![HT-2020-000448 - [2024] EWHC 1185 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_yJUntHA.png){kind=logo}
Scan on Demand
Scan on Demand
TCS was required to provide facilities (via SPS) for archived paper files to be automatically retrieved when needed and scanned into the R1 system to become an electronic record. See:
Clause 2.25.6.3 of Schedule 2-2:
‘the Solution shall enable the AUTHORITY to identify and request a Case file that is archived off-site’,
Clause 2.25.6.7 of Schedule 2-2:
‘the Solution shall enable the AUTHORITY to record the returning of case files where appropriate to an off-site location following the conclusion of case’.
Section 1.1.2 of Schedule 3:
‘The Contractor will also provide a scanning facility to digitise any historic document that is required as part of an operational business process’;
Section 8.3.7(e)(ii) of Schedule 3:
‘The Contractor will scan paper files on a ‘as and when needed’ basis as new documentation for a Case enters the system workflow via the scanning process…’
TCS was therefore required to provide facilities for SPS to scan documents. As the IT experts agreed, this on demand service was to use Siebel as the conduit for requests. The IT experts agreed that the solution contained defects and that DBS and SPS were unable to use Siebel for this purpose. The issues were described by Dr Hunt:
The case number on the manifest did not match the one on the physical file which meant SPS could not identify the correct file;
Certain boxes were not migrated to the R1 system;
If paper files were spread across more than one box, Siebel could not recognise them.
TCS admits that the delivered solution was contractually deficient. In light of this admission, consideration of whether the failure also amounted to a failure in GIP is not necessary.
DBS submits on the basis of the factual evidence of Mr Sheahan that, as a result of these issues, DBS had to continue using a manual process of requesting archived material which meant that anticipated efficiency savings were not made until DBS bulk scanned old files. However, on the basis of the contractual requirement, and the contents of RFC 307, this appears to overstate the position. Undoubtedly, the inability to use Siebel properly in order to request files etc made the system less efficient than it should have been. However, RFC 307 made clear that the ‘bulk scan’ of old files was being contemplated as advantageous to DBS to obviate the inefficiencies in the solution contracted for (even if the requesting process had been operating properly through Siebel). The RFC stated:
‘Under the current process, whenever a case with a paper file is reopened, TCS will request the box containing the file be sent from TNT to SPS. SPS will open the box, remove the file in question and scan it. SPS will then reseal the box and return it to TNT. This is the process based on Schedule 3, Section 1.1.2 which reads “The Contractor will also provide a scanning facility to digitise any historic document that is required as part of an operational business process’.
The ‘impact’ section of the RFC then identified the inefficiencies inherent in the contractual solution itself, rather than as a result of the fact that the requesting process was not automated as it should have been:
‘The process currently referenced in Schedule 3 for ah-hoc scanning of paper files would commence from R1 go live. There is no discernible end date to this process. The impact of this is that there will be ongoing delivery and return of boxes between TNT and SPS. Boxes may be opened on numerous occasions and it will be necessary to keep a record of which files have been removed and which remain.
The DBS will also not achieve its goal of a fully digitised solution. This will impact on the DBS’s ability to answer any questions and requests for information that come out of the Independent Enquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). It will also slow down our ability to work on reactivated cases and new referrals for existing profiles. The affects our efficiency in dealing with appeal, reviews and referrals. It also affects our efficiency in dealing with Appeals, Reviews, SARs, FOIs and Parliamentary Questions.’
I reject the suggestion that the bulk scanning of historical files was caused by the defects within the scan on demand service. The bulk scan was agreed (and ultimately taken forward with SPS) to meet DBS’s understanding of the inefficiencies caused by the contracted for process, rather than the specific defects in respect of which TCS was in breach. Because of the way the claim has been presented, it is not clear what part of the ‘loss of anticipated savings’ claim also wrongly elides these issues, although in light of Mr Sheahan’s evidence the implication is that the claim will have done so. No specific loss is identified or claimed (e.g. the cost of bulk scanning), and it merely forms part of the overall loss of efficiency claim.
- 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