The answer to question 10.6 in the version 5 of the FAQ opens up a new question relating to SWL consortiums bids. It talks about " The Applicant Organisation must then include in the same tender, any services it wants to deliver as a single organisation (i.e. any services it intends to deliver from the offices of other consortium members). " What constitutes 'include in the same tender'? Just including within the total number bid for, the number of NMS required to be delivered at that consortium members office. Or specifying separately how many to be delivered at which consortium members office? Surely the first and not the second. It would get mega-complex. Views please from you lot out there.......
Post by Patrick Torsney on Apr 1, 2010 9:58:52 GMT
You're right JJ, it does raise further questions, and the Q&A is now closed so there we go
My own view is that it is saying that the 'normal' model of consortia would be that each member delivered its particular category of law from its own office. However, there may be instances where one member is actually delivering a category of law, not from its own office, but from the offices of one of its consortium partners. In this case, it would have to satisfy the presence requirements etc in relation to that particular (other) office
If an organisation were bidding from its own and from another office, then it would have to satisfy the presence requirements in relation to both. As far as I can see, this would mean that it would be identifying the number of NMS it wanted, by subject category, in relation to each office, not the global total figure across offices
Another way to look at it would be to imagine a scenario whereby an organisation is going to deliver services as part of a consortium but not from its own office e.g. it is going to deliver Debt from the office of a partner organisation. If so, it would again have to satisfy the presence requirements etc in relation to the office it is bidding from, which would not be its own but that of the partner
Completing the Tender Form will be the way to check this out i.e. it will request certain information depending on what office(s) you specify delivering a service from
Does this make sense? Please everyone, feel free to pick this apart, I'm not feeling great today so will have another look at this over the weekend and may revise it if necessary or add anything I've missed
Hi Patrick, I had in mind the more common situation where consortium member A has its own permanent presence office delivering, for example, debt but, in line with the consortium commitment to deliver all three categories from all consortium offices, member A delivers debt from consortium member B's offices (who does housing and benefits) at whatever frequency is appropriate given the need for debt advice. My assumption (prior to reading FAQ 10.6) was that member A would bid in respect of its own office for X NMS and there would be an implied assumption that part of these NMS would be delivered from consortium members offices.
Post by Patrick Torsney on Apr 1, 2010 11:18:47 GMT
Yes, that's right. I don't think 10.6 changes this (but I might be wrong). I think it is talking about when you are bidding for and delivering a category of work from an office, as opposed to meeting the requirements relating to clients being able to access all the services from whichever point of access they approach the consortium. I believe the two are quite different
It wouldn't be possible to determine in advance the extent of NMS any consortium member would end up opening at the office of another provider just because clients approached that other consortium member initially for advice. The consortia is a 'whole' yet the organisation bids for NMS for the office it is saying it is delivering its service from - ad hoc delivery at another member's office does not, to me at least, change this. It would only be changed if the organisation was bidding specifically for NMS at the other member's office because that is where it wanted to deliver a service; and so requiring it to have a presence etc
I do take your point however, and accept that it could be read to indicate that each member should anticipate the number of NMS it will open at other consortium member offices. I really hope this is not the case because, as you say, it would become ridiculously complex
I'll try and get some input from the networks/other contacts on this and try resolve it. I daresay it's an issue for others too
Post by Patrick Torsney on Apr 8, 2010 19:22:06 GMT
You've probably nailed this by now JJ but, for anyone else who may be worried about this yes, what I've said above is all ok. It isn't about identifying the ad hoc NMS you would be delivering at partner's offices. The insider angle is that the offending sentence is about a member deciding to deliver eg Community Care as a stand-alone category from someone else's office who happens also to be in a consortium doing the 3 SWL. Reckon it could have been clearer? I think so
One of the other networks told me that the LSC had 'agreed' informally to sort this out in that they would probably cover the more common ad hoc scenario via some form of notice in the Office Schedules of consortium members to give the flexibility necessary for consortia to actually work in practice within the rules
we have a WB contract Our Partner delivers the debt and hsg. Our partner comes to our office to see debt & hsg clients and opens NMS's in those categories. They already see their own debt & hsg client's in their own office. The clients seen in our office are extra NMS's We have loads of client's with debt & housing issues and usually seen by volunteers with our support. The LSC don't know about this because they have never been included in any reports to the LSC. I predict that the NMS's will go through the roof.