Welcome Guest | Login | Register | Why Register? |
Newsletter RSS Twitter
19 March 2010 | 02:19 GMT


HOME | NEWS | DOCUMENT LIBRARY | FEATURES | OPINION & ANALYSIS | EVENTS | RESEARCH REPORTS | AWARDS | PODCASTS | VIDEO DIARIES

BT’s Southern LSP deal cost £546m

Tags: A   Accenture   Ambulance   BT   Cerner   CfH   Community   CSC   Fujitsu   GP   iS   Live8   LSP   Mental Health   Millennium   RiO   South   Spine  

04 Jun 2009

BT is to be paid an additional £546m for work at a limited number of trusts in the South of England.

The value of BT’s revised LSP contract is now £1,567m. BT has already been paid £92.8m in advanced payments for the work in the South.

The value of the contract extension is almost 50% of the original £1 billion LSP deal awarded to Fujitsu in 2005, a deal which covered all NHS organisations in the South.

The £500m contract awarded to BT is for a far more limited menu of work; supporting the ‘Live8’ trusts that have already had Cerner Millennium installed, putting Cerner into four more trusts - Royal Bath, North Bristol, Oxford Radcliffe, plus one other - and providing RiO to 25 community and mental health trusts.

The deal does not cover or fund IT upgrades for almost 30 hospital trusts, ambulance services and virtually all GP practices in the region. In addition, Worthing, one of the Live8 sites, is due to switch off its Cerner system this autumn.

In May 2008, Fujitsu had its contract terminated by NHS Connecting for Health after failing to reach agreement after a year of negotiations. CfH had originally hoped to quickly agree a deal for BT to replace Fujitsu, but negotiations took almost a year to complete.

According to industry analysts Ovum, the high price paid and indicates BT had NHS CFH “over something of a barrel”, on the contract negotiations.

Ovum says NHS CfH could simply not afford to lose one of its two remaining LSPs – CSC and BT - having already lost Fujitsu and Accenture.

One industry source told E-Health Insider that in comparison with what Fujitsu had been seeking, or other realistic alternatives, CfH had wound up with a far more expensive deal. “They just stumbled ahead until they had no way out, its such a waste of money”.

The value of last month’s deal with BT was revealed for the first time this week in a written parliamentary answer. This stated that BT’s LSP contract is now expected to be £1,567m - £546m more than the original contract value of £1,021m.

According to the parliamentary answer, the new contract value “includes an addition for work in the South [of England] now transferred by Contract Change Notice (CCN) to BT. A CfH spokesperson confirmed the figures.

Ovum commented: “An extra £546m seems a hefty price tag for these limited additions. For comparison, the original contract covered the deployment of EPRs to 31 acute trusts in London, ten mental health trusts and 31 primary care trusts. No doubt there were other changes in scope too – more tailoring of systems, for example – but it’s still an unexpectedly large jump in contract value.”

Ovum said the price paid indicated BT had the whip hand in contract negotiations: “As one of just two remaining LSPs, BT’s very public threat to walk away from the contract carried real weight. Had BT followed in Accenture and Fujitsu’s footsteps and walked away from its LSP contract, the National Programme as we know it would have faced a very bleak future.”

The same written parliamentary answer revealed that BT’s spine contract is now worth £889m (up £269m from the original contract value of £620m over ten years) and that CSC’s three LSP deals are worth an estimated £3 billion over ten years.

In May, BT made a £1.5 billion write-down at its Global Services division, the arm responsible for its NHS contracts. The write down’s were attributed to problems with its contracts with the NHS and Reuters, specifically failure to predict the cost and difficulty of delivering.

Without the extra money from NHS CfH, secured in deals signed at the very end of BT’s financial year, the write down’s in Global Services could have been even worse.

See also

BT Global Services takes £1.5bn hit

BT advanced payments to be deducted

Four BT Cerner deployments for South

Jon Hoeksma

© 2009 E-HEALTH-MEDIA LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Readers Comments
Add a comment
Readers Comments

1

Unbelievable - but its all our fault

05 Jun 09 09:34

This government continues to squander our hard earned cash in supporting a "club of middlemen" whose only achievement so far is to consume resources, deliver nothing and, because neither BT or CSC have any intrinsic knowledge of delivering healthcare they essentially have no idea what they are doing except standing firmly in the way of progress. What we really need is a thorough top-down clear out of all of these “troughs” including procurements via OGC Buying Solutions and ASCC where even more inappropriate middlemen add their margins to “prime contract” the real suppliers of healthcare products and services. The NHS has to take responsibility because it has largely ducked the issues and gone along with this madness in an effort to avoid having to take any difficult decisions themselves.

 

 


2

not exclusively our fault, but...

05 Jun 09 10:47

the problem is that IT is somehow considered "special" and different to the other services that make the NHS work, like catering, car-parking, building maintenance, etc, etc, etc. Actually, it is no different at all. You wouldn't take responsibilty for catering away from a CEO, on the grounds that they can't be expected to understand something as technical as cooking, or maintenace on the grounds that cleaning is too complicated.

IT is a key part of the delivery of healthcare and it should be on the agenda of every board and CEO in the country. They should be making investment decisions about it, like they do on everythign else. That way they will be forced into recognising the value of IT along side theatres, OP departments, wards, cleaners, porters, and so on.

Is there a place for spcialist procurement advice and support: yes. Is there a place for organisations to come together where they have a common purpose and history: yes. Is this the same as taking responsibility away from them: absolutely not.

Its time for the NHS to grow up and take responsiblity and for IT to stop pretending that what we do is too complicated and difficult for anyone to understand


3

Not my fault

05 Jun 09 14:35

I have consistently, both through these pages, and in whatever meetings I can get to, highlighted both the stupidities of the NPfIT approach, and both global and tactical ways in which their impact on the NHS and patient care could be reduced.

I know I have missed promotion as a direct result, but my conscience is clear. And I know because not all the critical comments on these pages are mine that there are quite a few others out there who did not buy the illusiory dream.  

The greatest pity is that our attempts to protect the local NHS from this mad feeding frenzy for big companies and management consultants has diverted and reduced our capacity to fund, develop and support the many initiatives delivering real value at a local level which have been struggling on. And of course there is very little to show for all the money spent outside the NHS. The Fujitsu data centres for the South would be a case in point.

 


4

Not My Fault....Really?

05 Jun 09 15:57

It is your fault and the many others that continue to battle against change.  You've tried to "reduce the impact" rather than improve the process and increase the undoubted potential benefit of the Programme.

I have worked with people like yourself day-in, day-out, for the last five years on the Programme and two clusters.

Yes, the Programme and the solutions it provides isn't perfect.  But, no healthcare centred application is ever perfect and meets the needs of such a diverse community from day one.  Perfection comes with time, understanding, and the development of both the people based processes and the application.

I have far more time and respect for those who choose to identify and understand the limitations of both the people and the application processes and work to improve them - and there are a lot of them out there, just appears that these pages attract people with less ambition and drive to see improvement pushed through.

And, lets face it, it is the NHS, improvement and change does need to be "pushed through", it is one of the largest, most diverse, organisations in the world, and change has never come easy.

Go to your next meeting, see what you can do to help, not hinder.  See where you can lend your expertise and healthcare experience, see what value you can add - because, frankly, you're adding none if you're constantly trying to point out problems rather than work to improve solutions and get as much benefit as possible. 

 

 


5

to Poster 4..argue your position based on delivery not rhetoric

05 Jun 09 18:55

Just exactly what have YOU achieved in five years. The comments made by poster 3 are born out of frustration not malice

"highlighted both the stupidities of the NPfIT approach, and both global and tactical ways in which their impact on the NHS and patient care could be reduced." - acting responsibly I'd say.

it appears that he/she has tried like many to work around the constant failures to deliver and then watch as CfH claim hollow victories by amplifying ordinary achievement - N3 deployment - comms is what BT do let's not forget but is an assymetric solution fit for purpose in any case? Is it cost effective? - PACS - a global standard that's been around for years still has a long way to go in terms of integration - CaB I'm sure there are others but as to their status - who knows the truth? Health Select committee certainly don't as they are constantly misled it seems.

Another massive contract has been signed with a company that has yet failed to deliver on its core objective and who have just committed to shedding thousands of jobs, many hundreds I'mhttp://www.e-health-insider.com/gfx/buttons/submit.gif sure who have been working on NHS projects.

No - this is an unmitigated mess that has been running unsuccessfully for nearly two parliaments with none of the 'core' objectives achieved. We have also seen today the fifth Health Secretary installed and few if any of the senior folks involved at the beginning still remain. Maybe Alan Sugar will shake a few trees.

It was grandiose in 2002 and it is grandiose in 2009 - if you're on the payroll good luck to you but I'd suggest that also clouds your judgement.http://www.e-health-insider.com/gfx/buttons/submit.gif


6

Frustrated, moi aussi!

09 Jun 09 12:06

Having worked with the NHS and tried to push through service improvements from within I am increasingly frustrated by the "supplier bashing" that goes on on this page.

Admittedly there are faults and the IT programme is ambitious but the NHS has to step up to the mark and take some responsibility if it fails.

Both LSPs seem to have plenty of ex NHS staff helping with the design and configuration so the cry of No Knowledge is not an excuse.

Instead of bleating about the solutions why not embrace the change, try implementing it and see how it works, instead of claiming it will never work without trying.

And if BT had CfH over a barrel, well maybe Fujitsu's new contract wasn't so bad after all.........

 

 

 

Search
News Features Jobs Newsletters
EHI Tweets HIMSS10’
EHI Tweets HIMSS10’
Most commented
Most commented
Tags
Tags
Top jobs
More
Top jobs

Featured_recruiters
Featured_recruiters