Mick Trott  wrote

> Yes, it is becoming more common. In this region, one LEA requires 3 quotes,
> three require 2 quotes. I talked to one LEA officer and asked about what
> happens after they get the report (it's useful to understand). He told me
> that they were getting second quotes not to save money as such but to show
> that they were being responsible with public funds (and possibly to avoid any
> suggestion of favoured suppliers) to the auditors.
They must be the only LEA undertaking this procedure not wanting to
save money as such. Every time I have been involved in such a
practice the LEA was trying to reduce expenditure and ended up
reducing everything else as well.


> I don't agree that it is a big waste of my time to get a second quote, though
> I do wish that some suppliers would respond faster. As I also said, this
> policy of 2nd or 3rd quotes will mean more work per order for the suppliers
> as well. It also means more work for LEA officers if they have to get the
> quotes, so let's not be too hard on them.
To be honest I find this practice of trying to secure 2 or 3 quotes a
significant waste of time. When I choose a supplier I try and select
somebody that not only can supply and support the equipment for the
student but I must feel that they are going to be able to do this in
the long term.  A small supplier or a discount operator such as
Time, Tiny and  Dell  work on completely different
standards. The main box shifters look to quantity, not quality of
service. The more they sell the  better profits they make. Add a
factor such as heavy demand for complex support as the suppliers
specialising in disability face and they lose profit and interest in
support - Result student losses out.
Look now at the smaller supplier who deal with just 4
or 5 sales a day. They have scaled  their overheads, such as
investment in personel and facilities etc to  ensure that they make
a small but acceptable profit, adequate to ensure they remain in
business. They  are however prevented from supplying greater
numbers as the labour and facilities costs would increase
beyond the limited profit margin supply alone can support. we have
all seenthe result of this many times in the past. Remember that PC
suppliers are one of the most vulnerable types of business,
demonstrated by being one of the highest failure rates there are. To
maintain viability they  have to increase support costs. OK the
student is suppoorted long term but the whole shape of the market
place has changed.

> It is a reflection of the 'success' of the DSA that these audits and checks
> are taking place. It could increase the costs of assessments by stlg20 or so for
> the extra work but a liitle more competition may reduce the costs of
> equipment, so the overall costs per student will still not rise.
Equipment is not the controlling factor in the formula, the profit
margins on equipment are very low. Service and support are the
expensive elements and the elements that we as assessors should be
concentrating on. We can reduce the cost of the DSA simply by
applying more strategy and less technology,  thereby improve the
whole service and perhaps reduce the cost to the taxpayer and more
importantly  not introduce unfair advantage. Lets focus attention
where it is really needed!.

> Since posting the previous email another supplier has let me know that they
> are testing an on-line ordering system. That would make 3 so far once they
> are all up and running.  As long as they don't put up a tick box saying
> 'standard dyslexic system' ARGHH!
Maintaining an online ordering system is expensive, especially when
associated with freephone support and ordering etc. These are costs
that come straight off the bottom line!. You must have a reasonable
bottom line to afford the investment.

Surely our  concern is not to make LEA's happy by supplying the
lowest cost quote weI can. It is also not to ensure any one supplier
in particular has a healthy income. our overriding concern should be
to supply a working package of technology, support and strategy in
the appropriate proportions to give the student the long term
opportunity to perform to the best of their natural ability,
obviously within the budgets set.