The full manuscript follows, including all tables, examples, tool copy, sources and outstanding questions. Working notes remain attributed to the supplied manuscript.
Council SD-WAN Refresh Planner
By Harry Yelland, 26/10/2026
For /insights/council-sd-wan-refresh/
Many councils come to the end of their network or SD-WAN contracts and often look to change or consolidate tools, however vendor offerings are difficult to compare, and marketing strategies push different metrics and jargon, making each solution seemingly the same as each other. However, at Netify, we not only understand the nuances between each solution but also how councils choose platforms to fit around the services that their residents depend on.
With our council SD-WAN refresh planner, you’ll record your contract and support deadlines, sites and critical dependencies, as well as services you rely on, which our smart builder will then turn into a formal refresh brief, cost schedule and set of supplier questions you can use to procure your next SD-WAN platform.
What you'll get from our refresh planner
- Council refresh brief: A project summary you can copy and edit to send to different vendors and MSPs.
- Council refresh cost schedule: A general idea of pricing.
- Supplier question pack: A set of targeted questions to close potential gaps between your council’s requirements and vendor offerings.
Start my council refresh plan
See what my plan will include
Privacy Disclaimer
We'd recommend reviewing all input details, ensuring any confidential details aren’t included and keeping exact site addresses, network diagrams and security findings out of the planner and in restricted attachments held by your council.
Choose the reason for your refresh
We find that councils rarely refresh their network for one single reason, so we'd recommend selecting everything that applies, as your choices decide which questions the planner asks next and what goes into your statement of objectives.
Trigger | What it means for the council | Next information to request |
|---|---|---|
Contract renewal | The notice date can fall well before the end date, so the real deadline is the date you must commit to an extension or give notice. A renewal is also the moment to settle scope, and Greenwich's October 2026 procurement approval covers managed WAN, LAN, WiFi and firewall services [S01], so decide early what sits inside yours. | End date, notice period and extension options (contract owner). |
Hardware end of support | Equipment past its support date turns every fault into a risk the council carries itself, and it sets the latest date you can stay put. | Device support dates and licence expiry (network lead, from the asset list). |
Service resilience | One failed site or circuit can stop a named service, therefore the project is judged on the council services that keep running after a failure. | Which services run from which sites, and the interruption each can accept (service owners). |
Cloud access | Application access has outgrown a network built around a central site. Enfield's April 2026 award decision ties its network refresh to legacy architecture and cloud connectivity [S02]. | Hosted and cloud applications in use, with an owner for each (application owners). |
Shared services | A contract that serves more than one authority needs its boundaries drawn before anyone renews it. Cheshire East's May 2025 report asks for separate contracts so that a later split between two councils doesn't force a novation [S26]. | Contract holder, who pays and who administers (programme lead and procurement). |
Reorganisation | A long contract can outlive the authority that signed it, therefore transfer and separation terms matter from day one [S14]. Apply this only if your council is affected. | Assignment, transfer and separation terms (programme lead and legal). |
Identify the council services that must keep working
One of the key places to start is by identifying what your council is accountable for and what responsibilities and services must be upheld for residents. Given that there’s such a vast difference in what’s covered between the likes of a unitary council, a county, a district and a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish council, and with each offering different services, all necessary services should be explicitly defined and detailed, as a generic services detail from another council will unlikely be an exact fit for your council’s needs.
To assist with this, we’ve provides the below example prompts to help get you started, though none of these are mandatory so you’re more than welcome to delete any your council doesn't deliver and add the ones it does.
Candidate services include adult and children's services where your council runs them, revenues and benefits, housing and homelessness, customer contact, libraries, depots and civic sites. Out-of-hours duty teams and emergency coordination only belong in the matrix if your council operates them, in which case record the hours they need and the site or remote path they use.
From there, we'd separate office uptime from resident-facing availability. Office uptime tells you staff can reach the network, whereas resident-facing availability tells you a resident can pay, report, apply or be helped. A revenues and benefits team can be fully connected to its office whilst the hosted application behind it is unreachable, which is why office connectivity on its own never proves service continuity.
The maximum acceptable interruption for each service is your decision, agreed with the service owner, so we'd leave it blank until the owner has agreed it. Local Digital's CAF for local government starts by identifying the essential services and critical systems a council relies on [S12], so this matrix doubles as a ready-made input to that work.
Scope is rarely just the WAN. For example, the South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse's tender replaces the active network components of their offices and buildings as part of an SD-WAN transition [S03], so check which of your service sites also depend on ageing switching and wireless.
Service | Council responsible? | Service owner | Sites | Hours | Application dependency | Maximum acceptable interruption (council decides) | Acceptance test |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Revenues and benefits | Yes / No / Shared | Name or role | Site list | Hours | Hosted application name | Minutes, or Unknown | Named action, e.g. take a payment from the depot |
Customer contact | Yes / No / Shared | Name or role | Site list | Hours | Telephony and case system | Minutes, or Unknown | Answer a call with the record on screen |
Libraries | Yes / No / Shared | Name or role | Site list | Opening hours | Public access and staff systems | Minutes, or Unknown | Public session and staff session both work |
Depots | Yes / No / Shared | Name or role | Site list | Shift pattern | Works and fleet systems | Minutes, or Unknown | Job dispatch works on the backup path |
Out-of-hours duty (only if applicable) | Yes / No / Not applicable | Name or role | Site or remote | Duty hours | Duty rota and case access | Minutes, or Unknown | Duty officer reaches the case system |
Build the estate and contract inventory
When looking to renew, it’s important to understand what you own, rent and when each contract ends/costs of terminating contracts for your current estate, as this will give you a greater idea of how to proceed in procurement and rollout.
Given the importance, scale and rigidity of a lot of these factors, we often find that this step decides the timetable of a council SD-WAN refresh. To help plan this in, our refresh planner asks for the fields below and lets you answer Known, Unknown, None or Not applicable for each.
Field | What to record | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
Sites and region | Site type, nation and broad region | Sets scope and survey effort. |
Shared-service boundary | Which sites, contracts and licences belong to which authority | A reorganisation or split can move them [S14]. |
Circuits | Type, supplier and contract reference per circuit | Different circuits end on different dates. |
Termination and notice | End date, notice period and extension options | The notice date is usually the true deadline. |
Devices and licences | Support end dates and licence terms | Sets the latest date you can stay put. |
Exit assistance | What the incumbent must provide at exit | Decides how clean the handover is. |
Access and power | Rural access, listed buildings, wayleaves, power, LAN capacity and wireless dependencies | Each one can add a survey, a permission or a civil works cost. |
Recommendations on public and restricted information
Can appear in a reviewed supplier summary | Stays in restricted council attachments |
|---|---|
Number of sites by tier, nation and broad region | Street addresses and site-level access notes |
Contract end quarter or year, if the council approves it | Circuit references and supplier account numbers |
Operating model and service categories | Topology diagrams, IP addressing and device serials |
Whether a restricted service connection is retained | Security assessments and vulnerability reports |
Decide the network boundaries before removing legacy links
Before any legacy circuits are retired, one of the key steps is mapping out what actually relies on them, and we often find that the dependencies which catch councils out are PSN access, partner connections, legacy addressing and allowlists, DNS and identity, Azure-hosted services and shared systems. To help with this, our planner takes you through each of them and records an owner and a decision for every one.
PSN is a good example, as it's a compliance arrangement that sits separately from any circuit type. PSN-connected organisations hold compliance certificates for connection, service provision or connectivity [S11], so retiring a legacy circuit tells you nothing about whether a PSN-dependent service still needs a path. No closure date is published, therefore the only reliable answer comes from the service owner who uses the connection.
Partners need the same attention. Police, health and neighbouring authorities may allowlist your council's address ranges, so a change of addressing can break a connection that nobody on the network team knew existed. Azure is another example, as South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse's tender requires security appliances to support site-to-site VPN into Microsoft Azure for each site [S03]. We'd ask where your own cloud and hosted services connect and who owns each connection.
As a rule, we'd recommend that no circuit is removed until the owner of every dependency on it has signed off, and that a security component only goes into the design against a requirement your council has named.
Dependency | Type | Owner | Current path | Decision (Keep, Change, Retire, Unknown) | Sign-off evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Restricted service connection | PSN or partner | Service owner and security lead | Described, not diagrammed | Keep until reviewed | Signed dependency review |
Hosted revenues and benefits application | Hosted application | Service owner | Described | Change or Unknown | Named application test |
Azure-hosted service | Cloud | Application owner | Described | Change or Unknown | Connection test |
Partner allowlist on council ranges | Addressing | Network lead | Described | Unknown until partner confirms | Partner confirmation |
DNS and identity | Core service | Network and identity leads | Described | Keep or Change | Failover test |
How the decision table works
- Keep: The dependency stays on its current path until reviewed.
- Change: The dependency moves to the new design after a witnessed test.
- Retire: Only when the owner confirms nothing depends on it and signs the register.
- Unknown: Treated as Keep, and an action is created for the owner.
Specify resilience by council service and site
Resilience only means something when it's tied to a service, so for each site we'd ask what has to survive a circuit failure, a power cut or a provider problem, and write the answer in terms of the services your council delivers, such as revenues and benefits, housing support and any duty services.
Three things often get confused in supplier responses, those being response, restoration and application recovery. Response is how fast the supplier acknowledges a fault, restoration is how fast the connection comes back and application recovery is how fast the council service works again, and a quick acknowledgement says very little about the last one.
Diversity needs evidence too, as two provider names on a proposal don't prove two routes and two retail suppliers can share the same duct, exchange or fibre, so we'd ask for physical route and exchange information for each essential site. Mobile backup works the same way, because a coverage map doesn't establish a usable backup and coverage and performance should be measured on site under expected load, and backup power matters as well since mobile backup is no help when the site equipment has no power. Monitoring is part of the answer too, given that Greenwich's procurement approval combines on-site engineers with back-office monitoring and support [S01], so ask your bidders who watches a failed link at the hours your duty services run.
Testing should be proportionate. Local Digital's CAF focuses on essential services and critical systems [S12], and our recommendation is that your site tiers follow the same logic, with essential sites getting the full witnessed test and low impact sites not needing one.
Site tier (council defined) | Evidence to request | Witnessed acceptance test |
|---|---|---|
Essential | Route and exchange diversity, on-site mobile measurement, battery runtime, monitoring hours | Pull the primary link, then lose power, while the named council application runs. Record time to recover and rollback owner. |
Standard | Backup design, monitoring hours | Pull the primary link while the named application runs. |
Low impact | Documented behaviour on failure | Documented only, unless the service owner asks for more. |
Unknown | Tier classification from the service owner | Not scheduled until classified. |
Degraded-mode tests to include
- Primary circuit failure with the named application running.
- Site power loss, with the stated battery runtime measured.
- Provider-side failure, simulated with the supplier and the council's change authority present.
- Return to normal running, confirmed by the service owner.
Plan security and assurance evidence for the refresh
Security teams and service owners need different evidence, and we'd recommend asking for it early to save rework at the RFP stage. Start with segmentation, as a library offering public access, council staff, contractors and building systems such as CCTV all have different trust boundaries, so ask bidders to show how they're separated where they're in scope and how you'd test that at acceptance.
From there, your council should own the administrator accounts that matter, and we'd ask what data is logged, where it's processed, how long it's kept, who at the supplier can see it and what incident evidence you'd receive.
On assurance, it helps to be clear about what a purchase can do. Local Digital's CAF for local government is voluntary, begins with essential services and critical systems and includes an independent assurance review [S12], and by January 2026, 90 councils had completed an assessment with the programme moving to CAF version 4.0 [S13]. Buying a network or a managed service doesn't give you CAF or PSN compliance, but it can produce evidence for the actions in your own CAF plan, so we'd ask your security lead to name those actions before the RFP goes out. If any service still relies on a PSN or restricted partner connection [S11], the service owner and security lead decide what happens to it before design starts.
Finally, we'd involve your DPO early. A data protection impact assessment is needed where processing is likely to be high risk, and the ICO's list includes systematic monitoring of a publicly accessible area on a large scale [S15]. Its guidance is under review following the Data (Use and Access) Act, so if your refresh changes what's logged, inspected or visible to a supplier, ask your DPO to screen it before anything is issued.
Evidence | Ask for | Accountable reviewer |
|---|---|---|
Segmentation | Policy design and acceptance tests for staff, public access, contractor and building-system traffic | Security lead |
Privileged access | Role model, multi-factor access reviews and emergency access procedure | Security lead |
Logging and inspection | Data-flow summary, retention and supplier access | DPO and security lead |
Updates and patches | Who updates what, and how the council is told | Network lead |
Incident evidence | Incident workflow, escalation example and log access | Security lead |
CAF actions | Evidence mapped to the council's own CAF improvement actions | Security lead |
PSN or partner dependencies | Owner-approved transition plan | Service owner and security lead |
Build the council refresh cost schedule
A cost schedule only helps if finance can trust it, so we've built our planner to be strict about what counts as a number. It separates your incumbent baseline from the new costs, splits the new costs into one-off, recurring, dual running, surveys, civil works, licences, staff time, training, support, exit and expansion, and gives every line a VAT basis of Excluding VAT, Including VAT, VAT not applicable or Unknown.
Rates either come from your council or from a supplier quote, and if you don't have one it stays unknown, as the planner never fills a gap with a typical figure and a blank is never treated as zero.
We'd also be careful with headline numbers in published decisions. Greenwich's approval carries an estimated £16 million over a term of up to ten years, but it covers managed WAN, LAN, WiFi and firewall services [S01], so it isn't an SD-WAN price or a per-site benchmark. South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse's notice displays £0 [S03], which tells you nothing about cost. A tender envelope is never a unit rate.
The whole-term total simply adds the one-off costs, the recurring monthly and annual rates over their chargeable periods and any priced overlap and exit items, with staff time and contingency shown separately. If any required line is missing, the planner shows a priced subtotal and lists what's missing, so it never shows a complete total or a savings percentage built on an incomplete baseline. We'd only compare incumbent and proposed costs across the same estate and the same term, and we'd always keep the priced subtotal on screen beside the list of missing lines, as a total that hides its gaps is the one finance will question. Our contract terms article covers SLA structures and a hidden-cost checklist in general terms [S23].
Completeness warning
This schedule contains unpriced items. Review the missing rates before using a complete project total.
Nominal annual cash flow layout
Cost line | Basis | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Later years |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
One-off lines (C01, C02, C03, C08, C11, C12, C15) | one_off | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
Recurring monthly lines (C04 to C07) | recurring_monthly | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
Recurring annual lines (C13) | recurring_annual | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
Dual running and exit (C09, C10) | overlap_monthly / one_off | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
Optional and contingency (C14, C16) | optional / allowance | Shown separately | Shown separately | Shown separately | Shown separately |
Priced subtotal | Calculated from priced lines only | Not complete | Not complete | Not complete | Not complete |
The 16 cost categories, with units and the question each one raises for finance, are listed in the cost schedule appendix.
Choose an operating model the council can support
Who runs the network after migration is a staffing decision as much as a technical one, so our planner compares three models against your team size, duty cover and the rate of change you expect. In a council-managed model your team owns operation, in a co-managed model responsibilities are split and written down, and in a fully managed model the supplier runs the service to a specification you set.
We'd recommend starting from honest numbers. A small team with no out-of-hours cover shouldn't pick council-managed for services that run out of hours, and a team that changes policy weekly will find a managed model with charged changes expensive and slow. Whichever you pick, write down who owns each item in the table below, as disputes tend to happen where ownership was assumed, and ask every bidder to respond in the same table so the proposals are like for like.
Responsibility | Council-managed | Co-managed | Fully managed | Council decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Circuits and access suppliers | Council contracts directly | Named split | Supplier contracts and manages | To enter |
Policies and changes | Council writes and changes | Council writes, supplier applies within a change catalogue | Supplier changes to a council-approved standard | To enter |
Patches and updates | Council | Named owner per item | Supplier, council notified | To enter |
Incidents and escalation | Council raises with each supplier | Shared workflow | Supplier owns end to end | To enter |
Out-of-hours cover | Council duty rota | Named split | Supplier | To enter |
Subcontractors | Council manages | Disclosed and notified | Supplier discloses and notifies | To enter |
Exit exports | Council holds | Joint | Supplier provides on exit | To enter |
Shared-service governance (if applicable) | Council | Named per authority | Named per authority | To enter |
Where your council shares the network with another authority, the table also needs the governance for each partner and what happens to the contract if a partner leaves [S14].
Set the procurement route with your council team
We'd recommend settling the basics before picking a framework. The planner asks for your nation, procurement arrangement, existing framework and current contract regime first and only then shows route notes, and as your procurement lead decides the route (nothing here is a legal determination) we'd get your procurement officer into the room before the first supplier conversation.
Early market engagement and formal competition are different things. Under the Procurement Act in England, engagement before a tender mustn't give any supplier an unfair advantage, and where an authority engages the market above threshold it either publishes a preliminary market engagement notice or explains in the tender notice why it didn't [S08]. Netify's marketplace supports preparation and engagement, whilst statutory notices, council approvals and your tender portal stay separate.
Published council procurements show how varied the routes are. Greenwich approved an Open Procedure under the Procurement Act 2023 [S01], Cheshire East's report proposes a mini-competition under Network Services 3 Lot 1a [S26], Adur and Worthing's decision is a direct award under the SBS DWS2 framework [S04] and East Riding's tender notice uses a competitive flexible procedure [S05]. Those were chosen for different scopes, so none of them is a route we're recommending.
Network Services 3 (RM6116) is a useful dated example. As at 21 October 2026 it remains a PCR2015 framework, lot 1a covers inter-site connectivity (wide area network) and lot 2a covers intra-site connectivity (local area network), and most lots end on 17 July 2027 with lots 1c and 1d ending on 22 May 2027 [S06]. We'd check your eligibility, whether the lot fits your scope and whether your award and contract start can land before the lot ends.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each follow their own rules. Devolved Scottish authorities are generally excluded from the Procurement Act [S07], and Scottish public procurement follows the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 and the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2015 [S10]. Welsh authorities should use the Welsh Government's guidance and notice sequencing [S09], and Northern Ireland authorities should confirm applicability with their procurement team, as the Act regulates them with some differences [S07].
Nation | Start here | Reviewer |
|---|---|---|
England | Confirm whether the Act or a legacy framework applies. RM6116 is a legacy framework, so identify lot, eligibility and method. | Council procurement lead |
Scotland | Use Scottish procurement legislation and the council's arrangements. Don't apply the English route automatically. | Council procurement lead |
Wales | Use Welsh Act guidance and Welsh notice requirements, plus any transitional rules. | Council procurement lead |
Northern Ireland | Confirm transferred-authority status and arrangement rules before assuming an English sequence. | Council procurement lead |
Questions for your procurement officer
- Which nation's rules and which arrangement apply to this procurement?
- Is there an existing framework or contract we must or may use, and until when?
- Do we need a preliminary market engagement notice before we speak to suppliers?
- What is the estimated value, and which valuation method will procurement use?
- Who approves the route and when?
Schedule the pilot and migration around council services
Start from the dates you can't move and work backwards. Put in your contract end date, your notice date and any decision dates, then add the lead times your own council knows, such as committee cycles, procurement approvals and survey access. There isn't a universal migration duration, so the planner doesn't assume one and anything unconfirmed is flagged as such.
Two published examples show why the order matters. Cheshire East's May 2025 report asked for approval to procure a replacement for a contract expiring on 3 February 2026, and notes that a two-year extension would carry at least 31.9% in inflation costs [S26], whilst East Riding's tender notice expects the solution to be live by 1 April 2027 against an estimated contract start of 1 June 2026 [S05]. In both cases the gap between a decision and a working network is what decides whether you need an extension and what it costs.
Then protect the dates that matter locally, which might include revenues and benefits payments, billing runs, elections, out-of-hours duty arrangements and committee or public-access services. The planner only protects what you enter, and if a shared service or reorganisation applies we'd add the transfer and separation dependencies as well, given that continuity through organisational change is what the LGA's reorganisation research centres on [S14].
Plan the pilot to find problems and give the design a proper test, as we think a pilot that only proves the easy sites has proved very little. Include an essential-service site and, where you have one, a difficult-access site, and plan each wave site by site.
Milestone | Owner | Depends on | Council duration or date | Confidence | Acceptance evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MS01 Estate discovery | Council network lead | Contract and asset access | Council enters | High, Medium or Low | Inventory with missing information recorded |
MS02 Essential-service requirements | Council service owners | Service responsibility scope | Council enters | High, Medium or Low | Application dependencies, interruption targets and change windows |
MS03 Business case and funding | Council finance and IT | Comparable cost schedule | Council enters | High, Medium or Low | Approved funding and scope assumptions |
MS04 Procurement route review | Council procurement lead | Nation, arrangement and contract regime | Council enters | High, Medium or Low | Recorded route decision and required notices |
MS05 Supplier process | Council procurement lead | Approved process and documentation | Council enters | High, Medium or Low | Comparable responses through the authorised route |
MS06 Surveys and delivery | Supplier and council estates | Site access, permissions and access design | Council enters | High, Medium or Low | Site delivery dependencies confirmed |
MS07 Configuration and staging | Supplier and council network lead | Design and access roles approved | Council enters | High, Medium or Low | Configuration and documentation reviewed |
MS08 Representative pilot | Service owners and supplier | Test criteria, rollback and dependencies agreed | Council enters | High, Medium or Low | Witnessed application failover and recovery results |
MS09 Migration waves | Council change authority | Pilot acceptance and site readiness | Council enters | High, Medium or Low | Per-wave approval and rollback record |
MS10 Hypercare | Supplier and council operations | Wave completion | Council enters | High, Medium or Low | Incident ownership, monitoring and escalation confirmed |
MS11 Incumbent cessation | Council contract owner | Service acceptance and dependency sign-off | Council enters | High, Medium or Low | Approved stop dates and final overlap cost |
MS12 Handover and exit readiness | Council operations | Accepted service and documentation | Council enters | High, Medium or Low | Access, training, exports and next review date |
Acceptance checklist
- Normal-running and failed-link tests run the named council applications, not just a speed test. Owner: network lead.
- A representative essential-service site and a difficult-access site are in the pilot where they exist, and rural backup is measured on site. Owner: service owners.
- A circuit failure, power loss or routing problem has a named response owner and an agreed rollback action. Owner: change authority.
- The service owner confirms outcomes and the IT team receives usable configuration, documentation and access. Owner: service owners and IT.
- The old service stops only after recorded acceptance and dependency approval, with overlap charges visible. Owner: contract owner.
Learn from published council refresh programmes
To assist in your own council’s refresh programme, one of the best places to start is to consider other council’s already published programmes (albeit, these will have a slightly different scope and requirement set). We’ve highlighted the below examples, which show councils at different stages, decisions, tenders and outcomes.
- Greenwich approved procurement of a network managed services contract on 1 October 2026. It covers managed inter-building and intra-building networks, internet and wireless services and firewalls, with on-site engineers and back-office monitoring, and a WAN and LAN hardware refresh is already in train. The estimated £16 million over up to ten years is the whole service envelope, so it isn't an SD-WAN price [S01]. It's an approval, so it shouldn't be read as an award.
- Enfield awarded a network refresh in April 2026 that addresses legacy architecture and cloud connectivity [S02]. No price or delivery outcome is established, therefore we'd treat it as a pointer to scope only and use it to ask how your business case links architecture, cloud access and resilience.
- South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse published a joint tender on 20 December 2024 for LAN, wireless and security refresh, supporting a transition to SD-WAN. It asks for hardware, five-year licence and support, installation and annual support to be priced separately, and it is now closed with no award shown [S03]. The £0 value on the notice is unusable.
Council | Nation | Stage and date | Scope | What it helps you ask |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Adur and Worthing Councils | England | Decision to direct award, 29 September 2026 [S04] | Migrate fibre networking across 22 council sites to SD-WAN over CityFibre using a commercial ISP, under the SBS DWS2 framework | How does the access network sit alongside the SD-WAN service? |
East Riding of Yorkshire Council | England | Two tender notices, December 2025, and two award notices, June 2026 [S05, S24, S36, S37] | A Cisco-based SD-WAN solution and, separately, WAN connectivity | Should platform and connectivity be bought together or apart? |
Cheshire East Council | England | Council report for decision, 14 May 2025, and award notice, August 2025 [S26, S32] | SD-WAN connectivity for a shared ICT service, via Network Services 3 Lot 1a, with separate contracts to avoid novation if the partners split | How do shared-service ownership and contract transfer shape the contract? |
Ten Northern Ireland councils | Northern Ireland | Joint contract notice, 7 April 2022 [S27] | Managed network services including WAN connectivity, firewalls and internet over new fibre, 120 months, open procedure | How do ten authorities define one shared service? |
Highland Council | Scotland | Agreement announced, 24 October 2023 [S29] | Network services under the Scottish Wide Area Network framework across over 340 sites, including some of the most challenging locations in Scotland | How do you scope remote and difficult-access sites? |
We'd use these to compare what was in scope and what each council chose to buy separately, as they aren't price benchmarks and don't establish that any project succeeded.
Create your council refresh RFP
Once your brief, services, dependencies and cost schedule are in place, the next job is turning them into a council network refresh RFP with supplier questions your bidders can answer like for like. Netify's RFP builder handles the drafting and review, whilst your council keeps the decisions.
Your council-specific export brings together a project title and summary, your council responsibilities, service outcomes, estate scope, timing, dependencies, operating model, the cost response schedule, your chosen questions, unresolved items and a procurement note. Detailed sites, topology, logs and security assessments stay out as restricted attachments, and open items travel with the draft so a missing notice period or an unagreed interruption target stays visible. Questions are labelled as either preliminary engagement, which shape requirements without asking for prices, or RFP questions with priced responses, which ask suppliers to price the same site list, term and responsibilities using your cost schedule.
The builder produces a private draft you can download without an account or publication [S19]. Its checker flags coverage gaps but doesn't certify that an RFP is ready to issue [S19], so the review stays with you. If you're still deciding which providers to approach, Netify's UK public sector comparison covers provider evidence [S22]. Before you issue anything, we'd have service owners check the continuity requirements, finance check the cost schedule, your security lead and DPO check the assurance questions and procurement check the route and the wording of the procurement note, as the procurement responsibility stays with your council, including notices, approvals and your tender portal [S08].
Copy beside the button
Use your council refresh plan to prepare an editable RFP draft. Review the service requirements, cost schedule and unresolved questions with the relevant council teams before you issue it.
Create my council refresh RFP
If your plan doesn't carry across automatically
Copy the brief and question list from your plan into the builder, then add your open items as notes, and your private draft stays with you either way. Our view is that the review works best as one meeting with every team in the room, so that conflicting answers surface before issue
Request supplier responses when your council is ready
Asking for supplier responses is optional, and it comes after you've reviewed your draft. Before anything leaves your council, check the supplier-facing summary line by line and confirm the council's procurement route with your procurement officer. Netify doesn't publish anything automatically and no supplier receives your information unless you approve it. In our view an approach to suppliers should be the last step of the process.
A sourcing request through Netify doesn't replace your procurement strategy, statutory notices, framework process or tender portal, and preliminary engagement must still treat suppliers fairly [S08]. Netify doesn't guarantee bids, and an approach to providers isn't an award route. Suppliers pay Netify when an introduction leads to business, and that doesn't affect how providers are ordered [S19].
Discuss my council refresh with a Netify SD-WAN and SASE expert
When your council is ready, review the sourcing approach and approve the summary and providers that may receive it. Keep sensitive network details in restricted attachments.
Anonymisation checklist
- Council name and exact dates removed unless your council has approved them.
- No site addresses, topology diagrams, IP addresses or device serials.
- No security assessments, vulnerability findings or named staff.
- Rates and budget excluded unless the council has approved sharing them.
- Retained restricted-service connections described by category only.
- An authorised council buyer has approved the summary.
Answer council refresh questions
We still have a PSN connection. Can we retire our legacy links?
Not until the service owner confirms what depends on it. PSN is a compliance and connection arrangement that sits apart from any circuit type, and holding a certificate doesn't tell you whether a service still needs a path [S11]. We'd answer the PSN or restricted partner dependency input in the planner and keep Q03 in your question set.
Our contract ends before our council WAN replacement can be delivered. What do we do?
Price the bridge before you choose it. Cheshire East's May 2025 report on a contract expiring in February 2026 notes that a two-year extension would carry at least 31.9% in inflation costs [S26], and dual running adds more on top. Enter your end date, notice date and extension options, then price the overlap and any delayed delivery with Q21.
We might be reorganised. Should the contract allow for that?
Yes, if reorganisation applies to your council, so ask for transfer, separation and assignment terms and what they cost [S14]. Cheshire East's report seeks separate contracts to avoid novation if its two partners split [S26], which is a good example of planning for it up front. We'd set the shared service or reorganisation input to Yes or Unknown, which adds Q04, Q05 and Q22.
How do we keep library public access separate from CCTV and building systems?
Ask for the segmentation design and an acceptance test for each trust boundary. Where CCTV monitors a publicly accessible area your DPO should screen the change, as large-scale systematic monitoring of public areas is a high-risk processing example in the ICO's DPIA guidance [S15]. Include Q10 and ask your DPO to review it.
What if mobile backup is poor at a rural depot?
Measure it on the site, under load, before you accept the design, as a coverage map doesn't establish a usable backup and backup power matters too. Highland Council's 2023 agreement covers over 340 sites including some of the most challenging locations in Scotland [S29], which shows how wide difficult-access estates can get. Add the site access and power input, a survey line in C02 and Q08 and Q09.
Where will our data be processed and who at the supplier can see it?
Ask for a data-flow summary covering what's collected, where it's processed, how long it's kept and who at the supplier can see it. Your DPO decides whether a DPIA is needed [S15], so add Q13 and send the answer to them and your security lead.
We want a co-managed service. How do we keep control?
Write the split down item by item and ask every bidder to respond in the same table. We'd pay particular attention to which changes your team can make and which are charged or need supplier approval. Choosing Co managed in the planner adds Q15 and Q17 and the responsibility matrix.
We don't have a confirmed budget. Can we still go to market?
You can prepare and engage, but we wouldn't use a headline figure as a budget. Greenwich's estimated £16 million covers managed WAN, LAN, WiFi and firewall services over up to ten years [S01], so it isn't a benchmark for a WAN refresh. Leave the budget input blank and the cost schedule shows a Priced subtotal with the missing lines listed.
We're a Scottish council. Does the English route apply?
Not automatically. Devolved Scottish authorities are generally excluded from the Procurement Act [S07] and Scottish public procurement runs on its own legislation and handbook [S10]. Highland Council's 2023 agreement used the Scottish Wide Area Network framework [S29]. Select Scotland as your nation and ask your procurement lead to approve the route.
Do telecare alarms affect our network plan?
They can, if your council's services include them. Analogue telecare that isn't upgraded may become unreliable or stop working during the digital phone switchover, which is due to complete by January 2027 [S17, S16], and a network upgrade doesn't make an analogue device safe. Set the telecare input to Yes or Unknown, which adds Q30 and a device-owner assessment before any affected cutover.
Can we use Network Services 3 for a refresh?
It might suit some councils, though only your procurement lead can say. As at 21 October 2026 it's a PCR2015 framework, lot 1a covers WAN and lot 2a covers LAN, and most lots end on 17 July 2027 [S06]. Record the framework and lot in the procurement route input and ask procurement to confirm eligibility.
Will Netify publish our requirement or approach suppliers for us?
Not unless you approve it. The RFP builder lets you download a private draft without an account or publication [S19], and optional supplier responses only follow your review and don't replace your own procurement process. Keep the supplier-facing summary input at Not prepared until your buyer approves it.
Illustrative council scenario
To show what the planner produces, we've created an example (fictional) English unitary council that's reviewing a 24-site managed network ahead of a confirmed contract expiry. The estate includes civic offices, customer-contact sites, libraries and depots, and the council retains a restricted service connection, uses Microsoft 365 and a hosted revenues-and-benefits application and hasn't yet confirmed its notice period or rural depot mobile backup. Its preferred model is co-managed, and budget rates and service interruption targets haven't been supplied. It isn't a customer, it contains no supplier quotes and it implies no market rates or savings.
Illustrative council scenario. Output one, council refresh brief
We are planning a 24-site council SD-WAN refresh with a co-managed operating model. The scope includes civic, customer-contact, library and depot locations. Suppliers will need to explain continuity for our named council applications, retained restricted-service connectivity, public-access separation and rural-site backup. We need an itemised transition and operating cost schedule, a representative pilot and an agreed responsibility matrix. Contract notice terms, service interruption targets and backup surveys remain to be confirmed.
Illustrative council scenario. Output two, information to confirm
Missing item | Owner | Effect on the plan |
|---|---|---|
Notice period | Contract owner | Delivery plan cannot assume an available extension |
Restricted-service scope | Service owner and security lead | Retain path until approved dependency review |
Rural backup performance | Network lead and supplier | Survey and test before accepting design |
Application interruption target | Relevant service owners | Agree target and test before pilot approval |
Cost rates | Finance and procurement | Show unpriced schedule without a whole-term total |
Illustrative council scenario. Output three, supplier question pack
The initial set is Q02, Q03, Q06, Q09, Q10, Q15, Q17, Q20, Q23, Q24, Q25 and Q26. Two scope-sensitive additions are proposed because the scenario uses Microsoft 365, a hosted application and rural depots with mobile backup, those being Q11 (applications) and Q08 (backup power). The reference numbers are working references only and aren't live question-bank IDs.
Ref | Area | Supplier question | Evidence requested |
|---|---|---|---|
Q02 | Continuity | Explain how revenues and benefits applications and agreed out-of-hours duty services will continue during each migration wave. | Application dependency map and service-owner sign-off plan. |
Q03 | Dependencies | Identify retained PSN and partner connections and how they will coexist with the proposed design. | Connectivity dependencies and owner-approved transition plan. |
Q06 | Resilience | Demonstrate physical diversity for the proposed primary and backup links at each essential site. | Route and exchange information subject to controlled disclosure. |
Q09 | Rural access | Validate mobile backup availability and performance at rural depots or other difficult sites. | Site survey and tests under expected load. |
Q10 | Segmentation | Show how council staff library public access contractors CCTV and building systems are isolated where in scope. | Policy design and segmentation acceptance tests. |
Q15 | Operations | State who owns a fault spanning circuit appliance cloud policy and third-party application. | RACI incident workflow and escalation example. |
Q17 | Changes | State which changes the council can make and which are charged or subject to supplier approval. | Change catalogue permissions service windows and charges. |
Q20 | Costs | Price the same site list, term and service responsibilities using the council's cost schedule. | Itemised one-off recurring and optional charges in GBP with VAT basis. |
Q23 | Delivery | Provide a dependency-led plan around the council's listed elections, payments and change restrictions. | Milestones dependencies owner and lead-time assumptions. |
Q24 | Pilot | Propose a representative pilot including an essential-service site and a difficult access site where appropriate. | Pilot selection rationale and acceptance evidence. |
Q25 | Rollback | State rollback triggers responsible officers and the last reversible point for each cutover. | Runbook and witnessed recovery test. |
Q26 | Exit | Describe configuration and log exports licence ownership access revocation and transition assistance at exit. | Exit plan format and priced assistance. |
Q08 (proposed addition) | Resilience | Describe backup power capacity maintenance and recovery for the specified sites. | Power dependencies runtime basis and test schedule. |
Q11 (proposed addition) | Applications | Confirm performance and routing for the council's named Azure, Microsoft 365 and retained hosted applications. | Application test results under normal and degraded connectivity. |
Illustrative council scenario. Output four, cost schedule and milestones
No rates have been supplied, so every line is unpriced and the schedule shows no whole-term total.
Line | Category | Unit | Quantity | Rate | VAT basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C01 | Discovery and design | One project-level charge, with council and supplier effort recorded as separate lines | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
C02 | Site surveys and permissions | One charge per affected site, including permissions and any civil works | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
C03 | Appliances and spares | One charge per site or device, purchased | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
C04 | Licences | Charge per licence or site, per month | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
C05 | Primary access circuits | Charge per circuit, per month, with bandwidth, site and contractual availability noted | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
C06 | Backup access circuits | Charge per backup circuit, per month | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
C07 | Managed operations | Charge per project or site, per month, covering monitoring, changes, support hours and fault ownership | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
C08 | Migration and installation | Charge per wave or per site, split into standard installation, exceptional works and rollback effort | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
C09 | Dual running | Incremental monthly charge for each overlapping service, for the actual overlap period only | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
C10 | Incumbent exit charges | One charge per incumbent contract | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
C11 | Training and council staff time | Hours or days of training and staff time, with cash spend and internal opportunity cost labelled separately | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
C12 | Power LAN and wireless dependencies | One charge per affected site, limited to work the refresh needs | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
C13 | Ongoing support renewals | Annual charge per project or device | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
C14 | Reorganisation or estate changes | Charge per change, such as adding, removing, assigning or separating a site | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
C15 | End of term exit assistance | One charge per project for exports, transition and access removal | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
C16 | Contingency | A percentage or amount applied to a defined eligible subtotal | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
Priced subtotal | Not available. No lines are priced. |
This schedule contains unpriced items. Review the missing rates before using a complete project total.
Proposed milestones are the 12 dependency-led steps in section M11. In this scenario the contract expiry is confirmed but its date and the notice period are for the council to enter, so every duration and target date shows Council enters and the plan flags the notice period as unconfirmed.
Illustrative council scenario. Carrying the plan into the RFP builder
- Copy the brief above into the project summary. Keep the five open items with their owners as notes.
- Select the 12 questions and the two proposed additions, labelling each as early engagement or priced RFP.
- Attach the cost schedule as the response format and keep the restricted-service scope, site list and topology as restricted attachments held by the council.
- Review with service owners, finance, the security lead, the DPO and procurement before anything is issued.
Changed-input examples. Illustrative council scenarios, not real customers
Changed input A. A Scottish council
- Input changed. Council nation is Scotland (I01).
- Rule that fires. R02 shows Scottish procurement references and asks the procurement lead to approve the route. The English route example and the Procurement Act notice sequence are hidden from the route-to-market note.
- Evidence action added. Route approval. Owner, council procurement lead. Effect, no route is described in the brief until confirmed.
- Milestone changed. MS04 now depends on Scottish arrangements and council approval.
- Questions. The initial question set doesn't change. Any joint procurement with an English authority is flagged for procurement review, because the Act applies in its entirety to a joint award [S07].
Changed input B. A shared-service authority facing reorganisation
- Input changed. Shared service or reorganisation dependency is Yes (I12).
- Rule that fires. R05 adds Q04, Q05 and Q22 to the question set.
- Evidence actions added. Contract holder and transfer terms (programme lead and legal). Ownership of sites and licences (shared-service lead). Effect, no assumption about which authority signs.
- Cost schedule changed. C14, reorganisation or estate changes, becomes a required line and shows as missing until priced.
- Operating model changed. The responsibility matrix gains a filled shared-service governance row, and MS04 and MS05 wait for programme lead sign-off.
Changed input C. A rural council with unknown backup coverage and a continuity constraint
- Inputs changed. Site access and power constraints describe rural coverage (I22), and an essential depot has no agreed interruption target (I21).
- Rule that fires. R08 asks the service owner to agree acceptable interruption and a witnessed application test before this site enters a migration wave.
- Questions changed. Q08 and Q09 move to the top of the set and Q06 and Q07 apply to the essential depot. Q24 requires a difficult-access site in the pilot.
- Cost schedule changed. C02 surveys and C06 backup circuits become required lines.
- Evidence action added. Mobile backup performance. Owner, network lead and supplier. Effect, survey and test before accepting design.
Tool copy
Buttons and difficult-state messages
Situation or control | Copy |
|---|---|
Primary button | Start my council refresh plan |
Supporting button | See what my plan will include |
Persistent next-step button | Create my council refresh RFP |
Optional button, after draft review | Discuss supplier responses for my council refresh [ROBERT TO CONFIRM destination and workflow] |
Draft-only option | Keep my draft private |
Contract date unknown | Your contract deadline is unconfirmed. Ask the contract owner for the end date, notice period and any extension options. |
PSN answer unknown | Confirm which services still depend on PSN or a restricted partner connection before planning to remove legacy links. |
Missing cost rate | This schedule contains unpriced items. Review the missing rates before using a complete project total. |
Essential service without a test | Ask the service owner to agree acceptable interruption and a witnessed application test before this site enters a migration wave. |
Publication not approved | Keep preparing your private draft. Review the supplier-facing summary and your council's procurement route before requesting responses. |
Accessibility rule | Every status is written in words, never by colour alone. No readiness percentage, cyber rating, compliance score, supplier fit score or ready-to-procure badge is shown. |
Planner inputs
ID and label | Allowed answers | Explanation | If unknown |
|---|---|---|---|
I01 Council nation | England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Unknown | Choose the nation your council is in. This decides which procurement research we show you, and it never assumes England. | Nation unconfirmed. Ask your procurement lead to confirm your nation and procurement arrangement before you rely on any route notes. |
I02 Council type and responsibilities | Council supplied | Say what type of council you are and which services it is responsible for, for example unitary, county, district, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish. Don't assume services such as social care, housing or highways. List only what your council delivers. | Responsibilities unconfirmed. Ask which services are in scope with your service owners, so the plan doesn't include services another authority delivers. |
I03 Refresh drivers | Renewal, End of support, Resilience, Cloud access, Shared services, Reorganisation, Other, Unknown | Select every reason behind this refresh. Most councils have more than one. Pick Unknown if the objectives haven't been agreed. | Objectives unconfirmed. Agree the reasons for the refresh with your project sponsor. Until then, the plan keeps an objective-confirmation action open. |
I04 Project stage | Discovery, Business case, Market engagement, RFP preparation, Procurement underway, Unknown | Tell us where the project is today. We use it to offer you a draft brief or a supplier question set that fits. | Project stage unknown. We'll show the discovery output, which is a safe starting point at any stage. |
I05 Sites in scope | 0 or greater, blank means unknown | Enter the number of sites in scope, or leave it blank if you don't know. A blank means unknown and is never treated as zero. | Site count unconfirmed. Leave it blank and add a site inventory action to your list. We won't estimate it for you. |
I06 Contract end date | Council supplied YYYY-MM-DD | Enter the date your current network contract ends, if you know it, as YYYY-MM-DD. | Your contract deadline is unconfirmed. Ask the contract owner for the end date, notice period and any extension options. |
I07 Contract notice date | Council supplied YYYY-MM-DD | Enter the last date you can give notice or commit to an extension. This is often earlier than the end date. | Notice date unknown. Ask the contract owner for the notice terms, and treat the contract as having an earlier unconfirmed deadline. |
I08 Existing service and contract scope | Council supplied | Describe what the current contract covers, such as circuits, the overlay, management, LAN and security. Use plain descriptions and keep contract references out. | Contract scope unconfirmed. Ask the incumbent for its service schedule so you can compare like with like. |
I09 Device support expiry | Council supplied YYYY-MM-DD | Enter the date your main network devices go out of vendor support, if you know it. | Support end date unknown. Ask for the asset and licence inventory so we can show the hardware risk date. |
I10 Critical service dependencies | Revenues and benefits, Housing, Adult services, Childrens services, Contact centre, Libraries, Depots, Other, Unknown | Select the services that depend on this network. Only pick services your council delivers. | Critical services unconfirmed. Ask service owners to confirm what depends on the network before design approval. |
I11 PSN or restricted partner dependency | Yes, No, Unknown, Not applicable | Say whether any service still relies on PSN or a restricted partner connection. PSN isn't a circuit type, so answer for services and not for links. | Confirm which services still depend on PSN or a restricted partner connection before planning to remove legacy links. |
I12 Shared service or reorganisation dependency | Yes, No, Unknown, Not applicable | Say whether a shared service or a reorganisation affects the network contract, sites or licences. Answer Not applicable if neither applies. | Dependency unconfirmed. Ask the programme lead and legal team whether sites, licences or contracts could transfer or separate. |
I13 Telecare alarm or building system dependency | Yes, No, Unknown, Not applicable | Say whether telecare alarms or building systems use the network or rely on analogue lines. Answer Not applicable if your council has none. | Dependency unconfirmed. Ask the relevant service owner to assess alarms and building systems before any affected site is cut over. |
I14 Preferred operating model | Council managed, Co managed, Fully managed, Undecided | Choose the model you'd prefer to run after migration. Undecided is a valid answer, and we'll show you how the three compare. | Operating model undecided. We'll add comparison questions so suppliers respond to the same responsibility table. |
I15 Available project budget GBP | 0 or greater, blank means unknown | Enter the confirmed project budget in pounds, or leave it blank if there isn't one yet. Never enter a typical or estimated figure here. | Budget unconfirmed. Keep it blank. The cost schedule will show a priced subtotal and won't pretend to be a complete total. |
I16 Evaluation term months | Positive integer, council supplied | Enter the term in months you want proposals compared over, so every response covers the same period. | Term not set. Without an equal term, no whole-term total or comparison is shown. |
I17 Funding and VAT basis | Council finance supplied | Enter how the project is funded and the VAT basis your finance team will use. Finance decides VAT recovery and accounting treatment. | Funding and VAT basis unconfirmed. Ask your finance lead before cost figures are used in a business case. |
I18 Procurement arrangement and route | Council procurement supplied | Record the procurement arrangement, framework and lot your procurement lead has agreed, if any. This is a record of their decision and not a legal determination. | Route unconfirmed. Procurement review is needed before any route is described in your brief. |
I19 Council blackout dates | Council supplied | Enter dates your council wants protected, such as payment runs, billing, elections, duty arrangements or committee periods. Enter only what your service owners have agreed. | Blackout dates unconfirmed. Ask each service owner which periods they protect before the migration plan is drafted. |
I20 Site service tier | Council defined essential, Standard, Low impact, Unknown | Classify the site as Council defined essential, Standard or Low impact. The service owner decides, and the class sets how heavily we test failure at the site. | Site tier unknown. Ask the service owner to classify the site before it enters a migration wave. |
I21 Council maximum acceptable interruption minutes | 0 or greater, council supplied | Enter the longest interruption in minutes the service can accept. This is your council's decision, not a supplier's service level. | Ask the service owner to agree acceptable interruption and a witnessed application test before this site enters a migration wave. |
I22 Site access and power constraints | Council supplied | Describe access, power or permission issues, such as rural coverage, listed buildings, wayleaves or limited backup power. Keep exact addresses out. | Constraints unconfirmed. Add a survey action for the site before design is agreed. |
I23 Cost line unit rate GBP | 0 or greater, blank means unknown | Enter a unit rate in pounds that your council has approved or a supplier has quoted. Leave it blank if you don't have one. | This schedule contains unpriced items. Review the missing rates before using a complete project total. |
I24 Cost line rate evidence | Quote reference date scope and VAT basis | Record the quote reference, date, scope, billing basis, term, inclusions, exclusions and VAT basis for the rate. | Evidence missing. The rate is labelled an unverified assumption until someone reviews it. |
I25 Authority to seek responses | Not requested, Pending review, Approved by council | Say whether your council has authorised a request for supplier responses. Preparing a draft doesn't need this. | Keep preparing your private draft. Review the supplier-facing summary and your council's procurement route before requesting responses. |
I26 Supplier-facing summary approval | Not prepared, Under review, Approved | Say whether the exact supplier-facing summary has been prepared and approved. Nothing is released until it is Approved. | Keep preparing your private draft. Review the supplier-facing summary and your council's procurement route before requesting responses. |
Decision rule messages
Rule | Trigger | Message | Do not infer |
|---|---|---|---|
R01 | Nation is unknown | Your nation is unconfirmed. Ask your council procurement lead to confirm your nation and procurement arrangement. No route is suggested until they do. | Do not suggest a final route. |
R02 | Nation is Scotland | You've selected Scotland, so we're showing Scottish procurement references. Ask your procurement lead to confirm the route your council approves. | Do not default to the Procurement Act route for English councils. |
R03 | Nation is Wales or Northern Ireland | You've selected Wales or Northern Ireland, so we're showing the review instruction for your nation. Ask your procurement lead to confirm applicable rules, because an English notice sequence may not apply. | No automatic English notice sequence. |
R04 | PSN dependency is Yes or Unknown | Confirm which services still depend on PSN or a restricted partner connection before planning to remove legacy links. Question Q03 has been added to your set. | Do not recommend retiring that connection. |
R05 | Shared-service or reorganisation dependency is Yes or Unknown | A shared service or reorganisation may affect this contract. Questions on ownership, transfer, separation and contract change have been added. Ask your programme lead and procurement team to review them. | No assumed whole-UK reorganisation requirement. |
R06 | Telecare dependency is Yes or Unknown | Telecare or building systems may depend on this network. Ask the device owner for a dependency assessment before any affected site is cut over. A network change doesn't make an analogue device safe. | No assurance that SD-WAN fixes analogue device risks. |
R07 | Contract or notice deadline is missing | Your contract deadline is unconfirmed. Ask the contract owner for the end date, notice period and any extension options. | No promised migration completion date. |
R08 | An essential-service site has no acceptable interruption or acceptance test | Ask the service owner to agree acceptable interruption and a witnessed application test before this site enters a migration wave. | No ready-to-issue claim. |
R09 | A cost quantity rate term or required line is missing | This schedule contains unpriced items. Review the missing rates before using a complete project total. | No complete budget total or savings percentage. |
R10 | Council has not approved supplier-facing summary | Keep preparing your private draft. Review the supplier-facing summary and your council's procurement route before requesting responses. | Do not publish or approach suppliers. |
R11 | Evidence is search-only missing or out of date | Internal editorial rule, not shown to users. Keep this item as a research lead and confirm it against the full page before using any detail from it. | Exclude from published factual claims and supplier scoring. |
R12 | User has not confirmed an operating model | You haven't confirmed an operating model. We've added responsibility comparison questions so every bidder answers in the same table. | No inferred fully managed preference. |
Supplier question pack
Ref and area | Supplier question | Evidence requested | Council reason | Applies when | Use |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q01 Estate | Confirm coverage and delivery dependencies for each council site without substituting assumed access availability. | Site-by-site coverage and survey exceptions. | Rural depots and civic buildings can have different access constraints. | All council refresh projects. Site list required. | Early market engagement and priced RFP |
Q02 Continuity | Explain how revenues and benefits applications and agreed out-of-hours duty services will continue during each migration wave. | Application dependency map and service-owner sign-off plan. | Office connectivity alone does not prove resident-service continuity. | All council refresh projects. The duty-service element applies only where the council runs out-of-hours duty services. | Early market engagement and priced RFP |
Q03 Dependencies | Identify retained PSN and partner connections and how they will coexist with the proposed design. | Connectivity dependencies and owner-approved transition plan. | Do not remove a required restricted-service path. | When PSN or restricted partner dependency is Yes or Unknown (I11). | Early market engagement and priced RFP |
Q04 Shared services | Explain responsibility boundaries across participating councils and how permissions and reporting remain separate. | Responsibility matrix and administration model. | Shared infrastructure must preserve each council's accountability. | When shared service is Yes or Unknown (I12). | Early market engagement and priced RFP |
Q05 Reorganisation | Explain how sites licences data access and contracts can transfer or separate during the stated reorganisation. | Transition assumptions transfer restrictions and charges. | A long-term service may outlast the present authority structure. | When reorganisation is Yes or Unknown (I12). Do not apply to councils not affected. | Early market engagement and priced RFP |
Q06 Resilience | Demonstrate physical diversity for the proposed primary and backup links at each essential site. | Route and exchange information subject to controlled disclosure. | Two retail suppliers may share a failure domain. | Sites classed as council defined essential (I20). | Early market engagement and priced RFP |
Q07 Resilience | Propose and witness a circuit failure test against the council's stated maximum service interruption. | Test method application probes and pass fail results. | Failover must preserve the named council service. | Sites classed as council defined essential, with an interruption target entered (I21). | Priced RFP |
Q08 Resilience | Describe backup power capacity maintenance and recovery for the specified sites. | Power dependencies runtime basis and test schedule. | Mobile backup cannot help when site equipment has no power. | Where sites have mobile backup, rural or difficult access, or limited power. | Early market engagement and priced RFP |
Q09 Rural access | Validate mobile backup availability and performance at rural depots or other difficult sites. | Site survey and tests under expected load. | Coverage maps do not establish usable backup service. | Where rural or difficult-access sites are in scope (I22). | Early market engagement and priced RFP |
Q10 Segmentation | Show how council staff library public access contractors CCTV and building systems are isolated where in scope. | Policy design and segmentation acceptance tests. | Public access and operational systems have different trust boundaries. | Where libraries, public access, CCTV or building systems are in scope. | Early market engagement and priced RFP |
Q11 Applications | Confirm performance and routing for the council's named Azure, Microsoft 365 and retained hosted applications. | Application test results under normal and degraded connectivity. | Supplier dashboard health does not establish usable council applications. | Where Azure, Microsoft 365 or retained hosted applications are in scope. | Priced RFP |
Q12 Identity | Explain access administration and emergency access arrangements for council and supplier staff. | Role model MFA access reviews and break glass procedure. | Council retains accountable control of privileged access. | All council refresh projects. | Early market engagement and priced RFP |
Q13 Logging | State what user and network data is collected where it is processed retention and supplier access. | Data-flow summary retention controls and processor information. | Security lead and DPO need evidence for the actual processing. | All council refresh projects. | Early market engagement and priced RFP |
Q14 Assurance | Provide the evidence requested by our security team for the council CAF improvement actions in scope. | Control evidence linked to council actions and evidence owners. | A product purchase does not deliver organisational assurance. | Where the council has CAF improvement actions that this project could evidence. | Priced RFP |
Q15 Operations | State who owns a fault spanning circuit appliance cloud policy and third-party application. | RACI incident workflow and escalation example. | Avoid incidents passed between contracted parties. | Co managed or fully managed models (I14), and Undecided. | Early market engagement and priced RFP |
Q16 Operations | Describe monitoring and support during the council's specified out-of-hours service periods. | Support coverage and escalation commitments with exclusions. | Duty services may run outside office hours. | Where the council runs out-of-hours duty services. | Early market engagement and priced RFP |
Q17 Changes | State which changes the council can make and which are charged or subject to supplier approval. | Change catalogue permissions service windows and charges. | A co-managed offer must preserve the council's needed authority. | Co managed or fully managed models (I14), and Undecided. | Early market engagement and priced RFP |
Q18 Service levels | Separate incident response restoration and resolution commitments by priority and service boundary. | Contractual service schedule with measurement and exclusions. | Fast acknowledgement does not establish fast recovery. | All council refresh projects. | Priced RFP |
Q19 Service levels | Explain credit calculations caps claim deadlines and planned maintenance exclusions. | Applicable contract wording and example claim calculation. | Marketing uptime percentages are not a complete contractual comparison. | Priced RFP stage only. | Priced RFP |
Q20 Costs | Price the same site list, term and service responsibilities using the council's cost schedule. | Itemised one-off recurring and optional charges in GBP with VAT basis. | Enables finance to compare equal scope. | Priced RFP stage only. Requires the council's cost schedule. | Priced RFP |
Q21 Costs | State overlap charges termination charges installation dependencies and delayed-delivery costs. | Priced transition schedule with assumptions. | Dual running can erase an apparent annual saving. | Priced RFP stage, and any early engagement where an incumbent is being replaced. | Priced RFP |
Q22 Costs | State indexation review dates minimum commitments and costs to add remove or transfer sites. | Commercial formula worked example and change charges. | Estate consolidation and reorganisation can alter costs. | Priced RFP stage. Priority where estate consolidation or reorganisation is expected. | Priced RFP |
Q23 Delivery | Provide a dependency-led plan around the council's listed elections, payments and change restrictions. | Milestones dependencies owner and lead-time assumptions. | Protect council-specific service windows. | All council refresh projects. Uses the council's blackout dates (I19). | Early market engagement and priced RFP |
Q24 Pilot | Propose a representative pilot including an essential-service site and a difficult access site where appropriate. | Pilot selection rationale and acceptance evidence. | A straightforward office pilot can miss the highest risks. | All council refresh projects. Difficult-access site only where one exists. | Early market engagement and priced RFP |
Q25 Rollback | State rollback triggers responsible officers and the last reversible point for each cutover. | Runbook and witnessed recovery test. | Council service owners must know when to stop a change. | All council refresh projects. | Priced RFP |
Q26 Exit | Describe configuration and log exports licence ownership access revocation and transition assistance at exit. | Exit plan format and priced assistance. | The next refresh must not depend on an inaccessible management tenant. | All council refresh projects. | Early market engagement and priced RFP |
Q27 Evidence | Provide comparable council references distinguishing your contracted scope from partner-delivered work. | Named references dates estate scope and permission for checks. | A generic public-sector logo does not establish relevant delivery. | Priced RFP stage only. | Priced RFP |
Q28 Subcontractors | Identify who supplies and supports the access network and any management subcontractors. | Supply chain roles escalation and change notification commitments. | Council needs a clear chain of accountability. | Co managed or fully managed models (I14), and any incumbent with subcontractors. | Early market engagement and priced RFP |
Q29 Training | Describe handover training, documentation and the council's ongoing staffing responsibilities. | Training plan operating documentation and role expectations. | A small council team must be able to operate the agreed model. | Co managed or fully managed models (I14), and Undecided. | Early market engagement and priced RFP |
Q30 Telecare | Identify any affected telecare alarms and building systems and your scope of testing alongside their service owner. | Separate dependency assessment and device-owner test approval. | Network migration does not prove device compatibility or safety. | When telecare or building systems are Yes or Unknown (I13). | Early market engagement and priced RFP |
Q31 Accessibility | Describe accessibility of the management portal reports and support routes used by council staff. | Accessibility evidence and known limitations. | Council users need usable interfaces and alternative formats. | All council refresh projects where staff use a supplier portal. | Early market engagement and priced RFP |
Q32 Sustainability | State equipment reuse secure disposal energy and site-visit assumptions relevant to this project. | Project-specific evidence and priced options. | Council sustainability assessment should use actual delivery assumptions. | Where the council's sustainability assessment will use this project's data. | Priced RFP |
Cost schedule appendix
Amounts are blank in every category because no defensible published rate exists. A blank means unknown and is never treated as zero. A rate needs a date, scope, billing basis, term, inclusions, exclusions and VAT basis.
Line | Category and basis | Unit definition | Included | Question for finance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
C01 | Discovery and design (one_off) | One project-level charge, with council and supplier effort recorded as separate lines. | Include council and supplier effort separately. | Which of this effort is bought from suppliers and which is internal staff time? |
C02 | Site surveys and permissions (one_off) | One charge per affected site, including permissions and any civil works. | Include rural access listed buildings wayleaves and civil works where relevant. | Which sites have access or permission constraints, and who funds exceptional works? |
C03 | Appliances and spares (one_off) | One charge per site or device, purchased. Rental belongs in a recurring line. | Separate purchases from rental included in recurring charges. | Will the council buy or rent equipment, and how will it be capitalised? |
C04 | Licences (recurring_monthly) | Charge per licence or site, per month. | Check security and support inclusions to avoid double counting. | Does the licence include security and support, so nothing is counted twice? |
C05 | Primary access circuits (recurring_monthly) | Charge per circuit, per month, with bandwidth, site and contractual availability noted. | Record bandwidth site and contractual availability. | Are circuits billed monthly, quarterly or annually, and what is the minimum term? |
C06 | Backup access circuits (recurring_monthly) | Charge per backup circuit, per month. | Do not imply shared infrastructure is physically diverse. | Is each backup circuit physically diverse from its primary, and is that evidenced? |
C07 | Managed operations (recurring_monthly) | Charge per project or site, per month, covering monitoring, changes, support hours and fault ownership. | Align monitoring changes support hours and fault ownership. | Which operating model does this charge assume? |
C08 | Migration and installation (one_off) | Charge per wave or per site, split into standard installation, exceptional works and rollback effort. | Separate standard installation exceptional works and rollback effort. | Is rollback effort included in the quoted price? |
C09 | Dual running (overlap_monthly) | Incremental monthly charge for each overlapping service, for the actual overlap period only. | Use actual overlap period and only incremental costs not counted elsewhere. | What overlap period has the council actually assumed? |
C10 | Incumbent exit charges (one_off) | One charge per incumbent contract. | Do not add full old-service cost again if already in dual running. | Is any exit charge already included in dual running? |
C11 | Training and council staff time (one_off) | Hours or days of training and staff time, with cash spend and internal opportunity cost labelled separately. | Keep cash spend and internal opportunity cost separately labelled. | Does finance want internal staff time in the schedule or only in the business case? |
C12 | Power LAN and wireless dependencies (one_off) | One charge per affected site, limited to work the refresh needs. | Only include work required by the council refresh scope. | Who funds LAN, power or wireless work that benefits other projects? |
C13 | Ongoing support renewals (recurring_annual) | Annual charge per project or device. Check included licence support first. | Check included licence support before adding another charge. | Is support included in the licence charge, so nothing is counted twice? |
C14 | Reorganisation or estate changes (optional) | Charge per change, such as adding, removing, assigning or separating a site. | State additions removals assignment and separation assumptions. | Which estate changes does the council expect during the term? |
C15 | End of term exit assistance (one_off) | One charge per project for exports, transition and access removal. | Price exports transition and access removal. | Is end-of-term exit assistance priced now or at exit? |
C16 | Contingency (allowance) | A percentage or amount applied to a defined eligible subtotal. | Council finance chooses basis percentage and exclusions. | What percentage, basis and exclusions does finance want? |
Source references
Sources were re-opened on 21 October 2026 unless a note says otherwise. Sources not cited in the page copy are listed so the workbook and manuscript can be cross-checked.
ID | Title | Publisher | Published | Review basis | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S01 | Council network managed services procurement | Royal Borough of Greenwich | 1 October 2026 | Full page reviewed | https://greenwich.moderngov.co.uk/mgDecisionDetails.aspx?IId=7504&Opt=1 |
S02 | WAN infrastructure modernisation decision | London Borough of Enfield | 16 April 2026 | Full page reviewed | https://enfield.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=517 |
S03 | Provision of LAN and Wireless Networks | Contracts Finder and South Oxfordshire District Council | 20 December 2024 | Full page reviewed | https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/430ff243-60db-4b5b-8b02-0ec745ae1399 |
S04 | Gigabit Phase 3 WAN Solution decision | Adur and Worthing Councils | Search extract only | https://democracy.adur-worthing.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=1459 | |
S05 | SD WAN Solution notice 081392 2025 | Find a Tender and East Riding of Yorkshire Council | Search extract only | https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/081392-2025/PDF | |
S06 | Network Services 3 RM6116 | Government Commercial Agency | Full page reviewed | ||
S07 | Devolved Contracting Authorities guidance | Cabinet Office | 15 April 2026 | Full page reviewed | |
S08 | Preliminary Market Engagement guidance | Cabinet Office | 13 July 2026 | Full page reviewed | |
S09 | Procurement Act guidance collection | Welsh Government | Full page reviewed | https://www.gov.wales/procurement-act-2023-guidance-documents | |
S10 | Scottish procurement policy handbook | Scottish Government | Search result reviewed | https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-procurement-policy-handbook/ | |
S11 | Public Services Network compliance | Cabinet Office | Full page reviewed | https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-services-network-psn-compliance | |
S12 | CAF for local government | MHCLG Local Digital | Full page reviewed | https://www.localdigital.gov.uk/cyber/cyber-assessment-framework-for-local-government/ | |
S13 | Local government CAF plans for 2026 | MHCLG Local Digital | 14 January 2026 | Full page reviewed | |
S14 | Reorganisation cyber digital data and technology considerations | Local Government Association | 6 May 2025 | Full page reviewed | |
S15 | When do we need to do a DPIA | Information Commissioners Office | Full page reviewed | ||
S16 | Moving landlines to digital technologies | DSIT | 28 May 2025 | Full page reviewed | https://www.gov.uk/guidance/moving-landlines-to-digital-technologies |
S17 | Telecare and digital switchover guidance for housing providers | DHSC | 8 October 2026 | Full page reviewed | |
S18 (not cited) | Public sector website accessibility requirements | Government Digital Service | Full page reviewed | https://www.gov.uk/guidance/accessibility-requirements-for-public-sector-websites-and-apps | |
S19 | Current Netify RFP builder | Netify | Full page reviewed | ||
S20 (not cited) | Netify Market Record | Netify | Full page reviewed | ||
S21 (not cited) | How the Netify marketplace works | Netify | Full page reviewed | ||
S22 | UK public sector provider comparison | Netify | Full page reviewed | https://netify.co.uk/sase/best/sd-wan-sase-providers-for-uk-public-sector/ | |
S23 | SASE and SD-WAN contract terms | Netify | Inventory reference only | ||
S24 | Wide Area Network (WAN) Connectivity tender notice 082060-2025 | East Riding of Yorkshire Council (Find a Tender) | 11 December 2025 | Full page reviewed | |
S25 (not cited) | Supply and maintenance of an SD WAN Solution planned procurement notice 069198-2025 | East Riding of Yorkshire Council (Find a Tender) | 29 October 2025 | Full page reviewed | |
S26 | Software Defined Wide Area Network (SD Wan) Connectivity Procurement, Council report C/6/25-26 | Cheshire East Council | 14 May 2025 | Full page reviewed | https://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk/documents/s124405/Report.pdf |
S27 | Northern Ireland Councils Network Services contract notice 009419-2022 | Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council and nine partner councils (Find a Tender) | 7 April 2022 | Full page reviewed | |
S28 (not cited) | Northern Ireland Councils Network Services change notice 014671-2022 | Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council and nine partner councils (Find a Tender) | 25 May 2022 | Full page reviewed | |
S29 | The Highland Council and BT sign multi-year network services agreement | The Highland Council | 24 October 2023 | Full page reviewed | |
S30 (not cited) | Public Sector Broadband Aggregation (PSBA) 3 preliminary market engagement notice | Welsh Government (Find a Tender) | 11 June 2025 | Full page reviewed | |
S31 (not cited) | eir evo signs 7m contract with NI local councils | fibreprovider.net (trade press reporting a supplier announcement) | 10 January 2023 | Full page reviewed | https://fibreprovider.net/news/eir-evo-signs-ps7m-contract-ni-local-councils |
S32 | Software-Defined Wide Area Network (SD WAN) contract award notice 047572-2025 | Cheshire East Council (Find a Tender) | 11 August 2025 | Full page reviewed | |
S33 (not cited) | Core Infrastructure and Wired/Wireless Networking dynamic purchasing system notice 024646-2024 | Caerphilly County Borough Council with Welsh Government and the 22 Welsh local authorities (Find a Tender) | 6 August 2024 | Full page reviewed | |
S34 (not cited) | Public Sector Broadband Aggregation (PSBA) 3 preliminary market engagement notice 031685-2025 (earlier version) | Welsh Government (Find a Tender) | 11 June 2025 | Full page reviewed | |
S35 (not cited) | Commercial, contract and supplier considerations during reorganisation | Local Digital | 15 October 2026 | Full page reviewed | |
S36 | SD WAN Solution contract award notice 056210-2026 | East Riding of Yorkshire Council (Find a Tender) | 15 June 2026 | Full page reviewed | |
S37 | Wide Area Network (WAN) Connectivity contract award notice 056223-2026 | East Riding of Yorkshire Council (Find a Tender) | 15 June 2026 | Full page reviewed |
Outstanding questions
Ref | Owner | Area | Question | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
OQ01 | Robert | Product | Which parts of the planner (inputs, live outputs, printable outputs) will exist at launch? The copy is written as a step-by-step planner with live outputs and printable versions. | Open |
OQ02 | Robert | Product | What exactly carries forward from the planner into the RFP builder? The page says the builder has no council-specific pack or confirmed prefill. M13 uses a copy-and-paste fallback and does not promise prefill. | Open |
OQ03 | Robert | Product | What is the real destination and workflow for the optional supplier-response step, and is the button wording Discuss supplier responses for my council refresh acceptable? The copy is marked [ROBERT TO CONFIRM] and should not go live until confirmed. | Open |
OQ04 | Robert | Conflict | On 21 Oct 2026 the live Netify board page is headed as a live marketplace, says 18 opportunities are genuinely open and lists recently closed and awarded notices. The brief says it presents a Market Record with no approved outcome records. The manuscript makes no claim about the board either way. | Open |
OQ05 | Robert | Conflict | The how-it-works page describes a private project with work-email sign-in and does not mention downloads, whereas the RFP builder says no account or publication is needed to download a draft. Copy follows the RFP builder only. | Open |
OQ06 | Robert | Disclosure | Confirm Netify's approved supplier fee disclosure wording. M14 uses the RFP builder line Suppliers pay Netify when an introduction leads to business, which does not affect how providers are ordered. | Open |
OQ07 | Robert | Question bank | Map Q01 to Q32 to the governed bank (T10). No live question IDs were invented. Harry proposes applicability conditions, early engagement or priced RFP labels and response formats, and tightened wording on 10 rows (apostrophes only). | Open |
OQ08 | Robert | Publication | Confirm the final public title and address (/insights/council-sd-wan-refresh/). The M01 heading in Page modules was changed from SD WAN to SD-WAN for consistency with the H1. | Open |
OQ09 | Harry | Evidence | Enfield's own decision page could not be re-opened (the council site blocks automated fetching). Manuscript wording is limited to the brief's description. Open it in a browser and confirm the decision date (workbook shows 16 April for the source and 17 April for the case), decision maker, term and route. A third-party mirror of the record was glanced at but is not used or cited. | Closed. Unable to source. Enfield's decision page blocks automated access. Wording stays at the brief's description and the case is marked for a manual check by the council or a browser review before publication |
OQ10 | Harry | Evidence | The listed Network Services 3 URL is blocked to automated fetching and redirects to https://www.gca.gov.uk/agreements/RM6116, where the content was verified. Consider replacing the source URL with the gca.gov.uk address. | Open |
OQ11 | Harry | Evidence gap | Reviewed research found no Welsh council WAN or SD-WAN decision or award. Two Welsh items were added as context only. Caerphilly's joint dynamic purchasing system notice (S33) covers all 22 authorities for broad networking and Welsh Government's PSBA 3 planning notice (S34) is an estimate. The research also reports that Bridgend's schools strategy says its schools use PSBA, but that is not a procurement record and we have not opened it. Result, 7 verified council records across England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and a Wales gap that still needs a council award or call-off record. | Closed. Unable to source a Welsh council WAN or SD-WAN award or decision. Wales is recorded as an evidence gap |
OQ12 | Harry | Evidence | For the ten Northern Ireland councils no council award notice has been found on Find a Tender (the 2022 contract notice and change notice link to nothing newer). The award is reported only in supplier-attributed trade press (S31), so CASE07 stays at contract notice stage. Check eTendersNI directly. | Closed. Unable to source a council award notice. CASE07 stays at contract notice stage and no award claim is made |
OQ13 | Harry | Evidence | The Adur and Worthing decision page, rechecked on 21 Oct 2026, still shows status For Determination with call-in, effective from 7 Oct 2026. It doesn't say whether the call-in period passed, so implementation and signature are not claimed. Confirm with the council. The page does not describe a shared-service arrangement, so it is not used as the shared-service case. | Closed. Unable to source confirmation of the call-in outcome or signature. The page still shows For Determination, so no implementation claim is made |
OQ14 | Harry | Evidence | East Riding's award notices are verified (S36, S37), with the supplier and value for each. The tender notice 081392-2025 still shows two deadlines, 23 Jan 2026 in the structured field and 9 Jan 2026 in the procedure text, and the notice gives no reason for the edit, so both are reported. Delivery is not verified. | Closed. Award notices verified (S36, S37). Deadline conflict in the tender notice is reported as shown, with no reason given |
OQ15 | Harry | Evidence | Cheshire East's award notice 047572-2025 (S32) is verified, Virgin Media Ltd, GBP900,408 excluding VAT, concluded 7 Aug 2025. Still unverified, whether the Capita contract was extended beyond 3 Feb 2026, the matching Cheshire West and Chester outcome and delivery. | Closed. Award verified (S32). Unable to source a Capita extension decision, the Cheshire West and Chester outcome or delivery, so none is claimed |
OQ16 | Harry | Evidence | The research read the LGA PDF only to printed page 27 and did not reach the novation passage. Contract transfer and novation points are cited to the separate Local Digital page (S35), not the LGA report. Open the full PDF before attributing network-specific points to it. | Closed. Unable to source the novation passage in the LGA PDF. Transfer and novation points are cited to the Local Digital page (S35) |
OQ17 | Harry | Recheck | Date-check immediately before handover. Network Services 3 lot dates, PSN page, CAF wording, telecare and landline guidance, the Welsh guidance page (it shows an update date of Aug 2025 but lists some guidance titles dated Sept 2026) and the later PSBA3 notice version dated 16 June 2026. | Open. Next review recommended 1 month before publication |
OQ18 | Finance and Harry | Cost | No defensible published unit rate was found. Published figures are single contract values (Adur and Worthing decision, Cheshire East and East Riding award notices), a procurement estimate (Northern Ireland councils), a broad service envelope (Greenwich) and a national aggregation estimate (PSBA3). All rate fields are left blank. | Closed. No action unless a quote is supplied |
OQ19 | Robert | Product | Does the planner store answers, keep them in-session only, or save to a project? M01 says only that the plan is a private draft and that nothing is published or sent to suppliers without approval. | Open |
OQ20 | Robert | Structure | Where should the Illustrative council scenario sit? It is currently written as a separate section reached from the See what my plan will include button. | Open |
OQ21 | Robert | Accessibility | The planner copy follows the no colour-only warnings rule and avoids forced time limits. Netify is not a public body, so no accessibility compliance claim is made. Confirm the build meets WCAG 2.2 AA as an aim. | Open |
OQ22 | Harry | Citations | The brief lists S02 against M11 and S20 and S21 against M14. No sentence in the copy relies on them. Propose removing those three links or giving them a supporting claim. | Open |
OQ23 | Robert | Scenario | Confirm the optional scope-sensitive additions Q08 and Q11 for the worked example, and whether the changed-input examples should appear on the page or only in the manuscript. | Open |