POL00028556
POL00028556
-_ - - $<
IT («94
Electronic memo
To David W Miller/POCL/POSTOFFICE;
Smith/POCL/POSTOFFICE...
cc Ruth Holleran/POCL/POSTOFFICE¢
3, David X
john
Meagher/POCL/POSTOFFICE
Burdett/POCL/POSTOFFICEC
Hard Copy To
Hard Copy cc
From Keith K Baines/POCL/POSTOFFICE
Date 17/11/99 09:22
Subject Meeting with Richard Christou
Dave, . .
There has not been an opportunity to review tactics in the light of the demand position
document and the legal advice (which I had from Jeff yesterday, and which he will write up and
e-mail to Dave Miller this morning.)
Negotiating position
We need to be clear that our demand position - as the document stood after my and Jeff's
comments - but which may change after Dave Smith's - we are not merelt re-instating the
roll-out critera which we agreed last time round. We are also seeking to impose additional
obligations on Pathway, which are likely to cost them, and which in other circumstances we
would only get at extra cost to us through change control. I don't have a problem with that
approach, but we need to be clear that that is what we are doing. It has a look of additions
from wish lists that were not tabled last time round, and I expect ICL will see it as such.
The most significant areas where we are asking for additions are:
Help desk service levels. We are asking Pathway to meet the service level of 80% of calls
answered in 20 seconds on the peak day, rather than as a weekly average in the 24/9/99
agreement. (The contracted SLA is for a monthly average.) This will require a higher level of
resource, and is more likely to fail because there is less opportunity to average out random
fluctuations.
Help desk staffing - we are asking for a right of audit of staff in place. This is different for the
output-based approach in the contract generally, and is in addition to the explanation of
Pathway's resourcing model which was attended by out experts prior to 24/9/99 and which at
the time they said was satisfactory.
Rectification Plan for Al 376 - we are asking for an open ended commitment to add any
additional activities to the development plan for the integrity control that may emerge from a
joint review. this must put the plan at risk, given that it was already tight. (I clarified with Min
that this is what we are asking for - it is more than adding the activities to develop operational
procedures that we had identified as missing.
We are asking for analysis of the early faults which were not analysed prior to 24/9/99. Last
time round, Pathway argued - and we did not disagree - that it would be wasteful of resources
to go further back and analyse the earliest incidents, when most of these were probably
attributable to root causes already found and fixed.
POL00028556
POL00028556
Legal Advice
The key point is that we acquire a right to suspend roll out on the 24th November, if one or
more of the criteria is failed - as seems certain now. If we do not exercise that right, then over
time, we may by behavoiur give it up. Jeff's view is that the safest way is to give notice
immediately after the 24th, or even before, that we are suspending roll-out, and then negotiate
a way forwards. The risk with this is that Pathway may then start to stand down activities that
make the 24 Jan resumption impossible, even if we do agree changes that would make us
comfortable with it. My view is that this risk is worth taking, provided we make it clear to ICL
that when we serve notice of suspension of roll-out, we are leaving open the option. to agree
new plans that would meet the original dates.
Jeff's proposal on the mechanism for the new agreement is a 3rd supplementary, which would
include confirmation that the criteria had not been met - in the same way as previously we had
confirmation that the acceptance criteria had not been met.
At the risk of being repetitious - we also need to be clear that the criteria for 24/11 are not
about fault. We should not be saying that ICL have failes, rather that the criteria have not been
satisfied. The point of the criteria in the 2nd supplementary was to safeguard POCL against an
unsustainable roll-out, not to impose penalties on ICL.
I'm in the HMT meeting all morning, but can be called out if you need to discuss.
Keith