POL00091471
POL00091471
I T00'd 676Z°ON XU/XL Lv?LT 86. 21/80
FAX TRANSMISSION
BIRD & BIRD
90 Fetter Lane
To: BA/POCL London ECaA 1)P
Atten\Ref: George McCorkell
ce: Paul Rich, POCL
Pat Kelsey, BA/POCL
Andrew Davies, Project Mentors : 119 London
Web Page
www. twobirds.com
From: Hamish Sandison
Client: BA/POCL
Account No: BPOCL/00! Partners
DHaniss
Geen
Date: 8 December 1998 De cahwaine
TM Cok
AS one RNS
Time: Py chasse
Path
Dw Byam-Ceek
Gy H Sev
JRE Walay
Note: This fax is intended for the named addressee only. Tt contains information which may be confidential and Ker
which may also be privileged. Unless you are the named uddvessee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) M Mrclonaht
you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else, If you have received it in error please notify DMC stone
diately so diat we can arrange for its return, To do so, ar {f you have any queries, please telephon cw Res
Oauinan
Ha Senden,
DH Ayers
sage: 8) Wart
Message: rcrotwalee
NT Jenkins
Rm Bickers
8 x Topping
TCGTeher
HE Poacan
VS Acro
TRDAseoR
1 Stannard
C9R Bone
DCI Cook
JM Gyneel
Ma Halk
Growl
‘A} Sandenon
Hi Rubin
JW Baker
PR Browrlinw
1 Hunter
FARepe
4 Sis i
repay
RH Buterworth
NSP Blundell
RW Favwoatt i
‘Number of pages (including this page) : AL
Please see attached.
Consultants
KFC Amold
S11. chalton
P}Oa00
AF Fawee™
ri Walden
EC Office 2094 Avenue Louise, 1050 Brussels, Belgium) Telephone,
Hong Kang 20/F Printing House, 16 lop House Street, Central, Hong Kong, ‘Telephon GRO?
OL caida 8 daig WwOus
cre a sic
“866T-930-60
POL00091471
POL00091471
& « 200'd 662° ON XU/XL LY?Z1 86. 21/80
BIRD & BIRD
‘Our Ref 30 Fetter Lane
London ECA 1)P
Your Ref MEMORANDUM
Legally Privileged & Confidential
TO: George MeCorkell, BA.
Paul Rich, POCL ecendon
Pat Kelsey, BA/POCL Programme wn bwobids.com
ce: Andrew Davies, Project Mentors (without encs)
FROM: Hamish Sandison, Bird & Bird
Partners
DATE: 8 December 1998 Bra
GE Comps q
D MGavihwane
RE: PROJECT MENTORS UPDATE TM Cock
Resco
Pree
smith
PW Byam-Cook
or Hsmith
1. [attach a short update from Andrew Davies which he asked me to draw to cwaler
your attention. As you will see, his team have documented a further specific failure Ma neoeald
by ICL Pathway to follow good industry practice in meeting the Authorities’ foun
. as sanshion
requirements. This may also have an operational impact which you will wish to Onawe
ward
consider. CM Corhwnit
NT lenkins
{ RM Bickerstaff
A SK Topping
2. Andrew will be preparing a more detailed report by the end of next week, but I TCG Taher iq
HePearion
thought that you should see his summary immediately. v ‘ “ Sr
J Sisnnant
CIR Barret
4. As with previous reports, this update is legally privileged on the basis that it ine Comoe
has been commissioned by us as the Joint Programme Lawyers. Accordingly, it cael
should be given the most limited possible circulation on a need to know basis. avenieven
JW Baker
FR Brownlow
. . oo 10 Humier
4, Please do not hesitate to get in touch with me or with Andrew direct ifyou F AReeve
4 Shs
have any questions or comments. PE Dally
RH auterwonh
1 § P Bundall
Contant: ;
KY CAmald
SN LChalton
P1Dann
1 RE Fowecn®
1 De Hee Walden
‘@) EC Office 2094 Avenue Lovise. 1050 Brussels, Belgium Telephone 4
INVESTOR IN PROPLE Hong Kong 20/F ny House, 18 Ice House Strect, Central, Hong Kong Telephon aot a solicitor
Pa-2a'd H 3 oon CHId 8 CaIG We = 6E1AT G6T-I3q-8a
POL00091471
POL00091471
€00°d 6762°ON XU/XL L7:LT 861 21/80 i
P.@1/G2
@B DEC °99 16:47 FROM
Privileged and confidential. Prepared in contemplation of litigation. I
PROJECT MENTORS LTD.
A F
FAX TRANSMISSION
Te: Hamish Sandison
Fax No: f
From: Andrew Davies ORIGIN fi
Date: 8 December, 1998 fh
No, of Pages: 2
(ine. this page):
Re: BA/POCL
Message:
Dear Hamish,
1 have spent this morning reviewing the progress of Andy-and Jim on the work they
are doing to analyse requirements and their handling by IGL Pathway.
Andy is continuing to review the original contract requirements and solutions against
the service requirements produced by drop down and the service requirements in the
contract now. He has completed the review of approximately 35% of the
requirements and has to date found no changes of significance. He is continuing the
review, and is becoming more confident that the outcome will be that requirements :
have not changed significantly since contract,
Jim has been reviewing seme of the ICL complaints relating to Benefits Agency
requirements contained in their position paper of 1st June 1998. He commenced with
an assessment of the issues concerning ‘foreign encashmerts’, but quickly realised
that he needed a clear analysis of the Benefits Payment and Encashment systems
(BPS and BES), developed by Pathway, in order to have a structure in which he
could assess what had happened. He could not find a suitable Pathway document,
60 decided to develop his own analysis of the requirements for these two systems. It
took him some 4 weeks to conduct this analysis, initially from the April 1995
Statement of Service Requirements prepared for bidding, but then reviewed against
the current Service Architecture Design Document (GADD) and various documents
supporting the SADD and referenced in it. His approach to the task was to use the
CCTA approved SSADM methodology as the basis.
He has found that the business requirements are simple, to the extent that he has
been able ta prepare a data flow diagram for all BPS and BES transactions and a
logical model of the data they hold, each on a single sheet of paper. He has
concluded that ICL Pathway could easily have conducted such an analysis, following
standard methods of good industry practice, prior to contract, Had such an analysis
Page 1
re-L8'd i GRO I a dala 2 Mid wes 6£:4t s6GT-I3d-Be
POL00091471
POL00091471
“900'd 6762 °ON XU/XL L7°LT 86. 21/80
bard WIOL
Privileged and confidential. Prepared in contemplation of litigation.
PROJECT MENTORS LTD.
been conducted, most of the issues concerning BPS and BES requirements would
have been resolved at that stage. The complexity of the development of these
systems appears not to be in the business requirements but in the secure handling
of the high volume of transactions.
Our conclusion is therefore that ICL. Pathway have not followed good industry
practice, as required by the contract, in developing specifications from the business
requirements and have not demonstrated competence in the way in which they have
carried out this task, We consider that the statements in their position paper further
evidence this lack of professionalism and failure to follow good industry practice. i
I believe that this situation gives serious concern in relation to the way in which
requirements have been analysed generally. We have identified two, admittedly
somewhat unlikely but possible, conditions which have not been considered in the
BPSYBES development. Further more detailed analysis would, almost certainly,
identify more conditions not addressed. We understand from our interview with John
Meagher that he has similar serious concerns about the way in which the EPOSS
system has been developed. From our assessment of BPS/BES and our limited
understanding of EPOSS, we share these concerns.
We will prepare a short report documenting these conclusions, which we aim to send
to you by the end of next week (Friday December 18th).
1 have spoken on this issue to George McCorkell and Pat Kelsey, as they were in
Terminal House today, and they would be grateful for a copy of this fax. I think it
would be of interest to Paul Rich, and suggest he is also sent a copy.
GRO
Andrew
I
f
ij
I
Page 2
OL Guid 8 Geld WO = Gbsdt 866T-IId-ea
barbed