Managed Print Contract: Proposed Contract Modification

Tender description

This VEAT notice explains Sidney Stringer Multi Academy Trust's intention to increase the value of its contract dated 12 August 2024 with ITECH Managed Services (the "Contract") for the supply and service of printing equipment across Sidney Stringer Multi Academy Trust by 35% to £443,851 (exc. VAT). The original value of the Contract was £329,454 (exc. VAT). Sidney Stringer Multi Academy Trust intends to observe a voluntary standstill period of 10 days and will not conclude the contract amendment before midnight on 16th February 2026 which is 10 clear calendar days following day of publication on 5th February 2026. No other amendments will be made to the contract. Lot 1: Sidney Stringer Multi Academy Trust considers that the modification described in this VEAT notice is permitted under Regulations 72(1)(b) and 72(1)(c) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which permit the modification of contracts without a new procurement procedure in the following circumstances: 72(1)(b): for additional works, services or supplies by the original contractor that have become necessary and were not included in the initial procurement, where a change of contractor - (i) cannot be made for economic or technical reasons such as requirements of interchangeability or interoperability with existing equipment, services or installations procured under the initial procurement, or (ii) would cause significant inconvenience or substantial duplication of costs for the contracting authority, provided that any increase in price does not exceed 50% of the value of the original contract. An increase in the contract value by 35% is now necessary to accommodate additional supplies including 6 copiers, papercut, card readers and associated maintenance. The overall nature of the contract remains unchanged. Sidney Stringer Multi Academy Trust considers that the following factors prevent a change of, or an additional, contractor to undertake these additional supplies (and, in any event, would cause the following significant inconvenience and substantial duplication of costs): - Duplication of Costs: Engaging another supplier would result in a duplication and overlapping of costs associated with onboarding, which would involve significant training and familiarisation - Maintenance Overlap: Having two different maintenance providers on-site for similar equipment would create confusion regarding "first-fix" responsibility and SLA accountability. - Risk of Incompatibility: Continuing to use an alternative provider requires the management of two separate software "clients" on user desktops. In addition to the applications of different & conflicting internal charging rates. - Unified Reporting: Adding to the current contract ensures all usage data and billing remain centralized within a single reporting dashboard to allow the Trust to monitor and forecast spend and assess sustainability progress in line with the Trust strategy.