FOI_24-299 Admissions software
I would like to request for the information for the contract awarded as listed on the following page
1. Awarded Contractor
2. Is/are subcontractors involved in delivery? (Yes/No)
3. Tender Documents
4. Contract Value
5. Contract Duration
6. Award Criteria (if they are not in tender documents)
Please allow me to amend the request to include also the awarded contract in this page
Same set of information is requested.
Our response:
| Enroly Limited – Reference SAE 152 | |
|---|---|
| 1 | Enroly Limited |
| 2 | No |
| 3 | Information not held - s.1(1)(a), Freedom of Information Act On this occasion it is not possible to provide all the requested information. In line with your rights under section 1(1)(a) of the Act to be informed whether information is held, we confirm that the University does not hold the information requested. This contract was a single action tender and not awarded through a competitive process. The sole supplier was Joint Information System Committee (JISC) approved and was the sole supplier on the market who could meet the technical requirements for the service required. |
| 4 | Exempt s.43(2) prejudice to commercial interests of any party. For further information please see below exemption text. |
| 5 | 1 Year Duration 01/08/2024 – 31/07/2025 |
| 6 | Information not held - s.1(1)(a), Freedom of Information Act On this occasion it is not possible to provide all the requested information. In line with your rights under section 1(1)(a) of the Act to be informed whether information is held, we confirm that the University does not hold the information requested. This contract was a single action tender and not awarded through a competitive process. The sole supplier was JISC approved and was the sole supplier on the market who could meet the technical requirements for the service required. |
| Enroly Limited – Reference SAE A1448 | |
| 1 | Enroly Limited |
| 2 | No |
| 3 | Information not held - s.1(1)(a), Freedom of Information Act On this occasion it is not possible to provide all the requested information. In line with your rights under section 1(1)(a) of the Act to be informed whether information is held, we confirm that the University does not hold the information requested. This contract was a single action tender and not awarded through a competitive process. The sole supplier was Joint Information System Committee (JISC) approved and was the sole supplier on the market who could meet the technical requirements for the service required. |
| 4 | Exempt s.43(2) prejudice to commercial interests of any party. For further information please see below exemption text. |
| 5 | 1 Year Duration 01/02/2024 - 31/01/2025 |
| 6 | Information not held - s.1(1)(a), Freedom of Information Act On this occasion it is not possible to provide all the requested information. In line with your rights under section 1(1)(a) of the Act to be informed whether information is held, we confirm that the University does not hold the information requested. This contract was a single action tender and not awarded through a competitive process. The sole supplier was JISC approved and was the sole supplier on the market who could meet the technical requirements for the service required. |
In line with your rights under section 1(1)(a) of the Act to be informed whether information is held we confirm the University does hold the contractual value of these contracts. On this occasion, it is not possible to provide all the requested information. The Act contains a number of exemptions that allow public authorities to withhold certain information from release. We have applied the following exemption to the requested contract value:
| Exemption | Reason |
|---|---|
| s.43(2) Prejudice to commercial interests | Prejudice to commercial interests of any party |
We have applied this exemption to the contract value. It is our belief that release of this information would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the University and the awarded contractor Enroly Limited.
The Information Commissioner’s Office has established a multi-criteria test for assessing whether a section 43(2) exemption applies. The first criterion is whether the information relates to, or could impact on, a commercial activity. The first-tier tribunal (Information Rights) has conclusively stated that universities despite their charitable status, do engage in commercial activities. The University is a successful global institution, operating commercially by competing with other Universities across the world to recruit and retain prospective and existing students from home and overseas; it prides itself on an effective admissions process which is fundamental to our success. The commercial activity here is the procurement of joint information system committee (JISC) approved Software as a Service (SaaS) to enable communication and database software packages to deliver a streamlined and secure admissions process for the production of student visas and confirmation of acceptance to studies (CAS). Procuring of these services will enhance the student experience and admissions process and deliver a return on investment. It therefore follows that the amounts we choose to invest in enhancing student recruitment is an essential commercial activity which should be kept confidential since doing so is critical to maintaining our ability to compete on a level playing field.
The second criterion is whether the commercial activity is conducted in a competitive environment. The global higher education market size is vast and continues to evolve. For the University to remain successful and commercially viable it needs to ensure it invests in the best technological infrastructure to support elements of their core business; in this case the student admission’s process. Procuring, delivering and producing SaaS to enhance student recruitment and experience for universities is an extremely competitive market. There are hundreds of SaaS providers all competing for their share of the market by offering a wide range of products to Universities to enhance the student experience and deliver a seamless admissions process. Technology providers invest significant resources to maintain their competitive edge to increase their revenue and market share. Equally Universities seek to procure the best possible technological infrastructure to protect investment, increase revenue and create opportunities.
The next criterion is whether the information is commercially sensitive. The contract value holds significant commercial value for both the University and Enroly Limited. Significant resources are devoted to ensuring the investments we place in the procurement of services at the University, are undertaken efficiently, effectively and in accordance with the appropriate frameworks, which are all major contributory factors in our ability to compete successfully in the market. The manner in which we conduct our procurement processes impacts on our ability to maintain healthy ongoing buyer-supplier relations and ensure we are procuring services at the best possible price. Details of the contract opportunity for these services are published on contracts finder SAE 152 and A1448. The information requested was shared with the University in confidence by Enroly Limited and it is our position its release into the public domain is likely to cause economic harm to both the University and Enroly Limited if known.
The next criterion goes to the prejudice itself; would there be damage to the University and Enroly’s reputation, business confidence or ability to compete? We have established that the contract value is commercially sensitive because it holds commercial value. Under FOI, release to one requester is as a release to the world at large since it is published externally on our disclosure log. If the University were to disclose this information, release would be likely to seriously undermine the trust and confidence which suppliers and the public have in our ability to effectively procure services since third parties place confidence in the University that their information will remain secure. By disclosing this information third parties may be deterred from competing and sharing commercially sensitive information with the University for future contracts. This would seriously affect our commercial relationships as suppliers would be less likely to contract for services in future if they become aware the procurement processes are likely to be prejudiced. It could also damage the trust and confidence that existing suppliers have in our ability to effectively procure services. The contract value is not in the public domain and Enroly do not publish their pricing list as this would put their core business at a significant disadvantage amongst competitors.
The final criterion is the likelihood of such prejudice occurring. We have consulted with the Enroly Limited and they have not consented for us to release this information since disclosing the contract value is likely to prejudice their own commercial interests. Under Freedom of Information any disclosure is made to the world at large, disclosure of the contract value would significantly jeopardise Enroly’s commercial confidence and be commercially harmful since it would expose to Enroly’s competitors, customers, suppliers and investors their pricing structure and value proposition approach. It would mean that their competitors would be able to adjust their pricing to give themselves a competitive advantage over Enroly. Likewise, other establishments both inside and outside Higher Education would be able to use the information to drive down Enroly’s prices. This would be likely to impair Enroly’s ability to win new business. Competitors would seek to use this information to gain advantage by undercutting prices and penetrating Enroly’s share of the market. Release of the exempted information is likely to detrimentally impact Enroly’s competitiveness in this market, and it is important that no supplier is disadvantaged in future bids by commercially sensitive information being made available to the public. The disclosure of the information requested would also weaken Enroly’s negotiation position with other actual and potential clients.
Potential suppliers who tender for contracts with the University will be fully aware of the commercial sensitivities around the information requested. They each place trust and confidence in the procurement process being effectively executed and will expect the University to procure services in accordance with the Public Contract Regulations. We are confident that there is a strong possibility that should this information be released into the public domain it is likely to prejudice the University’s commercial interests and that of Enroly Limited.
The application of this exemption requires an examination of the public interest in disclosure as opposed to that of non-disclosure. The factors in favour of disclosure would include:
• Increasing public understanding of the amounts invested by University’s for JISC approved technological infrastructure to support the student admission’s process.
• Enhancing the transparency and openness of the amounts the University spends in supporting its student admission’s process particularly in relation to the processing of student visas and confirmation of acceptance.
• Increasing public confidence, integrity and probity in the amounts a university invests on JISC approved technological infrastructure to support the student admission’s process.
Factors in favour of withholding the information are largely laid out in the explanation for the use of the exemption above but would include:
• Ensuring there is fair competition in commercial and higher education industries and buyers and suppliers are able to compete on a level playing field.
• Preventing a distortion of the procurement process that would have the potential effect of raising costs and/or reducing the quality of services procured.
After consideration of the above factors, we believe, on balance, that the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption.