CTF shortlist released
The Community Task Force PQQ results have been announced. I've attached them as a pdf document (under Crown copyright), and will try to publish them as a table for ease of reference later on in the week.
Initial thoughts: Nothing entirely unexpected in there that I can spot. Barnardo's is a new face for DWP provision. WorkDirections have decided to throw their hat in the ring after sitting out New Deal last time (CTF resembles the ETF / VS elements of New Deal). Serco and Reed are presumably waiting for bigger opportunities.
Update 16/9 - The DWP have updated the results to show which areas bidders have been shortlisted in. The pdf file below now has the correct results in, and I'll update the spreadsheet and add a proper table when I get chance.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| CTF_PQQ_List.xls | 15.5 KB |
| ctf-phase1-success.pdf | 59.37 KB |
Comments
Rumours are circulating that the CTF results above do not show the correct geographies. They may be showing where providers bid for, not where they've been shortlisted. I'll update this once I get confirmation either way.
The results are now attached as a spreadsheet. I'm working on moving them into a table form for easier reading, but it's simple enough to use the spreadsheet to figure out who was shortlisted where. Or, er, not at all useful, if the geographies are for bidding rather than shortlisting.
Hi Dan - The tables arent quite accurate, I2I were shortlisted to bid in area 8 (Cov, Warwick and the Marches) as well as area 6.
All best
Dan.
Bah! I'll get in touch with the dwp and see if they have a better list. Thanks for the heads up dan.
TUPE or not TUPE? With the oncoming start of the new FND contract and the TUPE of subsequent staff to the new Prime Contractors (Particuarly Bham and Solihull)it has been mentioned that once staff are transferred over to the new providers then they will immediately be made redundant. Apparently one provider has been reported to have stated that there are "two loopholes" they can legally use to remove their inherited employees. This makes a mockery of TUPE as a whole and of "Welfare to Work" Is anyone aware of what these loopholes are and how staff can be protected. IT seems that long serving loyal staff are being blindfoldingly led to the slaughter without an inkling of their fate!!!
I can see Industrial Tribunals are going to be busy if what Larry The Lamb says is correct.
Hmm. I'm leaving that up for the moment - it doesn't identify a specific provider, although it narrows the possibilities down rather worryingly. In general though, don't identify specific parties in unprovable claims on the internet.
On the general point, if any provider actually does that their reputation would go down the pan instantly. I really hope they don't. On a purely selfish level it would save me a few weeks of trying to catch and edit comments from furious ex-staff!
Im sure this wont happen, I have it in black and white that I will not be made redundant as a consequence of the transfer any provider that does so will be extremely unpopular .
Its too easy to get around TUPE Im afraid. Being TUPED isnt actually not as bad as it sounds however. Gives a chance for a fresh start and learn new ways to deliver, but you keep your stripes so to speak.
By the way Dan Dowling - that was a great presentation the other day in Sunderland! I cant believe you did that with no prior notice!
Some bad news for you. You have, however, only been only shortlisted in area 8 and not 6. The letters sent out to providers with the initial PDF were inaccurate.
Good luck.
Providers can make TUPEd staff redundant if there is an "economic, technical or organisational (ETO) reason entailing changes in the workforce." There is no statutory definition in the regs as to what constitutes ETO but it can be used if the number of staff needed to deliver the new contract is less than the number of staff employed under the old contract and/or where there are real changes in the functions of the workforce in a substantial or key area. This is a grey area but my understanding is that any organisation looking to use ETO as grounds for dismissal would need to put all pertinent staff under threat of redundancy (not just those TUPEd across) and go through a formal process. THey can't just weed people out indiscriminately.
A general google of employment law re ETO brings up the following:
"If there is such a reason, and it is the cause or main cause of the dismissal, the dismissal will be fair as long as an employment tribunal decides that:
•the employer acted reasonably in the circumstances in treating that reason as sufficient to justify dismissal; and
•the employer met the other requirements of the general law on unfair dismissal.
Also, if the dismissal occurred for reason of redundancy, then the usual redundancy arrangements will apply, and the dismissed employee could be entitled to a redundancy payment".
I'm hearing rumours that some bidders are withdrawing from this programme, for reasons as yet unknown.
I work for a consultancy company that’s working with an fND provider in the Midlands.
As regards to redundancies, most providers will hold on to management staff and specialist roles such as ICT, tutors, assessors, etc. The losses will be more on frontline personnel and even then you’re talking small numbers as each region is different and the DWP statement regarding 35 – 40 % drop in client numbers does not apply across the country and will not have the dire consequences that are being suggested here, loses if any will be quite small as providers are looking long term rather short term panic.
Established providers that already have profile will look to absorb staff into other areas of operations. New providers will also be looking to retain staff for other roles.
Just visit the websites for A4e, Working Links, Fourstar and Seetec and you’ll see that they are still recruiting for personnel for the fND regions.
Rumour has it that preferred bidders have been informed of CTF results
The fundamental problem with CTF (and the other elements of Young Person's Guarantee provision) is that the numbers simply aren't there as only 18-24 year olds 13 weeks into stage 3 are eligible. The provision will be mandated from April (ie: you must complete a YPG programme before moving on to FN)D.
Given the choice between CTF, a future job or a cushy training option, I don't think many customers are going to choose 6 months of actual graft.
If YPG providers actually hit their wildly ambitious recruitment targets it will seriously compromise FND 18-24 customer flow and create serious competition for FND customers in the Labour Market. And there are a fair few providers out there willing to throw the kitchen sink at YPG provision if it means lower numbers and fewer jobs for their local FND prime.
A JCP District Manager told me yesterday that his advisers have 75 different referral options before a customer enters FND. I asked if this had been factored in to FND volumes. He laughed.
We're in for 18 months of serious competition and aggressive customer recruitment in the market - can't be a bad thing.