»
My
do
POL00028471
POL00028471
0.1 SEP 1999
—lO3C
Electronic memo
To
cc
Hard, Copy To
Hard Copy cc
From
Date 01/09/99 08:33
Subject Re: High Al Re-classification Tactics Ba
Keith,
l agree ! I would hope that terms included financials - Pathway indemnifying us for any
unexplained balances would present them with a considerable incentive to get things fixed
and/or withholding part of the £68m due on Acceptance. .
Dave
To Ruth Holleran/POCL/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
To
cc $ John
Meagher.
Hard Copy To
Hard Copy cc
From Keith K Baine:
Date . 31/08/99 17:44
Subject Re: High Al Re-classification Tactics
Ruth,
We discussed this briefly by phone.
I would be against any artificial re-classification of incidents from High to Medium. We should
stick by the contract position which is that Al's are cleared on the basis of implementation and
testing of a rectification plan, not on analysis and planning alone. That might mean that there
are some High Al's still extant at the 21/24 September deadline.
That would give POCL the right to refuse acceptance at that stage, but would not oblige us to
do so if we concluded that on balance POCL's interests were better met by waiving the
threshold condition and agreeing to accept. Such an acceptance would - I assume - only be
given if we were convinced that Pathway's rectification plans were sound and had a high
probablility of successful implementation to agreed timescales.
We would need to negotiate terms linking continuation of roll-out to the implementation and
testing of rectification - i.e. the rectification plans would need to set maximum numbers of
outlets to be supported at different stages of rectification, as well as dates. We would also
need to amend the contract to make it clear that any delay to roll-out because these
a
POL00028471
POL00028471
tectifications were not done by the necessary time would be a Pathway default - not a POCL
default or no default condition.
Keith
To Keith K Baines/POCL/POSTOFFICE@POSTOFFICE
To Keith K Bainesi..
cc David X Smithi.
Hard Copy To
Hard Copy cc
From Ruth Holleran:
Date 27/08/99 13:
Subject High Al Re-classification Tactics
Keith
Sooner or later (probably sooner having got 218 out of the way early next week) PWY will be
seeking re-classification of 376 and 298 to medium on the strength of a rectification plan. I
suggest we need to be thinking through the tactics on this before PWY (certainly) raise this at
the next workshops.
1am assuming with both 298 and 376, the required rectification to down-scale to medium will
not be proven but we will be under extreme pressure to re-classify. Bluntly speaking we will be
breaking our proof positive rule if/ when do this but I'm not sure we will have any alternative -
or do we?
On 376, PWY are time-expired - they were on the 18/8 and will be on 24/9 due to the integrity
controls not being in place. To use Tony Oppenheim's words - ‘it is obvious they cannot deliver
this by 24/9’. I would argue that where we currently are with 298, the same will apply. How
do you anticipate we will respond to this because I think we should be rehearsing our lines
now?
Perhaps this is one for the acceptance update on tues.
Ruth