Present:
Reith Bas } I HNN
Keith Baines } BA/POCL Programme
Tony Oppenheim }
‘Warren. Spencer }
Jim’Morley } Pathway
Hamish Sandison }
Hazel Grant } Bird & Bird
Agenda Comment
Item
NOTES OF CNT MEETING ON 19TH SEPTEMBER 1996
L Actions Bought Forward
The following action points as set out in the minutes. of the
CNT meeting held on 12th:September were discussed.
PROGRAMME ACTION POINTS
1, Change Control Note Live Trial Increase.
Pat Kelsey has arranged for the signature of three sets of
CCNs covering the increase in live trial, the change in
operational trial from 3 to 1 and the change in Change
Control Procedures, substituting Mena Rego:for Paul Rich.
These CCNs have been signed by Paul Rich and sent by
Datapost to George McCorkell for signature.on.behalf of BA.
Once the CCNs have been signed’by George McCorkell they
will be returned to Pat Kelsey who will forward them to
Pathway. The CCNs must-be signed by Pathway'on or before
Wednesday 25 Septémber. Tony Oppenheim said he was
happy to operate on the basis.that the CCNs-had been signed.
2. Agreement to Agree and Change Control. Process
This was covered in Agenda item.5 below.
FUJ00078165
FUJ00078165
ll
3
Agreed
Points and
Action
Points
Action
Pat Kélsey
3. ICL Pathway’s letter to Pat-Kelsey dated 30 August
Now completed.
4.. Confirmation Regarding Test 1 Acceptance
Now coinpleted.
5. Change-to Roll Ouit Sequence
Pathway have received material relating to this change.
Pathway will prepare a paper on this matter.
Tony Oppenheim raised a concern that, although there is
general agreéinent that the change to Roll Out Sequence is
sensible, this is subject to consideration of the financial
impact and agreement on how this will be covered.
Pathway’s paper will be ready in a few days and will be dealt
within a sub-committee of the CNT. Since Keith Baines and
Stuart Riley will not be available, Pat Kelsey will broker the
paper through Sponsors
6. Generic Acceptance Criteria
Copies of the present draft of the Generic Acceptance Criteria
were handed to Pathway. Warren Spencer will confirm on 19
September whether. these are now ready to be put into CCNs.
7. Changes to Requirements
Alan Fowler should receive a reply to the proposed change to
Requirement 511 from POCL on 20 September. Pat Kelsey
to fax Jim-Morley with suggested form of words to resolve
Requirement 906 on Thursday/Friday 19/20 September.
8.1 Liquidated Damages/Guarantees
Pat Kelsey to discuss with the new Director of the
Programme, although she stated that she did not expect a
problem with this suggestion.
8.2. Change from 3 to.1 Operational Trials
See Action Point 1 above
FUJ00078165
FUJ00078165
Action
Tony
Oppenheim
‘Jim
Morley
Noted
Action
Pat Kelsey
Action
Warren
Spencer
Action
Pat Kelsey
Action
Pat Kelsey
9, CNT Meeting
This was covered in Agenda Item 5 below.
ICL PATHWAY ACTION POINTS
1. Agreements to Agree
Work has been started on preparing a paper to list these
although it is not yet-completed. Jim Morley to send to Pat
Kelsey the completed list in time for it to be discussed at the
next CNT meeting.
2. Walkthroughs on 23, 24 and 25 September
It was agreed that the Walkthroughs would be held at.Bird &
Bird and commence at 9:30 a.m.on Monday. The start time
for each day will.be decided before 5.30 p.m on the previous
day to allow each side to-notify attendees.
The Generic Acceptance Criteria were deleted from John
Cook’s list of items to be discussed during the Walkthroughs.
The Schedules to be dealt:with by Andy McDonald will be
covered in the second stream of meetings. If at all possible
these will be held on Tuesday.
It was agreed that Schedules Bi, B2 and. B3 were not
essential to be discussed during the Walkthroughs.
3. Implementation Requirements
Jim Morley handed to Pat Kelsey a letter concerning this
action point. The following requirements were discussed
Requirement 476. Pat Kelsey to discuss internally at the
Programme a method of resolving this requirement. Tony
Oppenheim suggested that Pathway allow the Authorities an
opportunity to review maintenance: releases and if they
consider that the-release is more.than a maintenance release
(i.e a business release) then this would need to be resolved
between the parties.
Keith Baines pointed out that the measurement of transaction
times ‘is linked to this item since transaction times are
a
Action
Jim
Morley
Agreed
Agreed
Agreed
FUJ00078165
FUJ00078165
calculated by Pathway through testing. If there is a new
release then it would have to be tested to ensure that
transaction times were agreed. Hamish Sandison pointed out
that Change-Control may cover this problem since we may be
able to list which items need to.go through Change Control
Process and which do not.
Requirement 481. This.relates to an obligation to provide
documentation. Pathway consider that the present
Tequirement implies that they must provide documentation for
automated and non automated transactions. Tony Oppenheim
agreed that Pathway must-provide documentation for manual
fall back but not for the present non automated transaction.
Pat Kelsey to consider.
Requirement 818. This concerns transmission of data from
TIPS to Pathway. Pathway’s concern is that the re-drafted
requirement is even vaguer than the original. There is,no
specification of the.data being transmitted and how it will be
transmitted. Pat Kelsey to consider with John Marr.
Tony Oppenheim.emphasised that this'is a-very serious item
since'it may have:seyere cost: implications to Pathway.
Requirement 902. This concerns transaction timés which are
presently stated to be y + 5 seconds, unfortunatély y.is not
defined. Tony Oppenheim-emphasised that this needs to be
resolved:and Schedule B3 completed by 15 November so ‘that
there is no reference to‘an undefined term. Pat Kelsey to
discuss with Keith Baines in particular the. implications of
failing to specify the transaction'times more clearly before 15
November. :
4:1 Requirements
This action point is carried forward until the next CNT.
4.2
This action point is to be carried forward.to the next°CNT
meeting.
5: General Point relating to. Change Contro!
Tony Oppenheim confirmed that Pathway’were content to
4
FUJ00078165
FUJ00078165
Action
Pat Kelsey
Action
Pat Kelsey
Action
Pat Kelsey
Action
Pat Kelsey
Action
Jim Morley
Action
Jim Morley
link the liquidated damages and payment guarantees so that
they both took effect from 1 July, rather than the brought-
forward start date of National Go live of 1 June.
Tony Oppenheim confirmed that this change in the timescales
will not have a financial impact and therefore will not require
an.impact assessment.
The Programme will consider the issue and then review any
wording change necessary to the Schedule.
There then followed discussion relating to the Master Plan
which had.been “signed off’ by the PDA Board. The Master
Plan ‘includes approximately 35 dates, whereas the
Agreements do'not specify any'of these dates. Concern was
registered relating to the:status of the PDA’s decisions: CNT
is to:review-the Master Plan and decide on its:status.
Hamish Sandison advised that the PDA should be informed
that:
1. No change was to be carried out until it had been. put
through Change Control.
2. The agreements made by the PDA Board were not legally
binding.
These points could be made during the Change Control
presentation to the PDA. The next PDA meeting is to be held
on 9 October, Pat Kelsey will try to ensure that these points
are presented at the meeting.
6. Key Personnel
Pathway to action before 4 October.
7. Amendments to'Solutions
Pathway to action before 17 October.
8. CARS
As the CARS meeting. was not held on Wednesday 18
September, there was no report to.be made available to the
5
FUJ00078165
FUJ00078165
Action
Pat
Kelsey/Bird
& Bird
Action
Pat
Kelsey/Bird
& Bird
Action
Pat Kelsey
Action
Warren
Spencer:
Action
Jim Morley
Action
CNT. Jim Morley will forward to Pat Kelsey the minutes of
the adjourned CARS meeting.
Pat Kelsey emphasised that she requires:
1. Forewarning of an end date for actioning a CAR,
preferably at least two weeks’ warning.
2. The.details of the impact of not actioning a CAR.
Pathway to review the tmifiutes of the CARS meeting to
ensure that it covers these aspects
Drop Down Process
This was covered under the Actions Brought Forward
Acceptance Process
Jim Morley tabled two more papers concerning
documentation of incidents and documentation relating to
Acceptance Process.
Jim Morley drew attention to the Acceptance Criteria on page
5, paragraph 2.5 of the documentation document. Jim Morley
would appreciate comments from CNT on this.
Hamish Sandison to review with Pat Kelsey.
Written commients aré requested on all three papers
{including the paper previously tabled by Jim Morley at the
last CNT meeting) as-soon as possible.
Non ring fenced requirements
This had been déalt with under Agenda item 1 above.
Contract Changes
Hamish Sandison then commented on the present Change
Control Process and offered a suggestion for streamlining the
Process.
FUJ00078165
FUJ00078165
Jim Morley
Action
Tony
Oppenheim
‘Jim
Morley
Action
Hamish
Sandison
/Pat
Kelsey
Action
Pat Kelsey
The purpose in streamlining was to ensure that:
1. Failure to agree a change did not hold up the project; and
2. Those working on the project would be encouraged to use
the formal Change Control Process rather than agree changes
informally.
The streamlining proposed has been based on the Agreements
and takes account of the Programme’s and Pathway’s draft
Change Control Process documents. It is not intended that
the streamlining will amend the Agreements.
A paper suggesting changes to. CCP will be circulated
internally at the Programme this week. Hamish Sandison
wished to share his thoughts and discuss the process on a
without prejudice basis before circulating the paper.
1. Subject Matter
The first concern is which documents should be covered by
Change Control. The following are possibilities:
1. Amendments to the related Agreements (covered under
Clause 101.3 of the. Authorities’ Agreement) - for example
text changes and population of Schedules.
2. Other changes {covered under Clause 101.4 of the
Authorities’ Agreement) - for example extension of the drop
down period and Agreements'to Agree,
3. Controlled Documents. This ‘is presently not a defined
term.
4. Uncontrolled Documents. Again this is presently not a
defined term.
The suggestion is that amendments to items 1, 2 and 3 above
would have to be put through CCP and would therefore be
legally binding. Amendments to item 4 above would not go
through CCP and would not be legally binding. It would be
necessary to specify which cross-referenced documents.are
controlled and uncontrolled. In essence a controlled
document would be'part of the Agreements.
Warren Spencer commented that populating schedules might
not be seen as an amendment to the Agreement. Hamish
Sandison-said he agreed as a theoretical matter, but added
7
Agreed
FUJ00078165
FUJ00078165
that it was necessary in practice to obtain Sponsor approval
to the population of schedules and that the only way of
.obtaining Sponsor approval was to ensure that it was dealt
with as:an amendment to the Agreement.
2. Authority-to approve changes.
Again this falls into three categories. ~
1. Amendments to’ the Agreerfients are to be covered by John
Bennett as the Managing Director of Pathway, George
McCorkell as the BA Project Director for BA and Paul Rich
as the POCL Development Director for POCL (although this
is subject to a Change Control Note substituting Mena Rego).
2. Other changes are agreed by Pat Kelsey (as Procurement
Manager for both Authorities) and John Bennett (as the
Managing Director of Pathway).
3. It is proposed that changes-to controlled documents should
be subject to.approval as in 2-above.
3. Process
At present the contracts refer. to:
1. Discussion
2.. A “request” from:the. Authoritiés leading to an increase in
charges if the man days required by the change are greater
than 5. A “recommendation” from Pathway whereupon no
additional payment*is contemplated.
3. Pathway will then send a CCN to the Authorities’ CCB.
4. The CCB can then take no action, or accept or reject the
CCN.
The proposal is that the following stages take place:
1, A“change control proposal” can be raised by either party
and can include a réqiest for payment. The proposal is
prepared and then discussed in CNT. The proposal may be
discussed by domains within each. party and can be subject to
impact analysis. The proposer would not have to include.any
draft wording for amendments to the contracts.
FUJ00078165
FUJ00078165
2. The CNT would then prepare and discuss a CCN. The
CNT would draft changes to the contract and include these in
the CCN.
3. The CNT would decide on whether to accept or reject the
CCN or to do nothing and, if appropriate, submit the CCN to
the CCB.
4, The'CCB woild then “rubber stamp” the CCN.
Tony Oppenheim supported this approach with one
reservation - that it seemed unreasonable for the:CNT to take
no action whatsoever. The CNT should therefore either
accept the proposal or refer it back to the proposer for-more
information or recommend rejection to the CCB.
4. Decision making bodies
The Agreements presently contain the following:
. Joint CCB
DSS CCB
. POCL CCB
. Contract Steering Group-(CSG)
DSS Contracts Administration Group (CAG)
. POCL Contracts Administration Group (CAG).
AWAWNe
The joint CCB’s duties-are.to be carried out:by the CSG and
the DSS CCB’s duties are to be carried out by the DSS CAG.
A similar provision applies to the POCL CCB.
The proposal ig that there should simply be two decision
making bodies for change control purposes:
1. Ajoint CEB
2. A joint. CNT
However, it was noted that the other bodies as set out in the
Agreements would still exist for other purposes. so that, for
example, the Contract Steering Group could. deal with
contract management.
5. Documentation
It is proposed that a new document be used, the Change
Control Proposal (“CCP”) (to avoid use of the terms
“request” or “recommendation”). The CCPs and CCNs
9
FUJ00078165
FUJ00078165
would each have their own numbering system since a CCP
Would riot necessarily result in a CCN.
The CNT would keep a log of CCNs and would amend the
Agreements from time to time to incorporate the agreed
CCNs.
The internal documents prepared by Pathway and the
Programme relating to a CCP could continue to deal with the:
discussion stage internal to'both bodies.
On whether the CNT meetings could be binding Hamish
Sandison gave his opinion that this would be difficult since
it is not covered in the Agreement and Sponsors would need
input on agreed changes.
Warren Spencer commented that non-controlled documents
could include, for example, security regulations which the
Programme may be able to change without obtaining
Pathway’s consent. This could result in an increase in
Pathway’s work and therefore a cost implication. It was
agreed that the financial implications of changes to non
controlled documents would need to be considered. For
example it might be necessary to freeze versions: of:certain
documents which Pathway must.comply,with.and, which are
set out in Schedule A2
Tony Oppenheim commented favourably on these proposals
as a whole, while noting that Pathway would need more time
to consider them in detail. It was agreed that they would be
decided.in CNT in due course. In the’ meantime it would be
necessary to discuss them internally.
CARS
This was covered under item 1 above.
Any other business
It.was.agreed that the 3-part format of the CNT notes would
be changed to a 1-part format for the next set of notes and
considered by CNT.
10
Agreed
Agreed
FUJ00078165
FUJ00078165