[foundation-board] Situation with data.gov.uk CKAN work

Mon Jul 26 08:57:13 UTC 2010

Hi Rufus

Thanks for continuing to chase this. For the benefit of the Board,
could you please give us your impression of any risk factors inherent
in the below four step process that John outlines:

> The process is:
> 1.  TNA finalises it plans / proposals to CO for all elements of our
> delivery for data.gov.uk
> 2.  TNA - CO reach agreement on the budget for the financial year, on
> all strands of data.gov.uk delivery by TNA.
> 3.  POs raised to TSO, to cover OKF costs (and also, to cover TSO's
> costs to date, which is more than we owe you)
> 4.  Payment to OFK by TSO

When I say risk factors, I mean ones that might conceivably leave OKF
unpaid (despite John's assurances). I'm inclined to take your advice
("My advice to the board at this stage is that we should continue to
work on the data.gov.uk project while continuing to push extremely
hard for full and prompt payment of *all* outstanding monies.") but
I'd like to know a little bit more about this process before I do.
Also, can you give us an idea of what "pushing extremely hard" for
payment would entail at your end? And if this is burdensome work, is
this something you would feel comfortable transferring onto your new
administrative assistant to free you up to do something a little less
depressing?

This situation only serves to highlight how vital it is we have a
working set of management accounts for the Board to scrutinise in good
time ahead of the next Board meeting.

I would also like the Board to consider whether we need to take
anything home from this experience, in terms of future arrangements
OKF makes with public bodies.

Thanks again, Rufus, and more strength to you!

Becky

On 26 July 2010 09:24, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> wrote:
> See email below for detailed statement of situation from gov end. Note
> also explicit commitment to pay all outstanding amounts.
>
> I should also say we have just received payment of an additional £32k
> which at least brings up to mid-February (and means, I believe, that
> we are able to cover all existing obligations to contractors up to the
> present). We are working to get paid for last 5 months asap but it is
> partly held up on different parts of gov paying each other (BTW: this
> money cannot be touched by things like the spending review since these
> are monies agreed and committed 8 months ago -- just not transferred
> between relevant parties as yet).
>
> My advice to the board at this stage is that we should continue to
> work on the data.gov.uk project while continuing to push extremely
> hard for full and prompt payment of *all* outstanding monies.
>
> Rufus
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Sheridan, John <John.Sheridan at nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk>
> Date: 12 July 2010 10:38
> Subject: RE: Summary of phone conversations [UNCLASSIFIED]
> To: "rufus.pollock at okfn.org" <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>
> Cc: "Lait, Claire" <Claire.Lait at nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk>, John
> Sheridan <johnlsheridan at yahoo.com>
>
>
> Rufus,
>
> I understand the situation - I can only apologise, you are at the
> wrong end of a long chain. I am trying to make this work - it is not a
> comfortable situation for you or me.
>
> Up to now, the arrangements have been informal - and everyone agrees
> this can't continue. This email is confirming the arrangements for
> paying OKF for work being undertaken on CKAN for data.gov.uk.
>
> To clarify the overall process, The National Archives is being paid by
> the Cabinet Office for various strands of work on data.gov.uk, which
> in turn is being funded by the Department of Innovation and Skills. We
> have reached an agreement with our contractor, TSO, that they will pay
> you as a sub-contractor to them for the work you have been doing. Like
> everyone supplying government, they are nervous at the moment so they
> will only pay you once they have received purchase orders from us.
>
> TNA is in the process of reaching a formal agreement with the Cabinet
> Office (there is a meeting this week at Chief Executive level, so
> that's my bosses boss!), to agree the total budget for the year, with
> a memorandum of understanding between the two organisations (TNA and
> CO) to cover the whole period through to end of 2010/11.
>
> Meanwhile I am working on reaching a more formal understanding with
> TSO, on exactly what the scope is of the work they can deliver for us
> under the terms of our existing contract with them (which covers an
> Information Asset Register and a clause for development, thus bringing
> CKAN development into scope of that contract - but there are other
> elements and we are still in negotiation about some of that). That
> situation is complicated in that we have not raised purchase orders to
> TSO for the work they have been doing themselves for data.gov.uk.
> Understandably, they expect their own bills to be covered before
> paying anyone else.
>
> Finally, we have been told not to raise any purchase orders until all
> the formal agreements are in place - hence the apparent impasse.
>
> The process is:
> 1.  TNA finalises it plans / proposals to CO for all elements of our
> delivery for data.gov.uk
> 2.  TNA - CO reach agreement on the budget for the financial year, on
> all strands of data.gov.uk delivery by TNA.
> 3.  POs raised to TSO, to cover OKF costs (and also, to cover TSO's
> costs to date, which is more than we owe you)
> 4.  Payment to OFK by TSO
>
> You have shared with me a spreadsheet (on google groups),  outlining
> your costs to date, that constitutes the amounts of money due to be
> paid to OKF. We have discussed this spreadsheet and I can confirm our
> intention to raise POs to our contractor for this work, and that it is
> my understanding that you will be operating as a subcontractor to
> them.
>
> Things are moving forwards - I know it is agonisingly slow and
> difficult. I can only apologise again for the distress and concern
> this must be causing you.
>
> We are nearly there though!
>
> John.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: okfn.rufus.pollock at gmail.com
> [mailto:okfn.rufus.pollock at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Rufus Pollock
> Sent: 12 July 2010 10:04
> To: Sheridan, John
> Cc: Lait, Claire; John Sheridan
> Subject: Summary of phone conversations
>
> Dear John,
>
> Really sorry to hassle like this but I *really* need an update on what
> is happening. Last wednesday we spoke in the morning on the phone and
> you told things would be sorted by end of last week (or very latest
> today) and that you would send me an email to confirm this. I don't
> think I've received any email as yet :)
>
> Back in June we agreed everything would be resolved by *end of June*
> (I enclose summary email from that conversation below). As you can
> imagine I am under a lot of pressure at my end from the Board to get
> this resolved. Please, please let me know what is happening and who I
> can invoice.
>
> As I just explained to Claire if I do not hear from you very soon I
> think I shall need to invoice you/TSO right now with the outstanding
> invoices just to make sure everyone is aware of the outstanding
> payments due.
>
> Rufus
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>
> Date: 17 June 2010 13:55
> Subject: Summary of conversation re invoice payment
> To: "Sheridan, John" <John.Sheridan at nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk>
> Cc: "Lait, Claire" <claire.lait at nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk>, John
> Sheridan <johnlsheridan at yahoo.com>
>
>
> 1. Here is an updated version of existing payments situation
> spreadsheet (also just shared with you both now):
>
> <https://spreadsheets1.google.com/ccc?key=t_4tH0S6toPu_YYlIbiR_BA&hl=en#gid=0>
>
> 2. JS agreed that monies will be paid (no problem here other than
> administrative).
>  * ACTION: JS to response acknowledging this!
>
> 3. Existing raised invoices to be paid by end of June (35k being
> 36.47k with VAT).
>
> 4. Remaining not yet invoiced money to be able to invoiced by end of June.
>
> 5. RP suggest we think about putting in place a new agreement between
> OKF and TNA (or CO or whoever) for ongoing work.
>
> Rufus
> --
> Open Knowledge Foundation
> Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age http://www.okfn.org/ -
> http://blog.okfn.org/
>
> This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the
> Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by
> Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM
> Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call
> your organisation’s IT Helpdesk.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored
> and/or recorded for legal purposes.
>
> Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> National Archives Disclaimer
>
> This email message (and attachments) may contain information that is
> confidential to The National Archives. If you are not the intended
> recipient you cannot use, distribute or copy the message
> or attachments. In such a case, please notify the sender by return
> email immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments.
> Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message
> and attachments that do not relate to the official business of The
> National Archives are neither given nor endorsed by it.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> --
> Open Knowledge Foundation
> Promoting Open Knowledge in a Digital Age
> http://www.okfn.org/ - http://blog.okfn.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-board mailing list
> foundation-board at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board
>