CloudStore and OJEU (updated)

The question was asked yesterday Is CloudStore entirely legal? and an impressively prompt response was received which deserves equal prominence:

Anonymous said... *sigh* The G-Cloud framework *is* procured through the OJEU process (every 6 months, hence we are on G-Cloud III now - see the official notice here: http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:14199-2013:TEXT:EN:HTML&src=0). Once a framework has been established, public sector organisations can procure from that framework without the need for OJEU (because the suppliers on that framework have already been through the process). Page 7 of the document you quote has the relevant guidance (note that a mini-competition can be run by the buyer against the framework). This is exactly the same as any one of the 104 framework agreements that the Government currently has in place (see: http://gps.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/i-am-buyer/find-a-product-or-service). Also note that this isn't just the UK - in 2010, 21,500 framework agreements were awarded across the EU (see: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/docs/modernising_rules/cost-effectiveness_en.pdf) 22 May 2013 15:38

The Page 7 citation leads to:

Framework Agreements - These can be used for repeat but irregular purchases for example stationery supplies, legal services, building repairs. Generally they are of no more than four years’ duration.  There are four main types, single-supplier, multi-supplier, single user, multi-user.  Suppliers are selected following an initial OJEU notice, in the case of multi-suppliers (no less than three) subsequent mini-competitions are used to select winning contracts.  The same selection and award criteria used when setting up the framework agreement must be used when procuring services from this agreement.  Provided the agreement is compliant with these requirements, pre-existing framework agreements may be used to select suppliers to the project.  Contracting Authorities utilising a framework agreement need to ensure that they are eligible to make use of it and that the framework agreement has been properly established

There may be all sorts of problems with Whitehall's cloud computing strategy but so flagrantly infringing OJEU that even DMossEsq can spot it doesn't seem to be one of them.

----------

Updated 12:04 p.m.
That is the case, at least, as long as you first agree that arranging to host the entire public administration of the country in the cloud is like making "irregular purchases for example stationery supplies, legal services, building repairs".

Take an example. See Skyscape bags biggest deal on G-Cloud EVER. Skyscape will be hosting the heir to the Criminal Records Bureau. How much like ordering the paper clips is that?

IDAP: the stories our MPs are told

Here in the UK there is an organisation called the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST):

POST is Parliament's in-house source of independent, balanced and accessible analysis of public policy issues related to science and technology.

On 25 April 2013 POST published Managing Online Identity to brief MPs and peers about Whitehall's plans for the UK's Identity Assurance Programme (IDAP).

In some respects the briefing note is admirable – "A Home Office report estimated that cybercrime costs the UK economy £27bn a year", it says at one point, before adding "this figure received widespread scepticism".

It would have benefited, though, from a bit more scepticism like that.

Is CloudStore entirely legal?

Hosting GOV.UK in the cloud to cost GDS record-breaking £600,000 Government Digital Service signed a deal with Skyscape last month By Derek du Preez | Computerworld UK | Published 10:29, 10 October 12 (GDS) infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) deal with Skyscape to host single domain website GOV.UK, which was procured through the G-Cloud, is worth an estimated £600,000.

There are rules for us members of the EU. Procurement rules. Procurement rules we have to abide by:

EC Procurement Thresholds The European public contracts directive (2004/18/EC) applies to public authorities including, amongst others, government departments, local authorities and NHS Authorities and Trusts. The European utilities contracts directive (2004/17/EC) applies to certain utility companies operating in the Energy, Water, and Transport sectors.

Biometrics: a response from the Center for Global Development

Biometrics: will the Center for Global Development reconsider? was published on this blog 10 days ago on 12 May 2013.

A response from the Center for Global Development has now kindly been sent.

On the principle of equal prominence, their response is reproduced here:

Alan Gelb said... We agree with a number of points raised by David Moss. One is the importance of releasing field performance data; other programs should be held to this standard. We recognize that biometrics is not a panacea. Our previous working paper that reviewed some 160 cases noted several problematic examples, particularly in the area of elections. It is far too early to assess the UID program record in delivering more effective and inclusive services. Where we differ from Moss is that we see the data that it has released on inclusion and accuracy as a very significant benchmark for biometric systems in developing countries, and a major advance on the use of laboratory data. These appear to be the most extensive field data released so far. The UID data are of interest for other countries; the hypothetical example of Ughana illustrates what such a system should be able to achieve for a “typical” country with about 30 million people. It is easy to scale the results for country size. We estimated that for a country as large as India there would be somewhat over 3 million false positives during enrolment, a large number for manual follow-up but probably doable. For a small country like Haiti the number would only be around 300. On multiple identities, no system will be able to guarantee 100 percent accuracy. Certainly not the systems in place in the rich countries where identity theft is hardly unknown! The question is not “whether it works or not” but the precision of one system versus another and relative cost-effectiveness. For some applications, such as access to a health insurance program, one might accept a modest level of duplicate or false identities. For others, such as access to a nuclear facility, we want to minimize them – just as we would want very high standards for aeroplane safety, to take the example cited by Moss. These might involve different biometrics and also passwords or other identifiers; the most demanding applications can apply whatever other additional checks they choose outside the scope of national identification. For a national ID system the reported rate of 0.035 percent for UID seems low enough to discourage most deliberate efforts to acquire multiple identities. Any identification system will have to cope with people who are unable to enroll using biometrics and with identification and authentication errors. The UID data offer useful pointers to likely numbers. UID does not, therefore, provide answers to every question -- it is far too early for that and we do not claim that it does. It remains to be seen how the program is or is not picked up by various applications and how it negotiates the political winds that arise with any system of identification. But we hold to our conclusion that the data released provides a very significant benchmark on the capabilities of biometric systems in developing country conditions and one that should be studied carefully by other countries. To correct the record, we do not assert that the number of bilateral comparisons is the square of the population, n. It is 0.5*n*(n-1) which rises (as we note) with the square of n. As n becomes large, it approaches 0.5*n*n; since no identification system will cover 100% of population, we rounded n off to 1 billion for India. If we accept the field estimate of 0.057% false positive rate against a data base of 84 million, the rate for a 1:1 comparison would have to be very small, in the range of 7 in one trillion. The implied precision can only be possible with the combined use of multiple biometrics, which is another of the lessons from the UID exercise. Alan Gelb, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Development 21 May 2013 22:17

Shakespeare on duty

Stephan Shakespeare, Constitutional expert, writing in An Independent Review of Public Sector Information (p.5):

Consider the role of government: it exists to decide the rules by which people can act, and to administer them: how much, by what method, and from whom to take resources; and how to re-allocate them.

Bit more to it than that, surely, but let's see where this bleak definition takes him.

The traditional Shakespearean line

He gets off to a cracking start, Shakespeare. The cure for cancer. And happy children:

Is that exciting? It couldn't be more exciting: from data we will get the cure for cancer as well as better hospitals; schools that adapt to children’s needs making them happier and smarter; better policing and safer homes; and of course jobs.

That's Stephan Shakespeare, not the other one, and he's chatting about Phase 2 of the web revolution on p.5 of An Independent Review of Public Sector Information. "The size and coherence of our public sector", he says, "combined with government’s strong commitment to a visionary open data policy means that we have the opportunity to be world leaders in the enlightened use of data". "Strong"? "Visionary"? "Enlightened"? "World leaders"? Flattery?

Some of us remember the 1970s and the invention of the computerised management information system, MIS, which became a decision support system in the 1980s, DSS.

But that's just its age in the benighted computer world. The discovery that you need data to make decisions is a lot older than that – isn't there a bell ringing somewhere at the back of your ur-memory, recalling the first vizier telling an early Ptolemy that collecting a few facts might be a good idea, before risking life and limb running up a pyramid in the middle of nowhere? And the pharaoh's ageless response?

Is you-need-facts-to-make-a-decision the most frequently re-discovered nostrum in history? (No. "Ne'er cast a clout till May is out". Ed)

Shakespeare's take on property

Stephan Shakespeare, the founder of  YouGov, has published An Independent Review of Public Sector Information.

His idea is that we can expand the economy and increase general wellbeing if a cadre of brilliant data scientists is given access to the huge amounts of public sector information (PSI) held by the UK government. He also has his sights set on our personal data – open that data to being processed, and intelligent lifestyle decisions can be made for us by apps.

Who does this data belong to?

Shakespeare, Google and our new government

The world is now in the second phase of the web revolution. So says the political pollster Stephan Shakespeare in his report, An Independent Review of Public Sector Information.

In Phase 1, the revolutionary winners – Shakespeare's Robespierre heroes listed on p.5 of his report – rose to the top on the basis of the unprecedented ease of communication between suppliers and consumers:

Google, Ebay, Facebook, Amazon, PayPal, Yahoo, Microsoft, Twitter, Apple – the companies through which our daily lives are run ...

Now we're in the next revolutionary phase, he says (also p.5):

Phase 2 sees an equivalent leap, this time in the capacity to process and learn from data. Is that exciting? It couldn't be more exciting: from data we will get the cure for cancer as well as better hospitals; schools that adapt to children’s needs making them happier and smarter; better policing and safer homes; and of course jobs. Data allows us to adapt and improve public services and businesses and enhance our whole way of life, bringing economic growth, wide-ranging social benefits and improvements in how government works.

Shakespeare's theme is that, if only they're given enough of our personal data, then intelligent scientists can run our daily lives for us even more intimately than in Phase 1, the quality of government will improve and, what's more, the economy will grow.

Shakespeare – principles, statistics and mooncalves

He's a big topic, Shakespeare. You can't say everything about him that needs to be said in one post. But we have to start somewhere. With the foundations.

"In October 2012, I was invited by government to lead an independent review of Public Sector Information (PSI) to explore the growth opportunities of, and how to widen access to, the wealth of information held by the public sector." That's the "foundation", Mr Shakespeare says (p.3), of his latest diversion, An Independent Review of Public Sector Information.

Born in the Warwickshire town of Stratford-upon-Avon Mönchengladbach, Stephan Shakespeare (né Kukowski), just making sure we've got the right Shakespeare, is the founder of YouGov, one of the polling organisations which have replaced political principle in the tragedy which is national debate in the UK with market research.

What we need, says Shakespeare, now Chair of the Data Strategy Board, on the basis of his review and of a report by the respected Constitutional experts, Deloitte ("Deloitte analysis quantifies the direct value of PSI at around £1.8bn with wider social and economic benefits taking that up to around £6.8bn"), is more data and more data scientists.

Why?

midata and the South Sea Bubble

"Insolvency" has been much on our lips for the past five years and the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) maintains a useful website to teach us all about it.

In 1720, with the national debt standing at £30 million, the government borrowed £7 million at 5 percent p.a. from the South Sea Company so that it could carry on a war with France and granted the company in return a monopoly over trade with South America.

The company's share price promptly went through the roof, inspiring the famous Bubble – people went mad investing in useless businesses thinking they were guaranteed to make a fortune. At the height of the mania, BIS tell us:

A company was promoted “For carrying-on an undertaking of great advantage but no-one to know what it is”. After receiving £2,000 from subscribers the promoter emigrated.

No-one knew what they were going to get but they handed over £2,000 anyway. That could never happen now.