1. Home
  2. DPS marketplace

Clarifications

There are 87 clarifications for this DPS

The language in the DPS Core Terms v1.0.1 clause 11.5 "In spite of Clauses 11.1 and 11.2, the Supplier does not limit or exclude its liability for any indemnity given under Clauses 7.5, 8.3, 9.5, 12.2 or 14.9 or Order Schedule 2 (Staff Transfer) of a Contract." references a clause 14.9 that does not exist in the document. We note that in the Appointment Form v1 Special Terms 2 the Core Terms Clause 11.5 is replaced with "In spite of Clauses 11.1 and 11.2, the Supplier does not limit or exclude its liability for any indemnity given under Clauses 7.5, 8.3, 9.5, or 12.2 or Call-Off Schedule 2 (Staff Transfer) of a Contract. In spite of Clauses 11.1, 11.2 but subject to Clauses 11.3 and 11.4, the Supplier's aggregate liability in each and any Contract Year under each Contract under Clause 14.8 shall in no event exceed £10 million." Could the Authority please confirm that the language in the DPS Core terms referencing clause 14.9 is incorrect and should be disregarded in favour of clause 14.8 as included in Appointment Form v1 Special Terms 2?
Special Term 2 has precedence over the DPS Core Terms and in this case replaces Clause 11.5 of the DPS Core Terms. Any and all text at DPS Core Terms Clause 11.5 is replaced with the text within Special Term 2 including any and all references to other clauses.
Answered
26/02/2021 15:35
Please can the following policies as mentioned in the following sections of the "DPS Order Schedule 9 - Security" be provided. a) Security policy b) ICT Policy These artifacts are referenced within the schedule below; Under Page 2 of the "Order Schedule 9 - Security" 2. Complying with security requirements and updates to them - This section makes reference to a "Security Policy". But we have not been provided with the Security Policy to review. 2.2 The Supplier shall comply with the requirements in this Schedule in respect of the Security Management Plan. Where specified by a Buyer that has undertaken a Further Competition it shall also comply with the Security Policy and shall ensure that the Security Management Plan produced by the Supplier fully complies with the Security Policy In addition, Under Section 3 - Security Standards - There is reference to both the "Security Policy" and "ICT Policy". 3.2 The Supplier shall be responsible for the effective performance of its security obligations and shall at all times provide a level of security which: 3.2.1 is in accordance with the Law and this Contract; 3.2.2 as a minimum demonstrates Good Industry Practice; 3.2.3 meets any specific security threats of immediate relevance to the Deliverables and/or the Government Data; and 3.2.4 where specified by the Buyer in accordance with paragraph 2.2 complies with the Security Policy and the ICT Policy.
Dear Bidder, Crown Commercial Service does not have a specific generic security policy for suppliers to adhere too for the Automation DPS agreements. All suppliers are expected to have a robust internal security policy and ICT policy that is enforceable within your organisation and with key contractors that demonstrates good industry practice as a minimum. You as the supplier must be able to present and show evidence of your (the Suppliers) security policy to the buyer if required and comply with the buyers own security policy and ICT requirements that are mandatory for the procurement of the service expected. This is outlined within the Automation Bid Pack RM6173 Buyer Needs document section 2.6 Security it states that The Supplier shall be required to have their own security operating procedures that shall be made available to Buyer. The Supplier shall ensure appropriate security Standards, controls and measures in place such as access to premises. The Supplier shall ensure that any suspected or actual security breaches are reported to the Buyer representative immediately. The Supplier shall provide details of their personnel security procedures and upon request provide details of all personnel that they intend to use in the delivery of the Services. In addition to this Policy in Order Schedule 9 (Security) Part B: Long Form Security Requirement section 3 obliges the supplier to implement an Information Security Management System (ISMS) in addition to the requirements of the short-term form option, in line with the industry specific standards and formal government guidelines determined by the security policy framework tiers 1 - 4. This can be found via the hyperlink within Section 3.4.3 (e) This policy is outlined fully in Part B: Long Form Security Requirements. Section 3 Information Security Management System (ISMS)
Answered
24/02/2021 13:16
Can the Authority please provide further clarification regarding the DPS Special Terms contained in the Appointment Form. The Special Term 2 refers to changes to clause 11.5 of the Core Terms and includes 2 versions - please confirm which should apply; 1) 11.5 In spite of Clauses 11.1 and 11.2, the Supplier does not limit or exclude its liability for any indemnity given under Clauses 7.5, 8.3, 9.5, or 12.2 or 14.8 or Call-Off Schedule 2 (Staff Transfer) of a Contract OR 2) In spite of Clauses 11.1, 11.2 but subject to Clauses 11.3 and 11.4, the Supplier's aggregate liability in each and any Contract Year under each Contract under Clause 14.8 shall in no event exceed £10 million.
Clause 11.5 in the Special Terms section of the DPS Appointment Form currently reads: "11.5 In spite of Clauses 11.1 and 11.2, the Supplier does not limit or exclude its liability for any indemnity given under Clauses 7.5, 8.3, 9.5, or 12.2 or Call-Off Schedule 2 (Staff Transfer) of a Contract. In spite of Clauses 11.1, 11.2 but subject to Clauses 11.3 and 11.4, the Supplier's aggregate liability in each and any Contract Year under each Contract under Clause 14.8 shall in no event exceed £10 million". Both sentences under clause 11.5 stand and liability under 14.8 is addressed by the second sentence.
Answered
15/12/2020 14:35
We would like to confirm, upon completion of this application process, whether there is an obligation to either bid upon, or accept contracts which are released through the DPS once it has gone live? Many thanks
According to DPS Schedule 4 (DPS Management) - Section 3.5 "Suppliers should participate in further competitions when identified by appropriate filters using the Platform. A repeated failure to bid on further competitions without an acceptable reason may result in the Supplier being suspended from the DPS, in accordance with Clause 10.8 (Partially ending and suspending the contract), for a period as decided by CCS.
Answered
15/12/2020 14:31
Can you please confirm what the Management Levy is and how it's calculated for the Automation Marketplace DPS?
The management levy for the Automation Marketplace DPS is 1%.
Answered
01/12/2020 12:45
Hello, Can all of the clarification questions to date be provided in either Word or Excel format, so they can be easily viewed by other members of the business who not have access to website?
The clarification questions and responses are publically available once published to the Supplier Registration Service.
Answered
01/12/2020 12:44
We have been appointed to this DPS- How we will be notified of opportunities/invitations to tender etc? Will we be alerted via the CCS e sourcing suite?
Dear Bidder, CCS can confirm that notification of further competition will be issued directly by the buying organisation via email. The buying organisation may choose to use the CCS esourcing suite, however can use their own e-tender system.
Answered
29/09/2020 16:44
Can you please provide an update on the clarification questions below, which were raised on May 22nd; 1. Third party rights. Under clause 19, third party rights are excluded under each Contract "unless stated (referring to CRTPA)". A number of the provisions in the Core Terms and certain Schedules are in favour of CCS and the Buyer and relate to the Goods and Services being provided under the Order Contact. We assume that this is not intended to give the Buyer the ability to make a claim under the DPS Contract - or CCS the ability to make a claim under the Order Contract - given that these provisions do not refer to CRTPA (with the exception of the guarantee - see below our comments in relation to Joint Schedule 8) and there are no provisions dealing with double recovery. Can you please confirm that our understanding is correct? Can you also please confirm that the Buyer can agree changes with the Supplier under the Order Contract without the express consent of CCS. If our understanding above is not correct and there are effectively two rights of recovery in some cases (i.e. the Buyer and CCS can pursue the Supplier under both the Order Contract and the DPS Contract), then can you please advise on the following: i) Where CCS make a claim under the Order Contract, can you please confirm that the terms of the Order Contract would be as agreed between the Buyer and the Supplier, that the Supplier's aggregate liability to both parties will be the lability that it has in clause 11 in respect of the Order Contract and that in line with general legal principles there can be no double recovery (whether under the Order Contract and/or the DPS Contract); and (ii) Where the Buyer has agreed changes to the terms in the Order Contract and the Buyer makes a claim under the DPS Contract, it would appear that the Buyer can potentially pursue the Supplier on the basis of the unamended terms. We assume that this cannot have been the intention, and that this supports the case that the Buyer can only make a claim under the Order Contract. Please confirm that our understanding is correct. If our understanding is not correct and the Buyer could pursue the Supplier on the basis of the unamended terms under the DPS Contract, please confirm that the Supplier's aggregate liability to both parties shall be the lability that it has in clause 11 in respect of the DPS Contract and that in line with general legal principles there can be no double recovery (whether under the DPS Contract and/or the Order Contract). Finally, whilst not specifically relating to third party rights, but a on a related point, where the Buyer has agreed changes to the terms in the Order Contract, can CCS make a claim under the DPS Contract on the basis of the unamended terms? As noted above, a number of the provisions cover the provision of the Goods and Services and this would appear to give CCS the ability to make a claim under the DPS Contract in relation to the Supplier's failure to deliver Goods / Services to a particular Buyer (see e.g. clause 3.1.1). We assume that this is not the intention and that CCS should only pursue the Supplier under the DPS Contract where the Supplier has failed to comply with an obligation affecting CCS. If this is not correct and CCS could make such a claim under the DPS Contract in relation to the Supplier's failure to deliver Goods / Services to a particular Buyer, then we assume that the Supplier's liability to both parties would still be capped in line with the liability cap under clause 11.1 of the DPS Contract. Please confirm that this is the case. However, is it intended that the Buyer's losses would be recoverable under the DPS Contract by CCS pursuant to clause 11.3? Further, certain of the indemnities are unlimited and not subject to the carve out in clause 11.3, this could result in the situation where CCS could pursue the Supplier on an unlimited basis in respect of a obligation / event where the Buyer had agreed a different approach (e.g. the Buyer could agrees to change the definition of an IPR Claim for the purposes of clause 9.5). Again, this does not appear to be equitable and so we assume that this was not the intention and supports the position that CCS cannot make a claim under the DPS Contract in respect of losses suffered by a Buyer (which should rightly be recoverable under the Buyer Contract). We would appreciate it if you could confirm that this is the case. 2. Guarantee Can you please confirm what criteria will be used to determine whether or not a DPS Guarantee will be required for the DPS Contract pursuant to Joint Schedule 8? Under Joint Schedule 8 "DPS Guarantee" means a deed of guarantee in favour of CCS and all Buyers..." . Can you please explain why this definition refers to all Buyers. Each Buyer is able to require an Order Guarantee. This definition suggests that, where a DPS Guarantee is required, the Supplier is effectively giving a guarantee in respect of all future Buyers. Is that the intention? The same issue arises in relation to the definition of "Beneficiary(s)". Para 2.4 of Joint Schedule 8 states that notwithstanding Clause 19 (Other people's rights in this contract), this Schedule (Guarantee) is intended to confer benefits on Buyers and is intended to be enforceable by Buyers by virtue of the CRTPA." The template guarantee also recognises the third party rights of the Beneficiary. The Schedule requires the Supplier to provide a DPS Guarantee (where required by CCS) and an Order Guarantee (where required by the Buyer) and the Schedule is common to both the DPS Contract and the Order Contract. As such, on the face of it, no third party rights are required. Is the intention here to allow all Buyers to pursue the DPS Guarantor under the DPS Guarantee (even although the Buyer can elect to put in place an Order Guarantee)? If that were to be the case, the same issues that we flagged in relation to Clause 19 would arise (namely (i) the Buyer will be able to pursue the DPS Guarantor in respect of the unamended terms of the DPS Contract, in circumstances where the Buyer has agreed changes to the terms with the Supplier in respect of their Order Contract; (ii) there are no provisions dealing with double recovery; and (iii) there are no provisions making clear that the Supplier's aggregate liability to CCS and All Buyers shall be no more than it would have been under the DPS Contract). We note that paragraph 3 in Joint Schedule 8 is numbered paragraph 2. We assume that this is an error. Regards
A response has now been provided.
Answered
14/07/2020 15:00
Under clause 19 of the Core Terms, third party rights are excluded under each Contract "unless stated (referring to CRTPA)". A number of the provisions in the Core Terms and certain Schedules are in favour of CCS and the Buyer and relate to the Goods and Services being provided under the Order Contact. We assume that this is not intended to give the Buyer the ability to make a claim under the DPS Contract - or CCS the ability to make a claim under the Order Contract - given that these provisions do not refer to CRTPA (with the exception of the guarantee - see below our comments in relation to Joint Schedule 8) and there are no provisions dealing with double recovery. Can you please confirm that our understanding is correct? Can you also please confirm that the Buyer can agree changes with the Supplier under the Order Contract without the express consent of CCS. If our understanding above is not correct and there are effectively two rights of recovery in some cases (i.e. the Buyer and CCS can pursue the Supplier under both the Order Contract and the DPS Contract), then can you please advise on the following: i) Where CCS make a claim under the Order Contract, can you please confirm that the terms of the Order Contract would be as agreed between the Buyer and the Supplier, that the Supplier's aggregate liability to both parties will be the lability that it has in clause 11 in respect of the Order Contract and that in line with general legal principles there can be no double recovery (whether under the Order Contract and/or the DPS Contract); and (ii) Where the Buyer has agreed changes to the terms in the Order Contract and the Buyer makes a claim under the DPS Contract, it would appear that the Buyer can potentially pursue the Supplier on the basis of the unamended terms. We assume that this cannot have been the intention, and that this supports the case that the Buyer can only make a claim under the Order Contract. Please confirm that our understanding is correct. If our understanding is not correct and the Buyer could pursue the Supplier on the basis of the unamended terms under the DPS Contract, please confirm that the Supplier's aggregate liability to both parties shall be the lability that it has in clause 11 in respect of the DPS Contract and that in line with general legal principles there can be no double recovery (whether under the DPS Contract and/or the Order Contract). Finally, whilst not specifically relating to third party rights, but a on a related point, where the Buyer has agreed changes to the terms in the Order Contract, can CCS make a claim under the DPS Contract on the basis of the unamended terms? As noted above, a number of the provisions cover the provision of the Goods and Services and this would appear to give CCS the ability to make a claim under the DPS Contract in relation to the Supplier's failure to deliver Goods / Services to a particular Buyer (see e.g. clause 3.1.1). We assume that this is not the intention and that CCS should only pursue the Supplier under the DPS Contract where the Supplier has failed to comply with an obligation affecting CCS. If this is not correct and CCS could make such a claim under the DPS Contract in relation to the Supplier's failure to deliver Goods / Services to a particular Buyer, then we assume that the Supplier's liability to both parties would still be capped in line with the liability cap under clause 11.1 of the DPS Contract. Please confirm that this is the case. However, is it intended that the Buyer's losses would be recoverable under the DPS Contract by CCS pursuant to clause 11.3? Further, certain of the indemnities are unlimited and not subject to the carve out in clause 11.3, this could result in the situation where CCS could pursue the Supplier on an unlimited basis in respect of a obligation / event where the Buyer had agreed a different approach (e.g. the Buyer could agrees to change the definition of an IPR Claim for the purposes of clause 9.5). Again, this does not appear to be equitable and so we assume that this was not the intention and supports the position that CCS cannot make a claim under the DPS Contract in respect of losses suffered by a Buyer (which should rightly be recoverable under the Buyer Contract). We would appreciate it if you could confirm that this is the case.
Paragraph 19 states "No third parties may use the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act (CRTPA) to enforce any term of the Contract unless stated (referring to CRTPA) in the Contract". I can confirm that there will be no double recovery. The DPS Contract is between CCS and the Supplier. The Order Contract is between the Contracting Authority (Buyer) and the Supplier. If CCS had the right to claim damages under the Order Contract, this would be explicitly called off in the DPS terms. In the event the Supplier were to fail to deliver services, CCS may terminate the DPS Contract and/or prevent the Supplier from providing services in future under that DPS, to ensure we are not exposing our customers to undue financial risk. It would be explicitly expressed in the Contract if CCS intended on charging for failure to deliver services.
Answered
14/07/2020 14:56
We refer to Joint Schedule 7 (Financial Difficulties), clause 3.3 - We wouldn't be able to provide requested information externally based on unpublished results as we are part of a listed Group. We only can provide an audited and published data. Can you confirm that this would be acceptable?
If CCS becomes aware and starts to have concerns of changes to a Supplier's credit rating, we will engage with the Supplier and attempt to gain as much information as possible to evaluate the situation. CCS are aware that listed company stocks are traded based on financial information and that a company cannot risk that information getting out. We realise these limitations and are always happy to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA). CCS monitors the Supplier's financial health to be able to effectively make decisions, to ensure we don't expose our customers to undue financial risk and to ensure the delivery of public services aren't impacted. In the event there are reasonable concerns and a Supplier is unable to share financial information to alleviate the concern, CCS will need to take action. The less detailed information a Supplier is able to provide will have an adverse effect on the risk assessment of that Supplier and it would likely result in CCS putting other measures in place, or potentially suspending the Supplier from the agreement. CCS will always review what information the Supplier is happy to share, will treat each case in isolation and will come to agreement of what is acceptable. It is for you the Supplier to weigh the risks and determine if providing audited and published data will be sufficient for you to provide if CCS were required to gain access to financial information.
Answered
14/07/2020 14:54
We refer to Joint Schedule 7 (Financial Difficulties), all the notification requirements seems onerous and not always possible to comply, especially clause 4.3.1 requesting meeting within 3 Working Days. We would suggest notification requirements of 30 days.
A meeting within 3 working days may be requested by CCS where CCS reasonably believes that the Financial Distress Event could impact the continued performance of each Contract and delivery of the Deliverables in accordance with each Call-Off Contract and will not be requested if your credit rating is still good (see Paragraph 6).
Answered
14/07/2020 14:51
We refer to Joint Schedule 7 (Financial Difficulties), Part f of the Financial Distress definition bullet iv - cancellation or suspension of indebtedness - how do things like suspension of VAT payments under COVID19 fit into this - would that be a trigger?
The basic premise of this schedule is to give CCS contractual rights to identify and manage financial distress in order to mitigate risk exposure of customer departments using the commercial agreements. The cancellation or suspension of indebtedness is primarily concerned with a company either entering into administration or a voluntary arrangement. Covid specific measures such as suspension of VAT payments would not automatically be considered as a signal of financial distress. However, as part of ongoing financial due diligence any change in financial position will be reviewed with consideration of particular circumstances a suitable action taken. In relation to the ongoing Covid-19 situation, we would expect all Customers to behave in compliance with the relevenat PPNs especially with regards to Financial matters. As per the PPNs we would anticipate Customers utulising alternative methods of resolution, before relying on the clauses of the Contract.
Answered
14/07/2020 14:49
We refer to Joint Schedule 7 (Financial Difficulties), part (f) of the Financial Distress definition. The clause refers to "financial indebtedness" but does not define it, nor does it indicate any level of materiality. Would it mean that even £200 would be a trigger? Is there expectation to start discussion with CCS on any such occasion? Could we have a more pragmatic approach and apply any definition of "financial indebtedness" and a level of materiality?
Paragraph 1, part (f) of Joint Schedule 7 (Financial Difficulties) is left intentionally vague to cover lots of events. CCS does not have a hard and fast rule, which allows us to move and flex to protect frontline services and also help protect suppliers. Each case is measured on its own merits, taking many points into consideration, including but not limited to; the risk appetite of an agreement, what is being procured, value of contract, current financial health of a company and how the debt compares to the company's current financial health. CCS do not have a set point to determine risk and instead use a 'gearing ratio'. This is intentional, as CCS do not want to disadvantage Start Up companies who would likely be highly geared and yet this wouldn't put them in financial distress. CCS therefore monitors movements of financial indebtedness to ensure the financial health of a Supplier does not have impact on frontline services and also enable suppliers to deliver their service offerings.
Answered
14/07/2020 14:48
We refer to Joint Schedule 7 (Financial Difficulties) - Annex 2 together with "Credit Rating" definition and "Financial Distress Event" definition, bullet a). As per Annex we should use the "Failure Rating" - we have assumed that to be the failure score, which is a score out of 100 to measure how likely a business is to fail in the next 12 months and gives us the "risk indicator" part of our credit rating. Our current failure score is 97. A 10% fall would take us to 87 - which would still give us a risk indicator of 1 (failure score in the range of 86-100)- the best a company can have - it certainly wouldn't indicate any type of distress, but under current definition it would be. It means that we would need to go into conversation even being in the best score possible, which isn't really pragmatic. Therefore we suggest to use less sensitive measure, like a drop of two or more levels in our credit rating, which would be a more pragmatic approach. Could you consider amending Annex 2 and use "Credit Rating" instead of "Failure Rating" and the threshold being to fall by two levels?
Joint Schedule 7 is a core schedule in the standard Public Sector Contracts. Its purpose is to trigger a conversation, to ensure a business's financial standing is okay. As part of our Supplier Relationship Management we will carry out a reasonableness test, to assess how likely a business is to fail; for example, is a fall in the rating an ongoing trend over the period of one year or a quarter? A Supplier will not be automatically terminated from the framework if a credit rating falls by 10%. If a Supplier's credit rating were to fall by 10% over the period of a year, this would not raise significant alarm. If a Supplier's credit rating were to fall by 10% over a two week period, this would raise concern. The Schedule governs all suppliers under the agreement, therefore the Failure Rating must cover the minimum credit threshold a supplier would need to meet to deliver work under this agreement. This allows CCS to monitor Supplier's financial performance. A Failure Rating of 10% resulting in a Financial Score of 87 would not cause alarm, whereas a Failure Rating of 10% resulting in a Financial Score below the relevant Credit Rating Threshold would. Suppliers should notify CCS in case of Financial Distress in writing and a Continuity plan will be requested where CCS reasonably believes this event could impact on the continued performance of Suppliers obligations under each Call-Off Contract. Paragraph 6 of Joint Schedule 7 states that if a Supplier's credit rating does not drop below the relevant Credit Rating Threshold, then the Supplier shall be relieved of its obligations under Paragraphs 4.3 to 4.6 and CCS is not entitled to require financial information in accordance with Paragraph 4.3.2.
Answered
14/07/2020 14:44
Hello, Within the webinar I asked the question whether we can amend the services we have stated we can provide now that we are already on the DPS. Please could you advise if this is possible, and if so, how to do this?
Yes, suppliers are able to amend their service offerings and add services, as long as they fall under the scope of the existing filters and sub filters under the DPS. You can update your service offerings, contact details and other procurement specific questions. Once you do this, your application will go back into Registration 2. You will then need to resubmit with your revised responses and your application will go into assessing. The Procurement Assurance Governance team will then re-appoint you after looking at what has been updated, to ensure all is still in order.
Answered
14/07/2020 14:42
Can CCS please confirm that a Parent Company Guarantee is not required to accept a place on the DPS?
Confirmation of a Parent Company Guarantee is not a requirement to be accepted to the DPS, however, if the Financial Threshold is not met then Guarantor information may be requested. Please refer to the section 'Economic and Financial Standing' in the DPS Needs document within the Bid Pack,
Answered
10/07/2020 13:19
In the evidence questionnaire: Please can you clarify what is needed for q179/q180? Our understanding is that you want the contracts for our 3 given references in the previous stage. Is this correct? Re. q182 - 185, are these questions not covered by q166 with the audited accounts attachment?
Please refer to the RM6173 Automation Marketplace DPS Needs document held within the Bid Pack. Section 72. Selection Questionnaire - Not Applicable questions: There are questions in the Selection Questionnaire that are not applicable for this RM6173 Automation Marketplace procurement, therefore please note, a response is NOT required.
Answered
07/07/2020 13:28
the selection questionnaire will not allow you to proceed if you do not insert a response on those you state are Not Applicable - can you confirm how we proceed to complete if the system wont allow?
Please refer to the RM6173 DPS Needs document which can be found in the bid pack. There are questions which are not applicable to this DPS. Please check your previous response to questions as, in many cases, this determines what questions become visible. Questions 133, 134 and 135 should not be answered as a contract example is not required for this DPS. If you do continue to experience difficulties with your application my colleagues at NQC will be able to assist you, their contact information is held at the foot of the Supplier Registration Service home page.
Answered
25/06/2020 11:31
Can you provide further information as to what a relevant example contract would be, are you looking for examples of where we have done similar automation work before?
Query 1: Section 72 of the DPS Needs document (part of the Bid Pack) states Q133 - Q135 are not required for this DPS. However, a response is required for Q137.
Answered
22/06/2020 13:06
In looking through the criteria and requirements I notice several elements that would be incredibly onerous for a small business (e.g. 5-10 employees) to meet, despite potential alignment of their service with the needs of the marketplace, to comply. Specifically, for example I note the requirement of Cyber Essentials and several ISO standards which, we a small business can meet, but will take a long time to get into place. Is there advice, guidance or specific arrangements for small enterprises considering this marketplace?
To ensure that all bidders are treated fairly and equally, all bidders must meet the minimum requirements for the procurement of which Cyber Essentials is one of those. Information relating to Cyber Essentials can be found in Schedule 9 Cyber Essentials Scheme of the terms and conditions. Within Schedule 9, paragraph 1.1, there is a link to find further information on the Cyber Essentials Scheme as needed.
Answered
22/06/2020 11:56
Your session will end in less than two minutes unless we detect activity in your browser