Post by Patrick Torsney on Mar 15, 2010 12:59:37 GMT
Yes, oddly worded to say the least
I suggest you ask your network rep to clarify it with the LSC on your behalf and to get back to you directly as soon as poss. I would have hoped that the LSC would have prioritised answering questions that so clearly affect how an organisation might be thinking of structuring itself in advance of any bid. But then again, you've got all the time in the world haven't you
You might want to ask your network whether they have agreed a protocol with the LSC (or the LSC has told them) about when questions will be answered (or not). A wait of nearly 2 weeks, during the bid round itself, seems entirely unacceptable to me
We were waiting for the incorporation of the additional question 9.1, included this morning of course
Just to remind everyone, this thread is only for discussion on clarification messages. Start a new thread if you want to raise anything else, otherwise it makes it difficult for people to keep track of where things are
Post by Patrick Torsney on Mar 18, 2010 9:27:46 GMT
I know a lot of people are guarding any answers they receive from the LSC like golden eggs. Not wanting to share them openly on ilegal as it may help Cyberdine's Skynet become self-aware and bid for NMS in their Procurement Area. Prior to nuking the world and allowing Terminators to go back in time and take out Sarah Connor, of course
However, here's another question I have put to the Commission that I know many of you will be thinking about. I'll post the reply when it comes in - has anyone asked anything similar and got a reply?
My question relates to the completion of the Supervisor Self Declaration Forms (SWL)
IFA 10.5 says that the form must be provided “for assessment” at the latest 8 weeks before the Contract start date.
1. Must each and every section of the forms (particularly Tables 1 and 2) be evidenced/completed in full – examples of case types dealt with – or are you likely to exercise some discretion eg a provider with one case type missing, eg given local circumstances, would be OK but someone with 4 would not?
2. Whether there were omissions or not, I am assuming this wouldn’t affect their tender and offer of a contract, given that they would still have some opportunity to remedy any missing types prior to start date, assuming it was an issue?
3. What about providers who upload completed forms with their tender documents – would you tell them earlier etc so they would have more time to try find the missing case types?
4. Is it actually going to be down to Relationship Managers to do the assessment and make the decisions in respect of suppliers in their respective regions?
Previously, auditors/RMs would accept occasional omissions on the forms when auditing providers eg a provider who never referred a case to better progress it (because they dealt with the full range of services themselves or never had a case that merited referring). If you are going to insist on fully completed forms at least prior to contract start, then it is likely providers will have to ‘shop’ around for cases that just might fit the types they have missing.
Hi Patrick We haven't asked this question but we should of. Oops!
As you know I do have some concerns over the superviser declaration as I don't do housing benfit appeals or disrepair cases - we have 3 welfare rights advisers and disrepair is always referred to a solicitor as are homelessness appeals. Would be intersting to see the response.
Post by StephenMichael on Mar 18, 2010 13:53:39 GMT
@ my post 8th March, yet again.
I still have had no response other that a message saying the answer to my queries may be in the IFA.
Well I have read it cover to cover more than several times and I can categorically state that the answer is not there. so I sent them another message today
here it is
"On the 8th March I submitted the following question
The Welfare Benefit Superviser Self Declaration Form v1.doc is inaccurate. At part 2, i), A), It refers to Employment Support Assistance (formely Incapacity Benefit) - 1 case file. There is no such thing as Employment Suport Assistance. The benefit that replaced Incapacity Benefit is called Employment and Support Allowance. Will you confirm that you will amend this document?
You responded by saying the information may be in the IFA. Well it is not, so can you send me a deinitive response either commiting to change the form to a legally correct form of wording or commit to keeping the form the same and leaving an illegal title of a benefit thaty just does not exist.
Further you promise to respond within 7 days. You have not responded at all to this issue"
Post by Patrick Torsney on Mar 18, 2010 14:09:07 GMT
It's all a bit mickey-mouse isn't it
Are you sure they said "it may be in the FAQ"? If so, it makes the mind boggle. Was it a temp answering the questions that day do you think?
I don't think it's "illegal" wording but, I do still think the principle remains: you ask a question, the LSC answers it reasonably and within a reasonable time frame. It's a legally regulated procurement exercise and I think the Commission would be very unwise to start being too cocky and clever about how and who they respond to and in what way
Again, try your network rep and see if they can grab their attention. If you get nowhere then you might consider putting in a formal complaint to them and whoever else has an interest in the Commission's management of this exercise
Questions that we consider to be of wider interest will be collated and answered centrally in writing to ensure that all interested parties have equal access to information in the answers. These questions and answers will be published regularly in a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document on our website: www.legalservices.gov.uk/civil/tendering/civil_contracts_for_2010.asp
We aim to update this FAQ document each Tuesday and Thursday, and the final FAQ will be published on 7 April