Project Initiation Document (PO003)

Document Control
Project Title: ‘In-Tend’- eSourcing Management System
Project Manager: Dick Leitch – Projects Office
Date: 06/05/09

Version Date Author(s) Notes on Revisions

V1 01/04/09 Richard Price/John Initial draft
Malloch
V2 06/05/09 Richard Price Amend Project Overview and Finance
V3
V4 14/05/09 Emma Baker/Dick Leitch Further additions
V5 01/07/09 Dick Leitch PCG comments. ICSD consultations

Consultation with:
Date Person Service/School

David Allen Registrar

Jeremy Lindley Corporate Services
Emma Baker Projects Office
Dick Leitch Projects Office
Hugh McCann Estates Development
David Nairn Campus Services
Mike Walton ICSD
Anne Shrubshall Finance Services
Lincoln Allen Finance Services
Barry Clark Finance & Systems
Steve Grange ICSD
Paul Sandy ICSD

1 of 13
Table of Contents

1. PROJECT OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................. 3

2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES.............................................................................................................. 4
2.1 METRICS............................................................................................................................. 5
2.2 SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES................................................................................................. 5
3. SCOPE & TIMESCALE OF THE PROJECT................................................................................5
3.1 PROCESSES......................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 DEPARTMENTS..................................................................................................................... 5
3.3 KEY CHALLENGES........................................................................................................... 5
3.4 TIMETABLE....................................................................................................................... 6
3.5 RELATED PROJECTS............................................................................................................. 8
3.6 OUT OF SCOPE.................................................................................................................... 8
4. RISKS, CONSTRAINTS AND ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................9
4.1 RISKS................................................................................................................................. 9
4.2 CONSTRAINTS & DEPENDENCIES........................................................................................... 9
4.3 ASSUMPTIONS...................................................................................................................... 9
5. RESOURCE FOR THE PROJECT..............................................................................................10
5.1 FINANCE............................................................................................................................ 10
5.2 HUMAN RESOURCES........................................................................................................... 10
5.3 HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS/REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE & RESPONSIBILITY........11
5.4 OPERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SYSTEM AND RESOURCE REQUIRED. . .11
5.5 TRAINING REQUIREMENTS & ONGOING TRAINING PROVISION:-..............................11
6. MANAGING THE PROJECT....................................................................................................... 12
6.1 ISSUE CONTROL................................................................................................................. 12
6.2 ACTIONS REGISTER............................................................................................................ 12
6.3 FINANCIAL CONTROL.......................................................................................................... 12
6.4 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT................................................................................................12
6.5 STAKEHOLDERS............................................................................................................ 12
6.6 PLANNING...................................................................................................................... 13
6.7 APPROVAL.......................................................................................................................... 13

2 of 13
1. PROJECT OVERVIEW
The University spent around £60m on (non-pay) good, services and works in 2007-08. The
larger acquisitions are competed by inviting tenders or quotations (lower-value requirements)
from suppliers. These processes involve considerable time and paperwork. The process is
also complex, especially above the EU threshold (of £140k), and now increasingly open to
legal challenge, mostly on the application of ‘correct’ process.

The legislation and application of ‘Freedom of Information’ (FOI) also requires the University
to publish or make available information on our contracts or potential contracts. The current
(manual) process is not visible to Procurement Services, which is charged with ensuring the
University achieves best value.

We propose to introduce software to allow selected University departments to manage their

invitations to tender (ITT), requests for quotation (RFQ), e-auctions and contracts in a clearer
and simpler way.

Our market review has identified that In-Tend represents best value for tender and contract
management at a 3-year cost of £41,023. The nearest competitor on e-tendering
functionality (BIP) is far greater revenue costs (requiring £30k every 4 years instead of In-
Tend’s £14k) and does not include contract management. There are some applications with
more functionality, but with massively increased capital costs (For example, a single-year
subscription to RISC for up to 100 electronic tenders costs £32.5k). Furthermore, In-Tend
has been developed by an HEI for HEIs and provides excellent opportunities to share best
practice with over 60 other public sector organisations. The ‘In-Tend’ system is also used by
5 HE purchasing consortia, including the Southern Universities Purchasing Consortium
(SUPC). The University of Exeter, would, by acquiring the software, acquire a stake in In-
Tend, thereby achieving greater influence over system enhancements.

The ‘In-Tend’ e-Sourcing Management System was developed by the University of Sheffield
and is owned by its members who each have a stake in the ‘In-Tend’ brand. The system
consists of 3 distinct modules:

 eTendering,
 Contract Management &
 Active Bidding (eAuction).

‘In-Tend’ will provide standardised tendering processes through a hosted web-based system.
The major benefits include transparency of the tender process and electronic storage of
contract documents. Once eTendering is linked with the Contract Management module,
there will be greater visibility of contracts, including renewal dates and the ability to assess
supplier performance regularly.

The implementation of ‘In-Tend’ will enable Procurement Services, Estates Development,

Campus Services, ICSD, BISS and other schools and services to manage tenders
electronically. This project will greatly assist in controlling the tendering process which is
currently carried out using various systems. The new system will free up considerable time
so that each department can spend more time managing other work and projects.

Implementation of this system supports the work the University has already achieved with its
e-marketplace and has been approved (within the Creating Value Plan) by VCEG.

3 of 13
2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES

SER OBJECTIVE MEASURE

1 Standardise routine ITT/RFQ
documents
2 Automate the preparation,
sending & receipt of Requests for
Quotation (RFQ) and Invitations to
Tender (ITT) documents
electronically
3 Provide a simple and transparent
system to manage all competitive
quotations for purchases above
£5000.
4 Increase the number and value of
acquisitions that are controlled
using standard procurement
documentation and processes.
5 Support compliance with EU Law
6 Contracts Register regularly
updated & available for FOI
Compliance
7 Improve Contract Management
process
8 Improve Monitoring of Contracts
9 Reduce paper-storage
requirement.
Improve retrieval of Contractual
documents.
In-Tend is loaded with standard routine
RFQ/ITT documents.
Successful completion of a RFQ/ITT using
eSourcing System by Procurement
Services.
Successful completion of a RFQ/ITT by key
departments using eSourcing System.
Adoption of eSourcing System by piloted
schools & services to carry out RFQ/ITTs.
All ITTs above EU limits routed through In-
Tend
1. In-Tend database is formally adopted as
the master database for publishing contracts
above the EU threshold.
2. Feedback/FOI requests dealt with from
In-Tend system.
Upload existing procurement contracts and
assign to contract owners, setting renewal
dates for each.
Develop and use Standard Questionnaire to
be used for contract review
1. Demonstrate easy retrieval of contract
documents on-line.
2. Store the master electronic copies of all
University EU tenders.

10 Reduce/Eliminate Postal Costs No RFQ/ITT sent by mail

11 Efficiency Savings £1.35m over three years (recorded on
EMM).

A key objective of this project is to make University acquisition processes more efficient. The
Office of Government Commerce (OGC) assesses the efficiency saving from using a tender-
management system as £6000 per acquisition. We conservatively estimate the efficiency
savings to be made as follows:

EMM Savings 1

Department Approx No Saving Total

of Tenders per Saving PA
Tender2
Procurement Services 30 6000 £180,000

Campus Services/Estate
Development Services 30 6000 £180,000

ICSD 15 6000 £90,000

1
The EMM savings identified above are for est. amount of tenders per year (£6000 quoted is for non-complex contracts). EMM
savings can be applied of £12,000 for more complex procurement projects. Where ‘In-Tend’ is used for low value quotations £280
per quotation request can be claimed as an efficiency saving.
2
OGC figures.

4 of 13
 Total 75 6000 £450,000

2.1. METRICS
‘Non Funding Council Income’ – this project will reduce
Earned Income overheads: e.g. material, postal and staff costs, thus
releasing more time and money for the University’s priorities.

2.2. SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES

The project will support sustainability by:

- Reducing storage space required for RFQ/Tender documents.

- Reducing or eliminating the need for paper RFQ/ITT documents.
- sending correspondence by e-mail instead of by fax or post.
- avoiding the emissions from using couriers or Royal Mail.

3. SCOPE & TIMESCALE OF THE PROJECT

3.1 PROCESSES.
This system provides tender management and contract management, with the additional
benefit of a simple e-auction system. The sub-processes include:

 Managing the relationship between suppliers and the University

 Web-based system to schools and services
 Standard document templates
 Sending of contract documents electronically using the ‘In-Tend’ system.
 Paper-based processes
 Document Retrieval and Retention
 Procurement Process
 Contract Management
 Inter-departmental communication and teamwork on projects
 Version control

2.3. DEPARTMENTS .
In-Tend is suitable for use by all departments seeking competitive quotations. The biggest
potential users (listed below) will be sent the PID and engaged before implementation:

 Procurement Services
 BISS
 Estate Development Services (EDS)
 ICSD
 Campus Services
 Biosciences
 Physics

The system would be implemented and bedded-in to Procurement Services before roll-out
elsewhere.

3.3 KEY CHALLENGES

Anticipated difficulties when implementing ‘In-tend’ are:
.

5 of 13
  Change - Change will need to be managed by Procurement and the Projects Office
as a new way of working can be difficult to implement as users will be requested to
do things differently. Close consultation is needed with key schools and services to
make this project a success. However, the key departments recognise the need for
an electronic management system for sourcing and contracts and are keen to
introduce a system soon. Therefore the motivation for change already exists.

 Training - Users will need to be trained to operate the system. The Procurement
team will champion this system, so that a roll out to other schools/services can be
achieved. In-Tend will train Procurement Services, which will then train other users
according to the schedule. Training material (including lessons and benefits
observed during the Procurement Services roll-out) will be developed between
Procurement Services and In-Tend for the rollout to key schools and services

 Compulsory System - Purchasing the system will not guarantee that schools &
services will use it. However, we believe that the benefits will encourage key users
to adopt the system. Additionally, the system will have to be made compulsory (over
a value) if only to keep the University within EU regulations and fully auditable. This
value will be reduced as roll-out permits greater take-up.

3.4 TIMETABLE

The stages in this project for In-Tend are detailed below:

Phase 1 Purchase of In-Tend System

Scope: Purchase of In-Tend eSourcing software and the set-up of the hosted
environment
Dates/Duration: 4 Weeks - July 2009
Deliverables: Purchase Order sent to supplier via Parabilis. Hosted website
developed by In-Tend with support from Procurement Services.
Provided by: In-Tend Asset (supported by Procurement Services)

Phase 2 Creation of Standard Template Documents

Scope: Standard Procurements to be formulated for RFQ/ITT Processes
Dates/Duration: 4 Weeks - July 2009
Deliverables: Suite of Procurement Documents for uploading into In-Tend
Provided by: Procurement Services

Phase 3 System Commissioning/Training

Scope: Training of Procurement Services (Project Office/Helpdesk) on In-Tend
System.
Dates/Duration: 7 Weeks
Last week, July 2009 to 2nd Week, Sept 2009
Deliverables: Procurement Services to be able to use system to carry out RFQ/Tender
Process
Provided by: In-Tend

Phase 4 Go live - eTendering

6 of 13
 Scope: 1st live RFQ/ITT to be carried out by Procurement Services
Dates/Duration: 4 Weeks
3rd Week, August 2009 to 2nd Week, Sept 2009
Deliverables: Use In-Tend system to carry out RFQ/ITT
Provided by: Procurement Services

Phase 5 Review Project

Scope: Lessons Learned from Procurement Roll Out
Dates/Duration: 1 Week
3rd Week, Sept 2009
Deliverables: Use In-Tend system to carry out RFQ/ITT in Pilot School/Service
Provided by: Projects Office (supported by Procurement Services)

Phase 6 Roll Out to Key Schools/ServicesReview System

Scope: 1st live RFQ/ITT to be carried out by Procurement Services
Dates/Duration: 4 Weeks – Last Week, Sept 2009 to 3rd Week Oct 2009
Deliverables: Use In-Tend system to carry out RFQ/ITT in Pilot School/Service
Provided by: Projects Office (supported by Procurement Services)

Phase 7 Assess Project Outcomes/Project Close

Scope: Review the project by looking at Objectives and whether they have been
achieved
Dates/Duration: 1 Week – Last Week in Oct 2009
Deliverables: All Project Outcomes/Objectives met
Provided by: Projects Office (supported by Procurement Services)

Phase 8 Implement Contract Management module

Scope: Create records of all current University contracts and load related
documents.
Dates/Duration: From System Live Aug/Sept – 10 days in Procurement
Deliverables: Current contractual arrangements to be transferred on to In-Tend by
Procurement Services and individual schools/services.
Provided by: Procurement Services

E-auctioning would be conducted under the guidance of Procurement Services because of its
relative exoticism.

Phase 9 Implement eAuctions module

Scope: Carry out a simulated eAuction
Dates/Duration: Jan/Feb 2010
Deliverables: Successful test by Procurement Services
Provided by: Procurement Services

7 of 13
 In-Tend mirrors current procurement procedures and best practice and is relatively easy to
implement within an organisation. (The Procurement team at the University of Plymouth set
up its system with only In-Tend help.) The system will be delivered in a web-hosted
environment, resulting in the initial setup being carried out off site by ‘In-Tend’.

After the implementation within the Exeter campuses, the Cornwall Campus will be able to
benefit from the same system with no additional licences needed. The timescale for roll-out
to the Cornwall campus will depend on Procurement Services staff resource.

Stakeholder Consultation - Key Stakeholders will be engaged with to ensure the roll out to
departmental buyers is a success. This will be done in a variety of ways from workshops to
newsletters. This phase will run throughout the project based on a communications plan.

University / Supplier Relationship – In-Tend has confirmed its consultant is available to

support UoE during the set-up of In-Tend. Procurement services will be involved with the
setting up of templates at the beginning and will be the lead user of the eSourcing System.

Process Review - Where current processes need to be reviewed and amended Procurement
Services will ensure this is done within the timescales indicated. Where a new process is
considered of value it will not be at the detriment to the whole project timescale. All
amendments to policy will be agreed at the appropriate level.

Training - The initial training for Procurement Services purchased from In-Tend will take six
days and is broken down as :-
- three days training for tendering
- two days for contract management
- one day for active bidding (simple e-auctions)

Training for the pilot Schools/Services will be provided by the Procurement Office.

Project Closure - The project will be seen to be closed when all key schools and services
have been trained and are using the system to carry out their RFQ’s / Tenders which meets
the objectives set of this project. Day to day management of the system will be the
responsibility of In-Tend. Procurement Services will be the owners of the template
documents and any changes made or new documents added will be authorised by the
Procurement Team.

3.5 RELATED PROJECTS

EDS and Campus Services are examining the option of replacing or supplementing
‘Concept’. At least one application includes an e-tendering module. However, such a
module may be optional and would, if selected, be used only by Campus Services and EDS.
These modules tend to be adjuncts to the main FM functions and tend not to be as extensive
as specific modules like In-Tend. Procurement Services owns the procurement processes,
including tendering, and considers that one tendering system is essential to the visible and
consistent management of tendering. Discussion with the Director of EDS indicates that
tendering process is not one of the key processes to be addressed by a replacement for
Concept. In-Tend also includes a specialist module for managing contracts. Discussion with
CaS (Property Svcs) indicates that In-Tend would meet its requirements for tendering
exercises and managing the renewal of service contracts.

3.6 OUT OF SCOPE

We propose that TDV (and TCS) are currently out of scope because of their governance
arrangements, but once this project is completed, we would examine (consulting UCF) the
possibility of introducing In-Tend to TDV and TCS.

It is not currently planned to develop interfaces between In-Tend and any existing University
system. If such a proposal arose in the future, it would be treated as a separate development
request and planned, funded and controlled separately.

8 of 13
4. RISKS, CONSTRAINTS AND ASSUMPTIONS

4.1 RISKS
Description of Risk
2 systems running in tandem
– electronic & paper based
Financial resource not
available
Key Departments do not
commit to the project
Human resource not
available i.e. Project Office,
Procurement Services
Human resource need to
start other projects before
project is finished
Procurement Services
unable to produce template
documents in time.
Hosted platform not ready in
time
Project Resource is
underestimated to roll out the
system to other departmental
buyers.
Prob Impact Mitigation
H/M M/L Once each area has been trained
and converted, the paper system
will be stopped.
L H Procurement Services has the
allocation in the 09/10 budget.
L/M H Projects team, EDS, CaS
(Property Svcs) support this
project
L/M H Agreement in place to staff project
by Procurement Svcs and the
Project Team
L/M H Resource agreed until project
outcome satisfied
L H Two weeks have been set aside in
July to complete documents
L H The platform exists and is
successfully used in 37 HEIs.
L M/H Ongoing Project Reviews to
monitor resources needed to
complete project.

Risk, Issues and Actions Log will be created and updated regularly by Procurement
Services/Project Team

4.2 CONSTRAINTS & DEPENDENCIES

4.2.1 Constraints. The main constraint on the implementation of the project is the
availability of personnel:

 (in Procurement Services) to define and prepare standard processes and

documentation & also deliver the system.
 (In BISS) to pilot the system and provide feedback.

However, Procurement Services plans to allocate the relatively quiet month of July to
develop processes and documentation. BISS is keen to implement a system that speeds
and standardises its projects, so is committed to implementing it as soon as it can.

2.4. ASSUMPTIONS
All planned resources will be made available to carry out this system implementation and the
Project Office will support by rolling out to other schools/services.

9 of 13
5. RESOURCE FOR THE PROJECT
5.1 FINANCE
The total cost of the In-Tend system for a 3 year period will be £41,023 (including VAT at
15%) broken down as follows:

Capital. First year - £18,895 - Stakeholder Fee, Software Licences, database & initial
training.
Revenue. Years 1, 2 & 3 - £7,376 p.a. for maintenance and support. Subsequent years will
be at the same cost plus any yearly increases agreed by In-Tend.

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

Capital £18,895
Revenu £7,376 £7,376 £7,376 £7,376 £7,376 £7,376
e
Total £26,271 £7,376 £7,376 £7,376 £7,376 £7,376

Procurement Services’ budget has been augmented from 2009/10 for the maintenance cost
and the capital cost has been identified in Procurement Services’ 2009/10 budget.

(Procurement Services has negotiated a 5% (£1,877.43) discount (for purchasing all modules
up front), which is shown in the figures above.

No contingency has been allowed for this implementation as it is a relatively simple

externally-hosted system.

2.5. HUMAN RESOURCES

5.2.1 PROJECT BOARD

The Project Manager will provide all the paperwork and support for the meetings unless
papers from other members are submitted. The Chair will approve agenda’s and run the
meeting ensuring agreement for items that require decisions are understood and agreed.

The project sponsor will normally chair the Project Board. The sponsor’s role is to own the
overall project.

The Project Board will make decisions which may involve change of scope, budget or
timescales.

Standard Agenda Items for the Project Board are

 Minutes from previous meetings
 Risk/Issues/Actions Log
 Communications Plan
 Project Managers Report

Chair John Malloch

Professional Services Representative (s) Richard Price (Procurement )
Dick Leitch / Emma Baker (Project Office)
Hugh McCann (Estates Development)
David Nairn (Campus Services)
Mike Walton (ICSD)
School Representative (s) To be identified when needed within project
scope
Project Manager Dick Leitch (Projects Office)
Project Assistant Richard Price (Procurement)

10 of 13
5.2.2 PROJECT TEAM
We expect the project board members listed below to join the Board or nominate a
representative:

Project Role Name Days required Timescale required

or % of time
Project Board JM, RP, DL, HMc, 8 hrs (each Bimonthly meetings until key
EB, DN member) departments converted, then
termly.
Project Manager DL 10 Days
Project Team RP, KH, SP, JM 45 Days
Work streams Procurement
Backfill Not Planned
Training In-Tend for 10 Days
Resource Procurement
Projects
Office/Procureme
nt for Schools &
Services

5.3 HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS/REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE & RESPONSIBILITY

There are no hardware or storage requirements because In-Tend is an externally-hosted web system
accessed by individual web browser.

5.4 OPERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SYSTEM AND RESOURCE REQUIRED

- System Responsibility – ‘In-Tend’ is responsible for the operation of the system,
repair of hardware and software updates. Procurement will ‘own’ the system and
have access to all of it as the system will provide full visibility of the University’s
major acquisitions. Procurement will be responsible for system administration
including access rights, training, user groups, upgrades and testing new functionality.

- User (Helpdesk) Support – Most queries from users are expected to be logged by
the IT Helpdesk, and assigned to Procurement Services. Some direct queries to
Procurement Services are expected on matters regarding the use 3 of the software.
These queries (and those forwarded by the Helpdesk) will be handled by the
Procurement Officer, with more difficult issues passed to In-Tend for resolution.
Genuine system issues will always be routed through the IT Helpdesk if encountered
by Procurement Services. Other than logging and assigning calls, no other support
will be required from either ICSD or Corporate Systems.

- Access Security – arrangements will be made to ensure that no use is made of the
exeter.ac.uk domain in setting up the In-Tend site for Exeter and that Exeter
LDAP/AD usernames and passwords are not used. We will also ensure that the
appropriate security controls are exercised over the usernames and passwords that
are used and that the connection to the site is secure.

- Data Security – arrangements will be made to ensure that appropriate assurances

are contained in the contract in respect of Service Level Agreements and Quality of
Service. This includes details of availability, resilience, backup & recovery (business
continuity), confidentiality, audit and other matters.
5.5 TRAINING REQUIREMENTS & ONGOING TRAINING PROVISION:-
‘In-Tend’ will provide all training during the implementation of the system in Procurement
3
Experience of the University of Plymouth.

11 of 13
 Services. Training required afterwards will be conducted by Procurement Services. We
envisage familiarising the Corporate Systems Helpdesk during the initial training.
6. MANAGING THE PROJECT
The following documents will be drafted to support the management of the project:-
 Project Initiation Document plus appendices
o Risk Log
o Issue Log
o Action Logs
o Budget
 Key Messages Document
 Communication Plan
 Procurement Schedule (> £25k)
 Project plan
 Project status reports
 Post Project Evaluation report

2.6. ISSUE CONTROL

The project manager will control the issue of all documents, perhaps delegating certain
documents to the Project Assistant.

2.7. ACTIONS REGISTER

An Action Log will be maintained by the project manager (updated by the project assistant) in
the normal fashion.

2.8. FINANCIAL CONTROL

The capital expenditure will be controlled by Procurement Services according to the
implementation plan.

2.9. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

All project information will be updated by the project assistant, stored on the Procurement
shared drive and uploaded to the Projects’ Website.

6.5 STAKEHOLDERS

Stakeholder Expected Communications Frequency Media

Procurement Updates, especially about Fortnightly Briefings
Services training.
E-mail updates
Project Board Up to date awareness of As requested by Project Reports
Project activities and Board
progress against plans
School/Servic An understanding of the Initially and then at One–to-one short
e Managers scope, status and importance monthly intervals. briefing, followed by
of the project. email updates and
Potential impact on Schools updates via
Requirement for staff to Creating Value
actively engage with process project.
changes

Line managers PID Agreement As required Briefings to School

of staff Project Updates Managers / ASU
involved in the Any changes to scope and Campus Admin
project timescale Manager

12 of 13
 Stakeholder Expected Communications Frequency Media
Reports
Emails
Staff members An understanding of the As required Staff briefings
(who will use scope, status and importance
of the project. Staff Training
the system)
Training handouts
Details of training courses.
Awareness of any new News in Brief
policies or procedures in Procurement
relation to service provision. Services website
Project Web Pages

6.6 PLANNING
A project plan, based on this PID, will be prepared when this PID is approved.

6.7 APPROVAL

Name Signature Date

Project John Malloch
Sponsor Procurement Services
Project Dick Leitch
Manager Projects Office
Project Richard Price
Assistant Procurement Services
Project John Malloch
Customer/s Procurement Services
Emma Baker
BISS
Hugh McCann
EDS
David Nairn
Campus Services
Mike Walton
ICSD
Consultant Steve Cumper - In-Tend

13 of 13