POL00039912 - Draft Notes from a meeting to discuss acceptance

Evidence on official site

Cm

POL00039912

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND SUBJECT TO CONTRACT

- DRAFT NOTES FROM A MEETING TO DISCUSS ACCEPTANCE : 1.12.98

Present: Ross Newby HM Treasury
. Dave Miller POCL
Peter Crahan BA
Mike Coombs ICL Pathway
John Dicks ICL Pathway

Dave Miller's note of 1 December 1998 which responded to ICL’s 9 November Acceptance
paper formed the basis for discussion.

1.

11

1.2

13

14

16

ACCEPTANCE PROCEDURES

Mike Coombs confirmed that ICL were asking for Acceptance (in terms of both
cessation of termination rights related to Acceptance and start of income guarantees)
after the final runs of End to End and Model office and before Live Trial of NR2
Child Benefit.

Miller/Crahan confirm that Contracting Authorities were prepared to relinquish
termination rights due to failed Acceptance after the successful completion of the
NR2 Child Benefit Live Trial (OBCS should be included in that service set). This is
without prejudice to all other rights of termination and all other remedies for , and
consequences of , failure to achieve acceptance .

Miller/Crahan confirmed that the Contracting Authorities position was that
payment guarantees would be paid on the basis of each card enabled post office with
the full contracted functionality to which multi benefit migration has been completed
- If any delay to completion of multi benefit migration to any individual post office is
caused solely by default on the part of BA , then BA will pay guarantees for that
office . In addition to the 4000 post offices limit the current roll out plans would limit
this exposure to the following benefits : -

- full roll out up to 4000 outlets:
- Child Benefit
- Job Seekers Allowance

- limited roll out to Pilot Outlets
- Income Support ‘
~ Retirement Benefit/Incapacity Benefit

Peter Crahan and Dave Miller agreed to describe for NR2+

() _ the functionality involved for their respective organisations
(ii) I and what would constitute proof of concept.

[See Peter Crahan’s attached letter for his response.]
Dave Miller's to follow. . .

POCL/BA Commercial need to be aware that ICL are still pursuing start of payment I
guarantees at the same time as the authorities give up their termination rights for
acceptance.

POL00039912

POL00039912
POL00039912

A WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND SUBJECT TO CONTRACT

2. ACCEPTANCE INCIDENTS

21 ICLexplained that the number of potential incidents in relation to the number of
acceptance criteria was giving serious concerns and this explained their request to
increase the number of allowable Category B incidents.

2.2 BA/POCL agreed to discuss the detail of these issues further but ACTION
stressed that their view of what was acceptable was much DWM/
near 20 than 200+. PC/MC

3. RELEASE AUTHORISATION

31 ICL Pathway explained that they were seeking to ensure that Acceptance and Release
Authorisation were kept separate at the crucial point after live trial of NR2 Child
Benefit.

3.2 ICL Pathway agreed to reword Section 3 of their proposal to reflect ACTION
this concern for the Contracting Authorities to consider further. MC

4, APPOINTMENT OF AN EXPERT TO FACILITATE ACCEPTANCE

41 BA/POCL accepted that well structured facilitation could be helpful but stated they
would not give up the Acceptance decision.

4.2 John Dicks pointed out that there is, in fact, no single acceptance decision for the
authorities to take. Rather acceptance occurs when all the separate acceptance
activities related to the criteria and their main groupings have been successfully met.
This activity is by its nature fragmented and potentially subject to delays. ICL
Pathway were therefore seeking a fast, up-front, rolling arbitration or mediation
mechanism which sorted issues within days of their being registered. In this way
they would be confident of the speed of the process. This was their chief concern.

The contracting authorities were invited to consider how such a requirement ‘ACTION
could be met. DWM/PC

5. SPECIFIC POINTS RELATING TO SCHEDULE A07

Mike Coombs made 4 requests with regard to the wording of A07.
5.1 Para6.1(d) ICL requested that this clause be removed.

52 Paraé2 ICL requested the removal of the words “wittiout further category (a),
* (b) or (c) Acceptance Incidents Arising”

5.3  Para8.2 ICL sought confirmation that “the further Acceptance Test” referred to
relates only to the failed part(s) of the system not the whole system.

54  Para8.5(b) ICLcontend that if termination for acceptance failure only applies at
the NR2 stage then 8.5 (b) is redundant.

POL00039912
POL00039912

£ ‘ WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND SUBJECT TO CONTRACT ‘

These items have been referred to the Programme Lawyer via Pat Kelsey and for
information to Jeff Triggs of Slaughter and May. An initial response will be made by
4 December.

6. Peter Crahan’s post-meeting response on behalf of BA is copied out with this letter.

POL00039912
POL00039912

P.2/703

@1 DEC '98 18719 FROM:

£ benefits Benefits Agency
Third Floor

. Terminal House

$2 Grosvenor Gardens

agency : London SWiW oAe

Main Switchboard 0171 200 5400

Fox 0171
Our ref
I Mr. D. Miller
I Post Office Counts Limited . Your ref
Room 2 dete
King Edward Building . Ist December, 1998
London

Dear >= eq,

Contractual Acceptance Clarification Points

ICL Pathway’s revised proposals for Acceptance were contained in the document attached to Keith

Todd’s letter to Stephen Byers of 9 November 1998. We discussed the initial Horizon response

jointly agreed by BA and POCL with ICL Pathway today. I took away an action to provide
” clarification on a number of aspects from a BA perspective and, hopefully, this letter will address

the outstanding points for inclusion in a joint response to Mike Coombes

1 Termination Rights for Failed Acceptance

‘The BA are prepared to relinquish termination rights on all service for failed acceptance after the

successful completion of the NR2 Child Benefit Live Trial. This is without prejudice to all other

rights of termination and all other remedies for, and consequences of, failure to achieve acceptance.

2. Payment Guarantees

When full acceptance has occurred, BA will be prepared to pay guarantees based on each card

enabled Post Office with the full contracted functionality to which multi-benefit migration has been

completed. If any delay to completion of multi-benefit migration to any individual post office is

caused solely by default on the part of BA, then BA will pay guarantees for that office.

3. Multi-Benefit Rollout limitations prior to delivery of NR2+

In addition to the 4000 Post Office limit, the current roll-out plans would limit this exposure to the
, following benefits:

¢ Full rollout to up to 4000 outlets:
- Child Benefit (ChB)
- Job Seekers Allowance (JSA)

© Limited Rollout to Pilot Outlets:

Ciiparatnuerte_prace. Dee

in Lxecutloe Agency of
the Department of Sxial Security

POL00039912

POL00039912

r.0s705

@1 DEC "YY 18t1y FRUM!

- Income Support (ISCS)

- Retirement Pension/Incapacity Benefit PSCS)

4. NR2+ Proof of Concept Activity

Clarification was sought in two areas:

* Definition of Proof of Concept

There are an agreed number of business and technical components which have been excluded from
NR2 multi benefit and are now included in the RCD for NR2+. Proof of Concept activity should be
sufficient to demonstrate confidence that the main areas of exclusion will be delivered in the NR2+
delivery timescales. We would expect this demonstration to occur in a test or development
environment which, with the obvious exception of the new components to be demonstrated,
matches, as far as possible, the production environment.

¢ Functional/Technical Areas to be demonstrated during Proof of Concept

The areas of functionality which BA consider should be subject to proof of concept, based on NR2
and RCD v 0.6 dated 28 August 1998 are:

- “Soft” EVP
- Split Payment Payees
- P.W.A. Addressees

NB The above assumes that On-line Enquiry functionality has been delivered in timescales
commensurate with CAPS 3.5.

The above concessions on the part of the BA (and matched by POCL) were based on the plan
agreed as part of the Graham Corbett discussions. We must reserve the right to review the position
once the current re-plan has been completed.

Happy to discuss any of the above.

Yours sincerely,

GRO

ec. . George McCorkell

Cr eArAluer re t8a00. DOC

xk TOTAL PAGE.@3 ¥»k