The Welsh Government (WG) has confirmed to ISPreview.co.uk that they recently extended their multi-million pound Public Sector Broadband Aggregation (PSBA) network contract with BT’s Enterprise division, which has been operational since 2007 and was awarded to the incumbent in 2014 (here).
The PSBA helps to connect over 110 public sector organisations (across more than 5000 public sites), such as hospitals, local government offices, schools and emergency services, to communicate using a managed and secure high-speed Wide Area Network (WAN). Currently, around 560 GP surgeries and more than 1,500 schools are on this fast and resilient network, among others.
Naturally, having a single communications network for the whole of the Welsh public sector can be quite cost-effective. But the digital infrastructure market has evolved considerable over the past few years, and there are those that would have liked to see the WG put the PSBA back to the market (competitive tender).
Sadly, this is now unlikely to change, at least for a few more years. The WG has instead opted to extend their current contract with BT for another 3 years – until October 2024, and it may yet be extended again, which is quite a long period of exclusivity for any single operator to hold.
A Welsh Government spokesperson said:
“The PSBA contract with BT was extended in 2021 by a further three years. Therefore, the current arrangements will continue to 2024. There are a range of options available after 2024 including a further extension to the contract of two years.”
The WG no doubt feels as if BT has done a good enough job, which is fair enough. Indeed, it’s often easier to extend than to consider the alternatives, with all the additional complexity that a multi-operator environment may entail (BT would still have to play a role because they’re present in more areas than their rivals).
Nevertheless, the growing reach of rival networks is steadily opening up the scope for future alternatives, and the WG could thus be doing themselves a disservice by allowing BT to continue its dominance of the market. Over time, more questions may be raised over whether that position still represents the best value for taxpayers’ money.
For example, some of BT’s rivals are already in the process of building 10Gbps “full fibre” past public buildings in Wales, but due to the PSBA they aren’t allowed to offer them a service.
A small correction: BT won the PSBA contract in 2014. Prior to that it was operated by Logicalis.
I don’t why there so dominant because there a very expensive ISP
This is about a managed business service.
Odd article. Makes no attempt to explain why perhaps the Welsh government is getting good value for money from the existing contract. Just assumes they aren’t because it’s BT.
Yes, weird article. Many companies extend contracts. Particularly at the moment when the benefits of the work involved to retender may be unclear.
Agreed. The Welsh Government will have considered the alternatives before deciding to extend the current contract and decided that represented better value for money than tendering the contract again at the present time.
Both of you would say that as you have always been staunchly pro-BT posters on these comments since as long as I have been visiting this site. Has the government of wales actually released any up-to-date public reports that show the value for money case or show them weighing the alternatives? Not one that I’ve seen, only vague claims.
@AltNet
I know nothing about the PSBA contract.
My comments are based on public procurement regulations. These require Contracting Authorities to consider the alternatives when deciding whether to extend a large contract or put it out to market.
This is usually by way of a procurement and/or commercial strategy which are not published as they would include confidential/commercial information.
It is only after that kind of exercise that they would have decided to extend the contract.
In the same way, this contract is unlikely to be extended again (beyond 10 years) as potential extensions have to be publicised at the time of the initial award and its unusual (though not unknown) for these to be more than 10 years.
If the original contract was not meeting the objectives/targets set, it would not have been extended.
Looking at the PSBA (https://www.psba.gov.wales/) the contract and services offered are a lot more complex then just basic connectivity between the 5000 odd sites involved. The supplier would also need to be able to deal with changes in the Government Estate over any contract period.
It also looks as if the PSBA is optional and organisations do not have to use it so the articles references to other suppliers not being able to offer services would be incorrect.
I know The Facts Says.
It’s just my opinion with been a BT Customer in the past I will never go back to them there greedy
I thought the PSBA was meant to find the best solutions. So in Cardiff, they should use Ogi or someone similar if they have better FTTP offering?
You need to understand what the contract covers.
I would suggest the nearest equivalent size contracts would be major supermarkets, where change of supplier is a once in a generation complex upheaval taking a few years, usually with a prime supplier managing others including openreach as subs during transition or ongoing to fill gaps.
I am aware of one supermarket starting this about a decade ago and took several years to completely roll out (moving most stores from mpls leased line to DSL or fibre). The supplier was overpromised the pace of transition and had to pay performance penalties for years to the extent that store wan was a profit centre for the business for some early years of contract….