Tender description

The successful introduction of a curriculum management system will move us into a very different place that will be ahead of other universities in terms of our ability to design new programmes, refresh and reinvigorate existing programmes and to support our students and staff during programme implementation. Delivery of an appropriate curriculum management will bring a step change in our understanding of the ‘products’ we can sell, the fees associated with these offerings and the income that they can generate.

We need to invest in time, systems and people in order to succeed. The outcome will place us in a very strong position to support innovation in programme design and delivery that will meet the needs of the changing external environment.

The main objective is to better equip the University in the management of our provision lifecycle. From development, through approval, integration into how we deliver that provision, support the management, review and update of the content, closure and archiving. This will provide a robust reliable 1 truth source of information to support understanding and managing our portfolio.

Legal, economic, financial and technical information

Minimum level(s) of standards possibly required


Minimum (‘general’) yearly turnover of 150 000 GBP for 3 years.


Minimum (‘specific’) yearly turnover of 150 000 GBP for 3 years.


Professional risk indemnity insurance: 5 000 000 GBP.


Employer's (compulsory) liability insurance: 5 000 000 GBP.


Public liability insurance: 10 000 000 GBP.

Product liability insurance: 5 000 000 GBP.

ESPD 4B.6 Statement 1:

Where the bidder is providing a submission on behalf of a subsidiary company, upon request, the bidder must obtain a parent company guarantee in a form acceptable to Edinburgh Napier University prior to the commencement of a subsequently awarded contract.

ESPD 4B.6 Statement 2:

Bidders will be required to provide adequate assurance of financial strength to successfully complete their contractual obligations. Bidders must provide their 3 most recent sets of annual audited accounts. A review of your audited accounts will be undertaken. In some cases this review may lead to additional requests for further financial information to clarify any potential issues.

This information will be used to assess financial sustainability.

List and brief description of selection criteria

4C.1.2 — 70 %

To progress to stage 2 all suppliers must have delivered a full curriculum management system within the UK Higher Education Sector, have a sound understanding of the UK Higher Education landscape, including experience of integrating with a student records system.

A full curriculum management system should allow the creation, development, approval, integration to operational processes and student records system, review, closure and archive, of programme and module records. It should hold detailed records and allow management of these by a range of university staff.

To show this please provide 2 case studies (1 page per case study) including:

— reference site institution name,

— example timelines and milestones,

— which student records system integrated with and extent of integration,

— detail what was delivered and the extent of the integration, for example, key programme, course and section data,

— examples of how the data is accessible to external systems,

— describe how your system supported data entity relationships,

— provide an example of an approval workflow,

— describe the benefits that institution has seen since implementation.

4C.1.2 — 15 %

Have robust data security arrangements in place such as ISO 27001. If not, show how your security policies are aligned with ISO 27001.

4C.1.2 — 15 %

Have a business continuity plan for the systems supporting your key services. This should include documented disaster recovery plans with backup/restore procedures.

List and brief description of conditions
Obligation to indicate the names and professional qualifications of the staff assigned to performing the contract


Languages in which projects or requests to participate may be drawn up
The contracting authority reserves the right to award the contract on the basis of the initial tenders without conducting negotiations
The procurement is covered by the Government Procurement Agreement
Type of procedure
Recourse to staged procedure to gradually reduce the number of solutions to be discussed or tenders to be negotiated
Local time
Date of dispatch of invitations to tender or to participate to selected candidates

Complementary information

Estimated timing for further notices to be published
After 5 years i.e. early 2025 if extension not invoked.
Electronic invoicing will be accepted
Date of dispatch of this notice
This is a recurrent procurement
Review body

Edinburgh Sheriff Court and Justice of the Peace Court

Sheriff Court House, 27 Chambers Street



+44 1312252525

[email protected]


Additional information

The buyer is using PCS-Tender to conduct this PQQ exercise. The Project code is 15707

For more information see: http://www.publiccontractsscotland.gov.uk/info/InfoCentre.aspx?ID=2343

(SC Ref:612563)

Electonic ordering will be used
Electronic payment will be used
YES Main CPV code 72212190

Bidding information

Bidding deadline

12 Mar 2020

12 days remaining

Total estimated value

GBP 450,000


United Kingdom, Edinburgh



GBP 450,000

Provision concept and development

We require a system to support the management of the lifecycle of our academic provision. This stage of the lifecycle is about the creation of a draft provision approval. We need to collect key business case information to allow the approval decisions to be made. This includes key information such as market intelligence, expected fees, expected costs, expected student numbers, strategic fit as well as the academic rationale.

We will also be gathering outline provision structure and content, award information, accreditation, learning outcomes for academic quality approval.

We will also look to gather initial operational information – which will be built on through development but will include details such as library resources required, timetabling requirements. The categorisation of our provision types will allow different information to be gathered depending on what is pertinent to that provision.

Provision approval

We require a system to support the approval process through defined, automated workflows. The system will also support visibility of current and upcoming approvals to others who have the approved access, this will allow other departments to get early visibility of and comment upon new provision with respect to their area of expertise. Approval dates, comments and documents should be recorded against the provision.

Operation/user scenarios/business process integration

Provision information needs to be accessible to support a myriad of different purposes. The system will support our improved understanding of activities, learning outcomes at module and the linkages to programme level learning as well as accreditation and professional body recognition. The system will be the 1 truth source of information on provision supporting various processes such as peer review and external examiners. The ability for staff to easily see what a provisions structure is and which provisions a module is taught on is essential. The system will support the complexities of different delivery pathways of the same programme whilst making it simple for staff to navigate the different versions.

Provision review and change

The system will support our institutional led reviews, this will require dates for approval, re-approval, delivery, closure to be recorded to allow the lifecycle to be managed. There will be tracking of changes made to provision and the ability to view those changes to support review. Workflow will support these processes to remove some of the burden of managing the review workload. It will provide assurance through date reporting to facilitate operational planning of the reviews.

Provision closure

We require to provide a closure workflow which will make explicit and support the closure process, ensuring any module closures trigger a notification to relevant provision leaders to assess impact on their provision. The workflow and visibility of closures will allow staff in supporting departments to consider the impacts of closing that provision.

Provision archive

Closed provision will be archived so we have an institutional record of all provision we have created. This record should be searchable to allow staff to look at previous provision content from either an academic provision development point of view or to support providing alumni with historical information about the course they ran.


The system will need to be simple to use. It will be a core system used by a large number of staff across the institution. Intuitive navigation, personalised views of information, excellent search functions and drop-down standard lists will all support an excellent user experience.

Award criteria

Provision Concept and Development

6 %

Provision Approval

6 %

Operation/ User Scenarios/Business Process Integration

10 %

Provision Review and Change

7 %

Provision Closure

2 %

Provision Archive

2 %


9 %

Information Management

4 %


5 %

IT System Requirements

9 %

Support, Maintenance and Development

7 %

Implementation Approach and Project Management

7 %

Delivery Team

7 %


Objective criteria for choosing the limited number of candidates

Part 4B Economic and financial standing will be assessed on a pass/fail basis.

Part 4C Technical and professional ability will be assessed according to the following weightings and scoring methodology:


Case studies — 70 %

Data security — 15 %

Business continuity — 15 %

Scoring methodology

0 = Unacceptable. Nil or inadequate response. Fails to demonstrate an ability to meet the requirement.

1 = Poor. Response is partially relevant but generally poor. The response addresses some elements of the requirement but contains insufficient/limited detail or explanation to demonstrate how the requirement will be fulfilled.

2 = Acceptable. Response is relevant and acceptable. The response addresses a broad understanding of the requirement but may lack details on how the requirement will be fulfilled in certain areas.

3 = Good. Response is relevant and good. The response is sufficiently detailed to demonstrate a good understanding and provides details on how the requirements will be fulfilled.

4 = Excellent. Response is completely relevant and excellent overall. The response is comprehensive, unambiguous and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirement and provides details of how the requirement will be met in full.

The top 5 bidders scoring a minimum of 50 % will progress to the second stage.

Maximum number


Main site or place of performance


Envisaged minimum number


Description of renewals

Possible extension of 60 months.


United Kingdom : Southampton - IT services: consulting, software development, Internet and support

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Value: 350,000 Pound Sterling

Ireland : Dublin - IT services: consulting, software development, Internet and support


Value: 600,000 Euro

United Kingdom : London - Software package and information systems

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Value: 400,000 Pound Sterling

Norway : Hamar - Mechanical installations


Value: Not specified

United Kingdom : Milton Keynes - Software package and information systems

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Value: Not specified

Norway : Oslo - IT services: consulting, software development, Internet and support


Value: 120.0 million Norwegian Krone

Norway : Sandnes - Office and computing machinery, equipment and supplies except furniture and software packages


Value: 112.0 million Norwegian Krone