with the acquisition of Goods and Services under this agreement on behalf of their institution.

This includes implementing the latest directive, which applied from 31st January 2006, the public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contract directive 2004/18/EC came into force in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This directive has been adopted into English Law and is known as the Public Contracts Regulations 2006. These regulations can be found at Article 32 of the Directive and paragraph 19 of the Regulations specifically cover framework agreements.

FRAMEWORK GUIDANCE NOTES

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 sixsuppliers in Lot 1 and Lot 2 and sixsuppliers in Lot 3. Appendix 1 details the distribution of marks by supplier and the score they achieved across the overall evaluation criteria.

Following pre-tender consultation on its inclusion, the timing of reviews and other related matters, all suppliers were advised at the time of tender that a process of dynamic scoring will apply 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 Viglen for Lot 1, Dell for Lot 2 and Viglen for the supply of Viglen desktops and 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. This second process would infer a justifiable (should it ever come to challenge) 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 systemsand neither supplier X and supplier Y manufacture one in their portfolio.

FAQ: Was specific provision made within the NDNA framework agreement for the variance of weightings under mini-competitions?

A: With reference to Section 4.1 of the present Government guidelines as published at the following url, (

“Contracting authorities have some flexibility with regard to the award of call-off contracts within the following guidelines:

- for multi-supplier frameworks where a call-off is required following a mini-competition, it may be permissible to vary the weightings of the award criteria provided that the intention to do this was publicised in advance and ranges are given for each criterion, to ensure transparency and avoid the unequal treatment of any suppliers; and

- criteria used for mini-competitions may differ from the award criteria used to set up the framework if they are related to (i.e. derive from) the original award criteria.”

It was therefore noted for the benefit of bidders within the original questionnaire that call-off contracts from the new framework will follow the above guidelines and that participating institutions would be allowed to vary the weightings of the award criteria within the range of 50% and 200% (i.e. half or double their original tender weighting). For example, for an institution undertaking its own pricing evaluation, it could remove the original scoring gained from the tender and replace it with its own weighted between the values of 20% and 80%. The other weightings would be equally adjusted to meet this variance.

Holding a Mini-Competition

As both the technology and the applicable pricing is so tangibly variable within this field, it is anticipated that the majority of framework ‘call-offs’ will involve a mini-competition amongst all awarded suppliers on the applicable Lot. The institution also has to be careful to avoid introducing restrictive criteria, for example, the necessity to procure a machine against a certain pre-supplied specification of security cage where only the incumbent supplier is able to meet this need.

Where the terms laid down in the framework agreements are not precise enough or complete for the particular call-off, a further or mini competition should be held with all those suppliers within the framework capable of meeting the particular need. This does not mean that basic terms can be renegotiated, or that the specification used in setting up the framework can be substantively changed. Substantive modifications to the terms set out in the framework agreement itself are not permitted although those that would be reasonably anticipated (for example, technology changes) are not under scrutiny.

Under all predicted circumstances, the institution will be supplementing, clarifying or refining the basic terms to reflect their local requirements.

Examples of such terms are:

  • their particular system specification;
  • particular delivery timescales or local procedures;
  • particular asset management processes such as tagging;
  • particular associated services;
  • individual termsspecific to the particular products/services that will beprovided to meet a particular requirement under the framework e.g. small energy ‘footprint’.

The institution can decide at this stage whether to run a selection procedurebased on one, some or all of the original evaluation criteria (see appendix). The majority of the larger NDNA mini-competitions will be based on the main elements of the tender; a written response, a technical open-box evaluation of their present range of equipment and a pricing exercise. Using the original marks, the institution could substitute their findings on the hardware evaluation, pricing exercise and so forth in place of those from the original tender.It is reminded that institutions should not try to re-create the original tender by including the need for lengthy responses against questions asked at the time of tender and unlikely to either have materially changed since that time or of consequence to the institution’s specific requirements; the need for a nominated account manager, a consigned stock requirement andwork on e-Commerce platform integration are examples of areas more typically and reasonably explored during mini-competition stage.

Institutions should state the subject matter for the call-off for which tenders are being requested, and also a time limit which is sufficient to enable the selected providers to submit their bids for the particular call-off. This time limit should take account of the complexity of the call-off and the time needed for the suppliers to submit their bids. Tenders should be submitted in writing (by post or through electronic means), and they should remain confidential until the time limit has expired.

An alternative method is to use an electronic auction, the provision for which was included in the original OJEU notice, as a means of running the mini-competition. Further advice on the use of e-auctions can be found at the following site:

The institution should award the call-off to the provider which has submitted the most economically advantageous tender on the basis of the award criteria set out in the framework itself focusing on the particular requirement. The institution’s applied weightings (see appendix) CAN vary from the original exercise to reflect the particular requirement and they do not need to follow those originally set out in the main tender.

FAQ: 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.

FAQ: As 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.

Our understanding is that it may be difficult to state a reasonable account of the cost of change into your decision process, even where the institution is able to quantifyand justify the figure arrived atand 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.

FAQ: 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/questionsthat 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.

FAQ: 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.

FAQ: 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, 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.