POL00028288
POL00028288
Purpose:
Date:
Time: ao. a.m,
Place: nal House, London
Chair: Bok Peaple, POC.
Secretary: Michael Pur
Attendees: Robert Alb
Derek Brow
Tony Johnson, BA/FOCL
Larry McCaffery, DITA
Seff Prince, PO P&Ls
Don Rendall, BA
Paul Rich, POCL
Derek Selwood, BA/FOCL
Andrew Stett, BA/POCL
Points Noted lactions and
I Agreements
a. INTRODUCTION
ps
ob Peaple,
not appropr Bvaluation Board to I
take the 1 oouremant Board, the I
meeting would p I
Hurdles. i
1.2 Apologies for absence were received from $
Kerss.
SUPPLIER PERFORMANCE AGAINST THE PRE-ITT
HURDLES
paper “Sup
Hurdles”
He apo.o
gi
e clearance certificates
The meeting prac to discugs each ef t
Pre-ITT Hurdles as in
the following order:
id Service Requirements Hurdl.
° Partnership Hurdle
e Risk Transfer & Commercial Aspects Ku
* Service Provider Risk Register Hurdle
° Contract Hurdle
Service Requirements Hurdle
The papers for the meeting included
cificates ¢ 3
il the service providers >
Requirements hurdle, To:
the meeting on the posi
to transaction times and answered
from the Evaluation Board on the
nificates.
fon on transaction times +
previous week meeting
a
26 Pebruary of the sponsor grou
to reach agreement on al
@
s when he talked te the Requirements
DRAFT
fi
s
POL00028288
POL00028288
bs)
Ea
2.6
2.7
2.8
DRAPT 27296
view was
leader and so
Storeplace. T
newly developed product
em in a live environme
LBs:
spect te the certificate for Pathway,
the Evaluation Seard expressed sever
servations about the number of significance
sks against the Pathway pro: iL. 2
questioned whether the cumulative effect wor
not lead co potentially late delivery a
operational problems, and as such was cause for
Pathway to be excl rom the ITT, Farkicular
concerns were expressed about the card
technology with shortcomings in the associated
gement of fraud and about the dependence on
Escher as a small company subconrracted to
Patchway.
ma
Teny Johnson explained
indeed been given much
Demonstrator tear, ie
technical vi
a. In
oard might wish
tive effect of
ke into account is
e from t
ontractual issues w
requirements area.
i
i
i
POL00028288
POL00028288
i
Bs
POL00028288
POL00028288
DRAPT
Evaluation
thway’s suggesti
integrated circui
ed whether
how ic
that
a
mne or caused Pathway to
ore decided to contir
pe card and consider
fications of an IC card under
control after contract award.
the magnetic s
2.10 Derek Selwood confirmed that risks and issues
against the service previders would be taken
inte account in the evaluation and selecticn
process. The risks against Pathway wo nour
a substantial cost penalcy given their number
and severity. The issues identified during the
Demonstrator would affect the Value Factor
assessment, and it would be for the Evaluatior
Board to give due weight to that in reaching
izs decision.
2... The Evaluation Board approved the Requirements I Agreed
hurdle certificates clearing all three I
suppliers. The position of Pathway was
discussed further under the Risk Register
hurdle (see paragraphs 2.30 - 2.32)
2.12 The Evaluation Board discussed concerns over
the availability of EPOS (electronic point of
Sale) functionality. This related to whether
the service providers would be providing Epo.
or only benefit ment and automated sayment
Cal
tm “Day i” due to the potential implications
volume guarantees, roll-out and automating
xy transactions for clients. The Board
ed that there was some
may need clarif
fess page 4 of 2
Bo
ve “Day nd
4 POCL, and ¢
ted back
irm
subject to David Miller signing them and
providing them to Derek Selwood.
Risk Transfer & Commercial Aspects Hurdles
The meeting had been provided with a paper
setting out the policy for visk transfer
WKE4-13) and another summarising the o
perspective (PWKP4-18). Robert Albright
provided a summary of the ourstanding
commercial issues from the contract
negotiations, and Andrew Stott briefed the
meeting on the status of
the fraud risk
transfer negotiations.
The Evaluation Board discussed the impli
of the outstanding issues, in particul
relating to:
jae
° limizcs of liabil
y
* transfer of fraud risks
® the level cf “drop down” compensati
(should the sponsors fail to complece
two Sponsor-contractor contracts withi
the period immediately after award)
e the position on contract management
« the precedence of requirements over
solutions, and
° liquidated damages.
the service
ese were vaccepted oa the Evaluation Board,
POL00028288
POL00028288
DRAFT 27/296
the
n
HAEE 28008 ¢ pelted 7
POL00028288
POL00028288
reo Pe ge es ~ be imme vee > .
DRAFT 27/20
2.17 i
I
I
i
this Base
the Evaly
+ 3 I
example, wide differences
2 fraud risk might aff
way chat was non i
rly as there were ether
price such as service }
antees. i
2.18 @luation Board agreed that the sponsors
ould clarify the nimum acceptable position
or commercial issues and inform:
. the CNT for cone.
negotiations, an
* the Evaluation Team for assessmenc che
ceptability of alternative and variant
tenders.
should continue
with each suppl should maintain the
principle of a Bas @ tender with which a
upplier must comply in order to be considered
urther. The result of the evaluation would be I
comme x i decision based on the eve? of {
charges, assurances offered and the probability
of various scenarios occurring supported by the
Value Factor assessments. The process must be
ased on considered and defensible judgements
and ensure that any models and mechanisms I
supported rather than dix
decision process.
ah
nD
isd
ie
rs
PS)
wa
i. An acceptable funding method and financial
structure
Savdlinx and IBM have cleared this sub-hurdle.
ho respect to the “A” risk on Pa
eport
cha
is
might clear it. WEVED, ) the ONT were awal
written details, and when received Charterho.
would re-assess the position.
se
ii. Acceptable financial guarantees in the
event of catastrophic system failure
This hurdle would be confirmed as cleared
supject to agreement of draft contracts.
iii, Satisfactory termination arrangements that
avoid lock~in
This hurdle had been cleared by all thre
uppliers.
iv. Agreement to a common charging structure
This hurdle would be confirmed as cleared
ct to agreement of draft contracts, while
on on Baseline, Varianc and
(see paragraph 2.17).
V. POC to retain control of its critical
operational proceases, and of its key
commercial relationships (e.g. clients and
agents); and
vi. No material damage to the Post Office Brand
ubjecs fo legal confirm,
wording in the contracts by Bir. &
= Om Be
oe Gee
oe
POL00028288
POL00028288
DRAFT 272-96
sk against pat hy
cleared
verification risk
£ moni toring fraud
new “ ylsk to be raised
2 yeement on drafec
ee relating to
nsfer and the lac!
a a
and/or failure ko reach
contracts with Pathway.
das 2
of draft contra
1a sign the _appropria te cer
Service Provider Risk Register Hurdle
The Evaluation Board noted paper PROD4-68 Risk
Register Analysis. It noted that
Pathway f
latest information (see paragraphs 2.23 and
2.28)
The Evaluation Board then discussed whether the
profile of $ other than severicy “A” should
be a bar to the gue of the ITT to any of the
suppliers, and in particular to Pathway. It
noted that Pathway had peen warned of the
seriousness of its position in a letter fron
the Chief Executives
On balance the Evaluation Board accepted th
saclusion of che Programme that the profile of
sther risks did net give cause to bar the issue
of the ITT; however some members were still
concerned about the overall posi
Pathway.
POL00028288
POL00028288
DRAF) 27.246
READINESS OF ITT FOR ISSUE {
lan presented
the iTT and
urse for
All
Olutions had be
2 ements. Another itera
solution responses was neede:
Programme was not completely
be complete by Monday night
outstanding issues were iden
solucions, then risks would be
Service Provider Risk Register
rom BA and POCL were ready to ensure
ded everything, lead
@ Sponsor Sign-off meeting on Wednesday 25
February.
on comp
everyen ning was
£
ast
whe Evaluation Scard obtained confirmation that
all the components (including Schedule 87) are
now drafted an
thi che list already exclud
all schedules that wexe not obligatory for =
The objectives of the Operational Trial and
roll-out requirements were covered by Sch
Bl, the Requirements Catalogue. An add:
component might be needed to make explicit the
posizion reached on transfer of fraud risks.
The methods for sponsors handling “double-key”
change control had been put to suppliers in 4
letter and would not be contracted in Schedute
A&, Contract Management.
whe Evaluation Board noted that the ITT would
be fixed once issued. While the Negotiated
Procedure allows us to negotiate contracts
separately with each supplier, any changes
after ITT would require us to abtain revised
tenders from all three suppliers to ensure
equal opportuni dling.
POL00028288
POL00028288
POL00028288
POL00028288
pSrGG RRM ee fa we cen
7.4 Mike am reported that neetings had been
with suppliers to check their ITT concerns.
le Pathway had fos and IBM raised
e Contract mana ca
management of the operations
implementation
Action:
Sponsors to
agree
acceptarle
list.
parts of the cont vact. However if agreement
could not be reached, then they should be
invited to tender on the basis of a ligt
acceptable to sponsors.
was expressed a.
scorecards assoc ce
ng mechanism would lead to incons
tend evs. The Evaluation Hoard agreed that this
should be flagged to Charterhouse for
ensure that che data required for evalua mn Ls
requested in the ITT and to advise whether some
of the cutstand. would not be resolved
by charging mec!
2.7? The Zvaluation Board endorsed the position of Agreed
requirements taking precedence over she
solutions. They noted that where scolut
not match the requirements satisfactor.
risk would be raised or
si
gq
B
be
I
G
cs
t
N
Col
we
i
DRAFT 27:2.96
FUTURE MEETINGS AND DATSS
Board with
The
° Thursday 14 March, 11.30 a.m., Termin
House
¢ Value Factor assessments
Evaluation
be lodged with
pt of tenders on
fo endorse t
and endors:
model, so
the lawyer
21 March.
* Monday 15 April, 12.30 p.m., Drury House
Lunch from 12.30 p.m. fer a 1.00 p
start, for the presentation of the
Evaluation Report. If nor completed by 6
p.m. then to adjourn the mee
ng until:
* Tuesday 16 April, 8.30 a.m., Drury House
To compl antation of the
J
Evaluation Repor
required.
* Friday 19 April, 10.306 a.m., Drury House
To select the winner and attend to any
outstanding endorsement and award issues
Board members were asked ta note t the
Evaluation Team would be undertaking a
checkpoint review a week after receipt of
tenders to review the planning assumptions and
any issues arising from tenders. Board members
should expect a summary report following 28
Mazch, and may need an extraordinary meeting
during the week commencing 25 March.
The Evaluation Board requested early sight of
dvaft evaluation papers and confirmation of the
papers already issued that set out the
evaluation approach in preparation for their
next meeting, on 14 March.
Action:
D Selwood
POL00028288
POL00028288
4.4
4.5
4.6
Eval amt 5
S area seemed to be
Programme staff and
ponsors.
i
adequately @
secondees from che
The chairman extended his thanks to al
on the Programme and the sponsor
representatives for the time and considerable
effert in bringing us to this point in the
procurement.
The meeting closed at 1.56 pom,
BD Selwood
POL00028288
POL00028288
TONY ener grated oe meeRE ON EEE oS