PLC Public Sector reports:
At a meeting of the Society for Computers and Law public sector group toward the end of 2008, it was revealed that the group is discussing potential changes to the OGC’s Model ICT Services Agreement (MITSA), with the OGC. The OGC’s current intention is to publish a revised agreement and guidance possibly as early as April 2009. The most interesting development may be the publication of a slimmed down MITSA “lite”.
In this post, PLC Public Sector considers whether this is deliverable and looks at the other changes in the pipeline.
The response from the floor to the news of a MITSA lite was undoubtedly positive. It is true that, as MITSA was developed for use in major ICT procurements, it is not an easy read. Comment was made that clients would not read 100-page documents. However, would a MITSA lite be any more client friendly, given that the non-ICT contracts recently published by the OGC run to in excess of 70 pages?
Our second concern is whether the length of MITSA is the main bar to its use in a wider variety of circumstances? Would it be better to focus on the types of ICT projects that are procured for the public sector and look to develop a suite of documents that specifically addresses each different type? If at the same time the documents can be made as lean and user-friendly as possible then this would be even better. More assistance is needed for public sector purchasers of ICT on contract issues, however, it may prove to be a mistake to think that the problems can be solved by simply trimming down MITSA.
The other areas that the OGC have indicated that they are reviewing are:
-
The data protection provisions.
-
The security provisions.
-
The financial distress provisions.
-
Whether, following the security provisions being mandated for all central government ICT contracts, the use of further provisions of MITSA should be mandated.
The focus on the data protection and security provisions is somewhat predictable. While recent problems with ICT data loss have been high profile and need to be addressed, the root of most of these problems appears to have been user error rather than insufficient contract provision. It may well be that an emphasis on training and the enforcement of existing policies could lead to better public sector performance, but if revised contractual provisions can assist in this process then so be it.
The need to review the financial distress provisions was evident before the credit crunch, they are still too onerous and simply do not work. This need has been accelerated by the financial crisis and any improvement is to be welcomed.
Finally, the sticky subject of mandating MITSA. There is no doubt that mandating contracts can provide a more consistent approach and better value for money for the public sector (as has been shown by the standardisation of the PFI contract and initiatives such as BSF). What is in question is whether the public sector ICT market is yet in a position to achieve this. The Government has previously accepted that ICT services did not suit the “one size fits all” approach of PFI. This was because of the pace at which the sector moves and the variety of projects that need to be procured. These same problems will arise again if one contract is mandated for all ICT projects and certain projects will continue to fail due to the policy constraints placed on them. Prior to reaching a stage where mandating the use of any contract form is possible, a suite of documents needs to be developed and agreed. The challenge is to ensure that these documents reflect not only the many different types of contract that are let, but also the variety of public sector purchasers.
PLC Public Sector is keen to hear your views on MITSA and what you think could be done to improve public sector contracting for ICT – is standardisation the way forward? Is a MITSA lite the solution? Let us know by submitting your thoughts below.