However I would like to know how the SLC intends to chose which supplier is
picked.
If as Nassar says all the suppliers were to provide a like for like quote then there is
no need for three quotes, one will do. But we all know this is an impossible dream.
If the SLC are to chose the cheapest, then again there is no need for three quotes,
as in my experience there is anything up to a thousand pounds difference in
quotes so why can't we just use the cheapest. Some suppliers have a lower %
mark up on equipment than others. Others chose to reinvest in disability related
projects, why not let us chose the supplier we are happiest with.
If the SLC are to ask us (as they say they will) to say why they should chose a
certain supplier which has been used, then why three quotes? I have always
chosen my preferred supplier based on student feedback. When students tell me
they are not happy with a supplier and the supplier seems unable or unwilling to
change; then I make the change by chosing a different supplier.
I cannot see how using three quotes is going to be of benefit to anyone. We wrote
the SLA to ensure that suppliers all provided a minimum level of service. This
meant a better service for students, it also meant that suppliers had to compete
on the basis of better service and not cheaper products or more articulate
salespeople.
Oh well rant over, back to trying to see where I am to put mathematics in the new
equally silly proposed new report format, as for that secure locker for medicines???
Ian
Quoting Nasser Siabi <[log in to unmask]>:
--
Ian Webb
Centre Manager ATOP LTD
Disability Adviser/Assessor
MNADP
|