![HT-2020-000448 - [2024] EWHC 1185 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_yJUntHA.png){kind=logo}
Identification of all services (3.2.2)
Identification of all services (3.2.2)
The obligation within Clause 3.2.2 of Schedule 11.1 required proposals for the identification of all services; it did not require within the STP the identification of services.
The STP v0.9 stated, in respect of this obligation:
‘3.2.2. Identification of all Services;
The Services are identified in the contractual Documentation, specifically Schedule 2-2 (The Services, Service Levels, Service Credits and Implementation Plan) and Schedule 3 (Contractor's Solution), as well as any additional RFC's/CCN's. In accordance with paragraph 3.2.1 of this Appendix B, the PMO will hold copies of all assured and shared Documentation (including such Documentation relating to design, build, test, training etc.) and this will collectively allow the Authority to identify all Services.’
In considering this complaint, it is necessary to review the comments made by DBS at the time and TCS’s response (in red), as contained in the v0.9 comment spreadsheet:
In its Written Closing Submissions, DBS submits that the proposals under paragraph 3.2.2 relating to services provide no detail whatsoever and simply refer to the Agreement, and suggest that if that was satisfactory it would render the paragraph obsolete. However, DBS’s point at the time, which made sense, was not that it was inappropriate to refer to the Agreement in this context but that some of the services required by Schedules 2-2 and 3 had not been provided. As such, they pointed out that it was necessary to provide details of what – as against the Agreement – had not been provided. That was a fair point; and it was accepted in principle by TCS who agreed that it would highlight any aspects of the service that had not been delivered. The second point raised by DBS sought clarification that it was to be TCS who were to provide the identification of Services, and TCS agreed to make the necessary change to reflect this.
As an indication of the information about Services proposed to be identified on service transfer, this exchange, together with the response to the comment was perfectly adequate. I do not know whether in any versions before v0.9 these changes were formally reflected, but there was nothing to suggest that TCS’s identification of services during transfer would be insufficient. Moreover, DBS effectively changed, or added to, its requirement in September 2019, requiring TCS to identify all of the services currently supplied or supported in an IT infrastructure library style services catalogue, which requirement was then included in v0.18. There is no evidence that this was requested sooner, and it went beyond the comment made on v0.9.
I reject the submission that the STP v0.9 (read in conjunction with the comments and responses) fell short of the requirement at paragraph 3.2.2 of Schedule 2-11.
- Heading
- CONTENTS
- IntroductiON
- The Factual Witnesses
- Expert Evidence
- Programming Experts
- Forensic Accounts
- The Parties Submissions
- Principles Applicable to Issues of Construction
- The Defendant’s Obligations and Responsibilities
- Clause 15
- Clause 9.5 which states
- Clause 14.5 of Schedule 2-6 which states
- The Delay and Notice Provisions
- Clause 7
- Conditions Precedent: Clauses 5 and 6
- Conditions Precedent: the authorities
- Clause 5.6
- Clause 6
- Clause 8
- Limitations of Liability
- A single or multiple caps?
- The Delay Damages cap under Clause 52.2.5
- Is TCS’s claim for loss of anticipated costs savings excluded by Clause 52?
- Compliance with Clause 5.3, Agreement and Estoppel Introduction
- Express Agreement
- Estoppel
- Introduction
- R1 B&B Delays
- Mr Britton’s First Analysis
- Mr Britton’s Second Analysis
- Conclusion on Mr Britton’s Analyses
- TCS’s submission based upon Mr Jardine’s analysis
- Responsibilities for Delay on the ‘Infrastructure’ Critical Path
- R1-D
- Compliance with Notice Provisions
- Analysis of Delays
- Up to August 2017
- From August 2017 to 19 September 2018
- Analysis
- Failed to confirm its desired functional scope of R1 Disclosure in relation to the Customer-to-Business portal and Accountable Officer’s Update Service functionality. Such confirmation was a prerequis
- Failed to make available an end-to-end test environment for the Interactive Voice Response system
- Failed to agree upon a data migration approach, without which the Claimant could not complete the build of a data migration environment so that anonymised data could be made available for testing
- Failed to ensure that relevant external stakeholders were available to participate in Final Systems Integration Testing
- Partial Termination
- TCS’s Claims
- Non-Manpower Costs
- Anticipated Cost Savings
- Summary of TCS’s Delay Claim Recovery
- DBS’s Claims
- Delay Payments
- R1-B&B Delay
- Disclosure Scotland Extension Costs – Item 1 of the Updated Schedule of Loss
- Loss of Anticipated Savings – Item 3 of the Updated Schedule of Loss
- R1-D Delay
- R0 Licence Costs – Item 4 of the Updated Schedule of Loss
- R0 Hosting and Infrastructure Costs - Item 5 of the Updated Schedule of Loss
- R0 Technology Refresh – Item 6 of the Updated Schedule of Loss
- R0 N-1 Sustainment Costs – Item 7 of the Updated Schedule of Loss
- R0 Maintenance Costs – Item 8 of the Updated Schedule of Loss
- Savings
- Introduction
- Quality-related Obligations
- Good Industry Practice and Defects
- Digital by Default Standards
- Section 71
- The Basics Portal
- Section 73
- The Barring Portal
- Section 75
- Section 76
- Barring Portal: Loss of productivity - Item 11 of the Updated Schedule of Loss
- LPF Portal
- Siebel Useability Issues
- Redaction
- Document naming, bundle creation and performance
- Adobe Licence (Item 20)
- Document Storage (Item 21)
- Other B1 Barring Quality Issues
- Scan on Demand
- Special Characters
- Letters
- Item 24 : Loss of Efficiency Claims arising out of R1 Barring Quality/Useability Issues
- N-1 Sustainment Costs
- Causation and Loss
- Exit/Service Transfer
- Identification of all services (3.2.2)
- Knowledge Transfer (3.2.6 and 3.2.7)
- Section 95
- Providing all documentation to a replacement contractor (3.2.1 and 3.2.10)
- The identification of all leases, maintenance agreement and support agreements in connection with the provision of the services (3.2.3)
- Providing any other information or assistance reasonably required by a replacement contractor (3.2.14)
- Causation and Loss
- The Security Incidents
- The Charges Variation Dispute Introduction
- Issue 1: How the amount of an ‘over-recovery of the Forecast Revenue’ (Clause 2.8.4) or ‘under-recovery of the Forecast Revenue’ (Clause 2.8.5) is to be measured
- Section 104
- Issue 4: How Clause 2.8.5 of Schedule 2-3 applied to Volume Based Service Charges in Service Year 5
- Issue 2: Whether the Predicted Volumes for Basics in Service Year 4 were 1,000,000 (TCS’s case) or 320,374 (DBS’s case)
- Conclusion on Volume Based Service Charge
- Conclusions