PDA

View Full Version : Yasmin analysis



breaktwister
14th February 2017, 09:33
I wanted to start this thread specifically to discuss the ONE example provided by HMRC where a PSC contractor is NOT considered to be an employee.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/off-payroll-working-in-the-public-sector-reform-of-the-intermediaries-legislation-technical-note/off-payroll-working-in-the-public-sector-reform-of-the-intermediaries-legislation-technical-note#jasmine-is-a-website-designer-contracted-to-a-large-local-authority-to-design-and-build-a-website---off-payroll-working-rules-do-not-apply

Jasmine is a Website Designer, contracted to a large local authority to design and build a website - off-payroll working rules do not apply.

Context

Jasmine is a website designer who provides her services through her own company, Jasmine WWW Ltd. The PSC has been contracted by a local authority, Midshire CC to design and build a new website, through which local residents should be able to access and use their services.

Midshire CC has agreed to pay Jasmine WWW Ltd £200,000 for Jasmine’s services.

Do off-payroll rules apply?

Jasmine’s task is to design and build the new website. To do so, she will need to work closely with the council to understand their requirements, including technical specifications and timelines. Jasmine will have a large amount of control for how she delivers her work and other than regular checkpoint meetings and progress appraisals with the council’s Head of IT Services, her work will be largely unsupervised.

Jasmine WWW Ltd’s contract with Midshire CC means Jasmine will be expected to:
•deliver the website to an agree standard by the agreed date
•visit the council’s offices for meetings, but will mainly work from her own office
•provided her own equipment needed to do the job in hand
•employ her own staff to help deliver the contract if she needs to
•cover her own costs and expenses

Using the Employment Status Service

Midshire CC uses the online Employment Status Service to help determine whether the off-payroll rules should apply to the contract with Jasmine WWW Ltd. Given the nature of Jasmine’s work and the contract with the PSC, the service indicates that the rules do not apply in this instance.

Jasmine WWW Ltd has been contracted to provide a distinct product to the council and will bear the costs associated in delivering that. Although her work is for the public sector, Jasmine will not be performing a role which would be considered to be that of an employee.

breaktwister
14th February 2017, 09:39
Some key discussion points/elements:

1) This is a fixed bid contract, not a typical time & materials (day rate) contract. Can a typical PSC use a fixed bid structure rather than T&M to avoid falling into the "hidden employee" trap?

2) Yasmine works closely with the end-client to understand their requirements, technical specifications (detailed requirements) and timeline. Whoaaaaa - how da hell is this not "direction" or "control"? Did this "working closely" happen onsite? What if Yasmine had to manage some end-client resources as part of the contract?

3) Regular checkpoint meetings - this is not "supervision" or "control"?

4) If the client wanted to change a requirement I assume this would NOT be "direction" if the gathering of the original requirements was not "direction".

5) So from this example a "hidden employee" determination is not triggered by:

a) taking detailed requirements from the client as long as they don't direct you as to "how" the work is performed. Quite strange as many actual employees work like this in an age of increasing specialisation.

b) performing contracted services to a deadline

c) allowing the end-client to review the work periodically (checkpoint reviews)

northernladuk
14th February 2017, 09:48
1) Of course they can. You are a business just like any other business apply for tenders or fixed price work. The only problem is you not really understanding what you are and how to run your business.

2) Requirements gathering is not D&C. She asks questions and gets answers. If you can't tell the difference you need to go permie.

3) Words fail me.

Non thread of the day.

eek
14th February 2017, 09:52
Some key discussion points/elements:

1) This is a fixed bid contract, not a typical time & materials (day rate) contract. Can a typical PSC use a fixed bid structure rather than T&M to avoid falling into the "hidden employee" trap?

2) Yasmine works closely with the end-client to understand their requirements, technical specifications (detailed requirements) and timeline. Whoaaaaa - how da hell is this not "direction" or "control"? Did this "working closely" happen onsite? What is Yasmine had to manage some end-client resources as part of the contract?

3) Regular checkpoint meetings - again this is not "supervision"?

that just shows how little you understand about business...

1) fixed price means the risk is carried by the supplier (and also means they may need a lot of capital to pay freelancers earlier than they get paid). The important thing is that Jasmine is carrying all the risk, not the public sector client

2) meetings are not control. All she is doing there is getting a specifications. Personally there would be a payment milestone when the specifications were completed and probably a renegotiation based on the finalised spec.

3) checkpoints are designed to ensure the client and customer are happy and still expecting the same thing - this isn't direction and control its just ensuring the end client is happy with the work so far so that things can be fixed immediately. Personally I would be holding checkpoints at milestone points with payment due on completion of that piece of work.

breaktwister
14th February 2017, 09:53
You NL are an ignorant **** and have no idea what I do or don't understand. You are the one making yourself look stupid as you clearly don't understand that I am posing the questions, not from lack of my knowledge but to invite discuss as to HMRCs conclusions and reasonings. Once we understand their reasoning then it can be applied to our businesses.

breaktwister
14th February 2017, 09:56
I understand plenty about business, I am amazed that I am attacked by two forum regulars simply for wanting an analysis of why Yasmin's situation is different to others deemed "hidden employees".

northernladuk
14th February 2017, 09:57
Two people give the same answer and one is thrashing around like a fish out of water and we are the useless ****'s?

It's a completely different model and not commonly available to most of us. If you see the opportunity take it otherwise continue being what we are. It's not hard.

eek
14th February 2017, 09:58
You NL are an ignorant **** and have no idea what I do or don't understand. You are the one making yourself look stupid as you clearly don't understand that I am posing the questions, not from lack of my knowledge but to invite discuss as to HMRCs conclusions and reasonings. Once we understand their reasoning then it can be applied to our businesses.

Not quite... We both read your first and second posts and both came to an immediate believe that you don't understand how to run a business. Personally I thought as much when I read your first post the questions afterwards just confirmed it.

For background I spent most of the last year getting myself into the position where I could become a specialist consultancy doing a mixture of fixed price and time and materials work (T&M is better all round but hey if a client doesn't want it I'll happily charge them 30-50% more for risk I would then minimise using the approaches in points 2 and 3). Hence while you are looking at the above as if the client is controlling the customer I'm looking at it as Jasmine correctly minimising her risk by talking to the customer at appropriate points..

breaktwister
14th February 2017, 10:01
1) Of course they can. You are a business just like any other business apply for tenders or fixed price work.

I asked if contractor PSC could simply use fixed bid pricing to avoid falling into the "hidden employee" trap and you answered "of course".

Is it really that simple - just don't charge a day rate, if you are contracted for 3 months, lets say 60 working days you just multiply your day rate by 60 and put the total sum on the contract and the whole IR35 thing goes away?

northernladuk
14th February 2017, 10:03
I asked if contractor PSC could simply use fixed bid pricing to avoid falling into the "hidden employee" trap and you answered "of course".

Is it really that simple - just don't charge a day rate, if you are contracted for 3 months, lets say 60 working days you just multiply your day rate by 60 and put the total sum on the contract and the whole IR35 thing goes away?

The question you should be asking is will the client engage a BoS project driven resource on that model. The answer will nearly always be no.

And no it doesn't. Working practices trump contracts.

eek
14th February 2017, 10:03
I asked if contractor PSC could simply use fixed bid pricing to avoid falling into the "hidden employee" trap and you answered "of course".

Is it really that simple - just don't charge a day rate, if you are contracted for 3 months, lets say 60 working days you just multiply your day rate by 60 and put the total sum on the contract and the whole IR35 thing goes away?

Nope there would need to be a scope of work and a set of deliverables both defined and then delivered....

Fixed price work requires both a different methodology and a different mindset.

rob s
14th February 2017, 10:05
I asked if contractor PSC could simply use fixed bid pricing to avoid falling into the "hidden employee" trap and you answered "of course".

Is it really that simple - just don't charge a day rate, if you are contracted for 3 months, lets say 60 working days you just multiply your day rate by 60 and put the total sum on the contract and the whole IR35 thing goes away?

I asked a similar question about ratecards. But this seems to be contract wording sophistry, and if the actual working practices don't change (eg. if the client carries on operating the same way), some fancy wording alone won't help.

breaktwister
14th February 2017, 10:06
Hence while you are looking at the above as if the client is controlling the customer I'm looking at it as Jasmine correctly minimising her risk by talking to the customer at appropriate points..

I was asking for analysis of HMRCs view; none of our views matter if we don't understand HMRCs approach.

I am sure that we have clarified for some readers that meetings where the client tells you want to do (requirements gathering) are NOT supervision, direction or control by the client. As I am sure that many end-user clients BELIEVE this to be SDC.

How can we educate clients that simply providing requirements, what work they would like to be performed, and then reviewing same regularly, is not SDC?

northernladuk
14th February 2017, 10:10
We do understand HMRCs approach in this case. It couldn't be clearer.

It's not the client that needs educating here.

breaktwister
14th February 2017, 10:22
The question you should be asking is will the client engage a BoS project driven resource on that model. The answer will nearly always be no.

And no it doesn't. Working practices trump contracts.

The landscape has completely changed now. Clients who want off payroll working will be forced to accept different models. Any rearranged model for professional service companies needs to be cognisant of HMRCs view as to what constitutes, or doesn't in Yasmines case, a "hidden employee".

And I set-up this thread to analyse Yasmines example in its entirety, contract and working practice - what is it that makes her NOT a hidden employee.

eek
14th February 2017, 10:23
We do understand HMRCs approach in this case. It couldn't be clearer.

It's not the client that needs educating here.

+1... It's actually worth looking at the guidance in detail rather than focussing on what you hope is a get out clause to see how its structured.

And the structure is very clear HMG want all people that act like employees to be paid as employees. And no you can't just offload them to a consultancy and continue as before (which is why the consultancy logic is there).

To be fully outside the rules you cannot be under the supervision and control of the end client and the end client needs to accept that from day zero (for they are the ones who have to decide).

eek
14th February 2017, 10:25
The landscape has completely changed now. Clients who want off payroll working will be forced to accept different models. Any rearranged model for professional service companies needs to be cognisant of HMRCs view as to what constitutes, or doesn't in Yasmines case, a "hidden employee".

And I set-up this thread to analyse Yasmines example in its entirety, contract and working practice - what is it that makes her NOT a hidden employee.

And I covered that in my first post. The risk in the project has moved from the end client to Yasmin who is now taking all the risk within the project for a fixed fee of £200,000. You then have 2 further statements that show how she is reducing that risk but you read them as direction and control while I see them as milestones and risk mitigation exercises...

breaktwister
14th February 2017, 10:32
The risk in the project has moved from the end client to Yasmin who is now taking all the risk within the project for a fixed fee of £200,000. You then have 2 further statements that show how she is reducing that risk but you read them as direction and control while I see them as milestones and risk mitigation exercises...

No. It is not my view that they are direction and control. And you quite rightly state that the question of risk is at the heart of the matter, a question that HMRC does not address AT ALL in its guidance and I guess neither in its ESS tool although I have not seen the full tool question set. HMRC knows that the question about which party assumes various types of risk will lead to a large number of contracts falling outside IR35.

northernladuk
14th February 2017, 10:32
You have to remember that the client will have to completely change their method of engagement to get a Yasmin in. They have to use a different frame work, put it to tender, have a couple of companies in to review their offering, make a decision, get them on board with all sorts of contracts. You have to be on that framework, do the pre-work for the tender, turn up and present and then wait.

You can't just flip it to something else to avoid a new tax rule. This is another level of understanding you need to get to rather than massage the odd detail here and there.

LondonManc
14th February 2017, 10:35
Some key discussion points/elements:

1) This is a fixed bid contract, not a typical time & materials (day rate) contract. Can a typical PSC use a fixed bid structure rather than T&M to avoid falling into the "hidden employee" trap?

2) Yasmine works closely with the end-client to understand their requirements, technical specifications (detailed requirements) and timeline. Whoaaaaa - how da hell is this not "direction" or "control"? Did this "working closely" happen onsite? What if Yasmine had to manage some end-client resources as part of the contract?

3) Regular checkpoint meetings - this is not "supervision" or "control"?

4) If the client wanted to change a requirement I assume this would NOT be "direction" if the gathering of the original requirements was not "direction".

5) So from this example a "hidden employee" determination is not triggered by:

a) taking detailed requirements from the client as long as they don't direct you as to "how" the work is performed. Quite strange as many actual employees work like this in an age of increasing specialisation.

b) performing contracted services to a deadline

c) allowing the end-client to review the work periodically (checkpoint reviews)

1) Fixed bid is fine but you have to absolutely nail the scope with an intial day-rate analysis piece (offering to deduct that bill from your final fixed price quote). A world of hurt ensues if you don't.

2) Yasmine needs to nail the requirements and make sure that they are still valid. Having worked for digital firms, I can tell you that a week is a long time, let alone a month. While scope was signed off, there's nothing to say that this isn't still valid and expectations have shifted without a change request being submitted.

If Yasmine has to manage end-client resources, she is doing so as part of the project - part and parcel will only kick in if she is line-managing them and is any deeper involved in appraisals than how were Dave and Steve performing on your project?

3) Regular catch ups - if you've paid someone £200,000 and you have a launch date, you'd want to know that they're on track. Similarly as developer, you'd want to make sure that you're heading in the right direction for them in terms of delivering what they want. A Fiat Panda and a Porsche Panamera are both 5-door hatchbacks.

4) Correct. As above, scope creep happens. It's easily managed without it sitting under D&C

5)
a) How can they direct and control you if you're the technical expert? It's like at United under Moyes *shudders* when Phil Neville tried to tell Van Persie how to take free-kicks. Phil -> :igmc:

b) I'm paying £200,000 to have something launch by such a date. Are you suggesting that all Y2k projects would be inside IR35 because they had a hard deadline?

c) Checkpoint reviews - it's providing reassurance rather than disappearing with someone's cash and they're there hoping you deliver. It's about managing business relationships and something you do with your account manager hat on, not your developer hat. If you want to, pay a friend a day's rate to go in and do the meetings/reviews and they can act as your Business Relationship Manager.

administrator
14th February 2017, 10:46
You presumption that you can talk for everyone shows what a ignorant **** you are.

Please be polite in the business forums. NLUK's first post suggesting words failed him, whilst not what you wanted to hear, does not mean that you should then start handing out abuse.

Everyone is telling you the same thing - and I concur. Bidding on a £200K fixed project is not the same as a bum on seat contractor that is part of a wider project and is basically being told what to do. As others have said, switch up your business model if you want, but I can't see how you can bend this scenario to cover general PS contracting.

cojak
14th February 2017, 10:53
And if you think that requirements gathering and management is part of D&C, it just shows that you don't understand how contractor Business Analysts work.

breaktwister
14th February 2017, 12:41
And if you think that requirements gathering and management is part of D&C, it just shows that you don't understand how contractor Business Analysts work.

I know very well how business analysts work. The word "requirements" can have a very wide meaning. Where is the line drawn between working with the client on their requirements (including ongoing changes) and taking "work instructions similar to an employee". What if the end-client was making daily/weekly changes to requirements and needed Yasmine onsite to manage those changes? Would she then be deemed as working "in a similar manner to an employee"?

We all know many many employees that take requirements from their employer and go off and deliver by a certain deadline with milestones, checkpoints included etc. Why is what Yasmine doing so different to that of an employee in terms of the actual work?

This is no-where near as clear cut as everyone here attacking me is making out.

LondonManc
14th February 2017, 12:46
I know very well how business analysts work. The word "requirements" can have a very wide meaning. (1) Where is the line drawn between working with the client on their requirements (including ongoing changes) and taking "work instructions similar to an employee". (2) What if the end-client was making daily/weekly changes to requirements and needed Yasmine onsite to manage those changes? Would she then be deemed as working "in a similar manner to an employee"?

We all know many many employees that take requirements from their employer and go off and deliver by a certain deadline with milestones, checkpoints included etc. (3) Why is what Yasmine doing so different to that of an employee in terms of the actual work?

This is no-where near as clear cut as everyone here attacking me is making out.

(1) Very simple; you make someone document a requirement, especially when you're on a fixed price - you can then evaluate whether it is scope creep or simply a clarification of a larger original requirement.

(2) Then there's a bigger issue here that needs raising. If there is significant deviation from the original specification then the whole deliverable should be re-evaluated along with the business case. This is as much an issue for Yasmin as for the client.

(3) What do you think? I think that she's delivering something very specific for a fixed price. How many permanent members of staff work like that?

eek
14th February 2017, 12:47
Why is what Yasmine doing so different to that of an employee in terms of the actual work?



All the risk and all the management of that risk.

Until you understand why and how the risk is different in that case to the other examples we really can't help you any further...

northernladuk
14th February 2017, 12:50
All the risk and all the management of that risk.

Until you understand why and how the risk is different in that case to the other examples we really can't help you any further...

Exactly this. You are trying to understand a completely different model by trying to compare it to what you do. You just can't do that. It's too different.


This is no-where near as clear cut as everyone here attacking me is making out

I am afraid it is. 5 different people have indicated so.

LondonManc
14th February 2017, 12:53
I know very well how business analysts work. The word "requirements" can have a very wide meaning. Where is the line drawn between working with the client on their requirements (including ongoing changes) and taking "work instructions similar to an employee". What if the end-client was making daily/weekly changes to requirements and needed Yasmine onsite to manage those changes? Would she then be deemed as working "in a similar manner to an employee"?

We all know many many employees that take requirements from their employer and go off and deliver by a certain deadline with milestones, checkpoints included etc. Why is what Yasmine doing so different to that of an employee in terms of the actual work?

This is no-where near as clear cut as everyone here attacking me is making out.

Who is attacking you? NLUK speaks like that to everyone and the rest of us are simply answering your questions. It's your wont that you don't like the answers given and somehow interpret them as an attack.

breaktwister
14th February 2017, 13:11
You have to remember that the client will have to completely change their method of engagement to get a Yasmin in. They have to use a different frame work, put it to tender, have a couple of companies in to review their offering, make a decision, get them on board with all sorts of contracts. You have to be on that framework, do the pre-work for the tender, turn up and present and then wait.

You can't just flip it to something else to avoid a new tax rule. This is another level of understanding you need to get to rather than massage the odd detail here and there.

I admit I don't know much about this process. This is a valuable post from you for once. So, if a PSC contractor is claiming that they are providing a true business-to-business service, their company accepts various risks and obligations on a T&M or fixed price basis, then it should technically go through this business tender process?

MrMarkyMark
14th February 2017, 13:16
I admit I don't know much about this process. This is a valuable post from you for once. So, if a PSC contractor is claiming that they are providing a true business-to-business service, their company accepts various risks and obligations on a T&M or fixed price basis, then it should technically go through this business tender process?

Such a wise one after just 28 posts :laugh

To be fair, you are just one of a recent number that thinks they are going to be able to knock a square peg into a round hole.
If you understand, even slightly, how these things work in practice you know this isn't going to be possible.


And the best thing is, we were just sitting round waiting for you to all turn up :D

breaktwister
14th February 2017, 13:21
All the risk and all the management of that risk.

Until you understand why and how the risk is different in that case to the other examples we really can't help you any further...

Sorry but it is you that is failing to understand the legal transfer of risk. I understand it which is why I said earlier that transfer of risk is at the heart of whether there is a true business relationship in play. Most PSC contracts assume the risk of delivering to the clients requirements which is why we have to use that structure and have Professional Indemnity insurance.

The point is that HMRC wishes to ignore all of this and is not using ownership of risk as a determining factor anywhere - they want to focus on working practice only while ignoring which party assumes the risk.

This could well be fatal to their position if argued correctly in Court.

LondonManc
14th February 2017, 13:27
I admit I don't know much about this process. This is a valuable post from you for once. So, if a PSC contractor is claiming that they are providing a true business-to-business service, their company accepts various risks and obligations on a T&M or fixed price basis, then it should technically go through this business tender process?

As a contractor you always face that risk of not being paid. Part of the negotiation that you have at the start of the contract is your payment terms. If you're through a good agency to a decent client, the agency will generally acquiesce to weekly terms so that you have as little exposed as possible.

Conversely, if you're directly in a B2B relationship, as I've done in the past, you'll get paid for month 1's work at some point in month 3; you'll submit an invoice for work carried out by a given date in month 2 and you'll go on to the client's invoice payment run in, say, the second week of month 3. This is standard B2B behaviour when there isn't an agency in the middle. It can also be the case that this is how the agency gets paid despite you being on weekly; they have sufficient working capital to cover the weekly payments until they receive their money from the client.

In terms of T&M versus fixed-price, it's very much a judgement call on your part - are you prepared to risk a fixed-price because you know enough about the deliverable? If you're a seasoned developer, then you'll be more likely to know if a fixed cost quote is worth it.

northernladuk
14th February 2017, 13:30
Sorry but it is you that is failing to understand the legal transfer of risk. I understand it which is why I said earlier that transfer of risk is at the heart of whether there is a true business relationship in play. Most PSC contracts assume the risk of delivering to the clients requirements which is why we have to use that structure and have Professional Indemnity insurance.

The point is that HMRC wishes to ignore all of this and is not using ownership of risk as a determining factor anywhere - they want to focus on working practice only while ignoring which party assumes the risk.

This could well be fatal to their position if argued correctly in Court.

But that's not really true which is HMRC's argument. We do as we are told with very little chance of needing PI. You've got the wrong risk. You are talking about competance to deliver our little bit. Eek is talking about the risk that the delivery of the solution is late or doesn't work which starts to incur penalties and extra time that has be done by the supplier at their cost. Although we have that in our contracts we just don't do that. We do a piece of work we are told to do that fits in to a bigger solution. If that bigger solution doesn't work it's not our fault (generally).

eek
14th February 2017, 13:36
Sorry but it is you that is failing to understand the legal transfer of risk. I understand it which is why I said earlier that transfer of risk is at the heart of whether there is a true business relationship in play. Most PSC contracts assume the risk of delivering to the clients requirements which is why we have to use that structure and have Professional Indemnity insurance.

The point is that HMRC wishes to ignore all of this and is not using ownership of risk as a determining factor anywhere - they want to focus on working practice only while ignoring which party assumes the risk.

This could well be fatal to their position if argued correctly in Court.

And as NLUK states above that's not risk within a business contract, the indemnity insurance is to protect you from the great unknowns...

Yasmin is taking responsibility to delivery the full website for a fixed fee. Any and all problems are for her to fix at her own cost (and that could include major rewrites if things don't work correctly). Likewise penalties could be part of the contract and applied if things aren't delivered on time.

At which point I'm going to put you on ignore until the mods get fed up with you arguing the toss and ban you....

northernladuk
14th February 2017, 13:55
And as NLUK states above that's not risk within a business contract, the indemnity insurance is to protect you from the great unknowns...

Yasmin is taking responsibility to delivery the full website for a fixed fee. Any and all problems are for her to fix at her own cost (and that could include major rewrites if things don't work correctly). Likewise penalties could be part of the contract and applied if things aren't delivered on time.

At which point I'm going to put you on ignore until the mods get fed up with you arguing the toss and ban you....

And there is another key word. Responsibility. It's not all about risk. We have very little responsibility. Be competent in our skills and deliver to the clients timescales. That's about it. That's why HMRC see us as disguised permie. Yasmin has a lot of responsibility, if not all of it if you take out requirements. You can't expect us or permies to have that level.

The OP is just not grasping these concepts and is just trying to apply it to the risk and the responsibility he has, which really is next to none.

I hope the OP comes back in a year or two when these have all dawned on him and re-reads this thread :D

rob s
14th February 2017, 14:02
So I'm guessing there's no hiding behind gcloud then either:


digital specialists, eg an individual developer or user researcher to work on a specific project

As this will just be just as subject to the determination mechanism as agency bodies?

breaktwister
14th February 2017, 14:12
Eek is talking about the risk that the delivery of the solution is late or doesn't work which starts to incur penalties and extra time that has be done by the supplier at their cost. Although we have that in our contracts we just don't do that. We do a piece of work we are told to do that fits in to a bigger solution. If that bigger solution doesn't work it's not our fault (generally).

I see your point but the fact of the matter is that your PSC has assumed risk of non-delivery and it is particularly relevant if financial risk has been assumed (which I know all my contracts carry this risk). The end-client has the right to say "you haven't delivered according to our requirements therefore we expect you to rectify at your own time and expense". The fact that this rarely happens is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the end-client has transferred the risk and responsibility of delivery to your company.

I am going to start a new thread to discuss ownership of certain risks and how this is an important consideration in respect of the actual wording of the Finance Act 2017.

eek
14th February 2017, 14:12
So I'm guessing there's no hiding behind gcloud then either:



As this will just be just as subject to the determination mechanism as agency bodies?

Not quite. While the answer is that it depends the work is project based and will have fixed deliverables so its probably outside.

The important thing is the GCloud is not CL1 as contingent labour 1 clearly states that you are under direction and control. I suspect a CL1 contract will usually be inside GCloud will usually be outside due how the work is paid for (Gcloud is paid on delivery, CL1 paid by hour / day).

Also I'm sure NLUK said a while back that GCloud has had most of the agencies removed from it - you now need to explicitly join yourself and specify what work you perform.

northernladuk
14th February 2017, 14:41
Also I'm sure NLUK said a while back that GCloud has had most of the agencies removed from it - you now need to explicitly join yourself and specify what work you perform.

Yup.. and for the OP and anyone that doesn't know about how onerous the process and why it's no good for us generally just have a look at the buyers guide. If we wait for all this as our single source of income you are going to spend a long time on the bench even if you can get on the list..

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/g-cloud-buyers-guide

RonBW
14th February 2017, 16:45
Yup.. and for the OP and anyone that doesn't know about how onerous the process and why it's no good for us generally just have a look at the buyers guide. If we wait for all this as our single source of income you are going to spend a long time on the bench even if you can get on the list..

I found it dead easy to get onto the Digital Marketplace as a supplier - you imply that it's hard to get on the list. Which bit did you struggle with?

northernladuk
14th February 2017, 16:47
I found it dead easy to get onto the Digital Marketplace as a supplier - you imply that it's hard to get on the list. Which bit did you struggle with?

We were talking about G-Cloud. I only saw the tail end of the the rush to Digital Marketplace and never got round to it. There will have to be quite a cultural change within the PS before Digital Marketplace has any effect on us. The guidance clearly states...


If you need to find people for roles where the person enters into a contract directly with the public sector organisation you work for, you’ll need an employment agency. You can find contractors and interim staff through Contingent Labour ONE, Consultancy ONE and Non Medical Non Clinical, but the hirer will be responsible for the outcome of the work, not the supplier.

so nothing much is going to change for the moment.

The 11 point engagement process right below the paragraph I've quoted also shows it's not going to work well for the vast majority.

RonBW
14th February 2017, 16:54
We were talking about G-Cloud.

I was thrown by the opening words from the link you posted - "The Digital Marketplace helps you find cloud technology and specialist services for digital projects." - and their persistent reference to the Digital Marketplace, and how you choose the supplier from the Digital Marketplace.

The departments cannot buy unless you are on Digital Marketplace seems to be the jist of the page that you linked to - so you need to get on there, which isn't difficult. Contrary to your "even if you can get on the list" line.

teapot418
14th February 2017, 17:09
I found it dead easy to get onto the Digital Marketplace as a supplier - you imply that it's hard to get on the list. Which bit did you struggle with?

Ditto - teapotCo is a Digital Marketplace supplier - it's not a difficult process - just go through and tick all the boxes...

SueEllen
14th February 2017, 17:15
Ditto - teapotCo is a Digital Marketplace supplier - it's not a difficult process - just go through and tick all the boxes...

When the PS realise they can't get contractors like before they will then look at other avenues.

And they are allowed to get more than one firm to fulfill their requirements.