Clarifications

39. Good afternoon: We see that there is no "use of information" waiver / disclaimer within the Lease documentation: If we access this framework, under GDPR, as we are processing customer data, including details of those signing the agreement, our compliance department have taken advice and their view is that a clause of this type ought to be included: Can the documents be amended to include such a clause? We can provide draft wording if required.

38. Good afternoon: I see that Core Terms / Clause 23.2, The Relevant Authority can assign, novate or transfer its Contract or any part of it to any Crown Body, public or private sector body which performs the functions of the Relevant Authority. However, there is a Default clause within the Lease contract "If Lessee ceases to be a Public Body". Can i ask which of these will prevail please? Look forward to hearing from you

37. Good morning - re" "Other Contracting Authorities" (any actual or potential Buyer under the DPS Framework) must be told about the DPS Framework by the Supplier before the Supplier accepts a non DPS order from them" - all business in this sector emanates via intermediaries (i.e. mandated lease advisors) - in effect we are one step removed - How is the CCS suggested that this is requirement is adhered to?

36. Good afternoon: The Framework Lease documentation is somewhat more onerous that industry standard: As I understand Lessors are required to complete this and send to the Lessee on award. As such I have 2 questions please: Do you have an example of (all) competed documentation that you would expect to be sent to a Lessee by a Lessor you could share? Are CCS involved in documentation origination and signing process?

35. Good afternoon: Looking through the documents issued, its appears you require a number of "reports" from Lessors who access the framework. Would you be so kind as summarise your requirements please (i.e what and when?), so I understand resource implications. Many thanks.

33. Good morning, If we use two companies to write our asset finance business (1 the main UK holding company to write loans and HP; and 2 a wholly owned subsidiary to write finance leases and operating leases) do both companies need to complete the SSQ?

32. Clause 23.4 in the Core Terms provides that the Supplier can terminate a Contract which has been novated to a private sector body if an Insolvency Event occurs. However, the HP, Finance Lease, Operating Lease and Loan Terms do not oblige the Buyer to pay a Termination Sum in this situation. Is this an oversight? We would certainly expect a termination sum to become payable in such circumstances. Additionally, the Buyer can terminate a Contract if a Variation cannot be agreed (cl. 24.3(b) in the Core Terms), or if there is any actual or potential conflict of interest (cl. 32.3 in the Core Terms). But again, there appears to be no obligation on the Buyer to pay a termination sum in such circumstances.

31. With regard to Order Schedule 28 (Loan Terms) we note that whilst "Default Rate" is defined it is not used elsewhere within the document. Is this an oversight? (We note default interest may be charged under the HP, Finance Lease and Operating Lease terms so why not under the Loan terms?)

30. Re Clause 23.2 of the Core Terms "The Relevant Authority can assign, novate or transfer its Contract or any part of it to any Central Government Body, public or private sector body which performs the functions of the Relevant Authority." Has the CCS considered the effect to Lessors of the clause insofar as the Lessee has the ability to assign a contract to an entity which may be of far lesser credit standing and rating? In effect on day 2 of a contract, a Lessor could be forced to Novate a contract to a sub investment grade entity and incur an increased cost of risk capital provision)

29. Re the Lease documents, I cant see that the lessee has an obligation to ensure that they are responsible for removal of own data or images before returning equipment at termination - Lessors would normally expect to see inherent within a Lease contract - its in both parties interests - can I ask why this has been omitted please?

28. Good afternoon Our Public Liability insurance provides cover against pretty much any claim for loss experienced by any third party as a direct result of our conducting our undertaking. Certain classes of risk are excluded from this cover, the most prevalent being road risk which is separately covered by road risk (motor) insurance. Professional Indemnity insurance covers risk associated with the provision of professional services (For example, the sale of advice and the work conducted by professional people/firms - Solicitors, Accountants, etc). The buyer in these circumstances is reliant on the expertise of the 'professional' concerned in the purchase of these services insofar as it would involve the buyer qualifying in the delivery of these services themselves in order to exercise informed judgement. Our operations for this contract do not involve any risk which would fall outside the scope of our Public Liability cover (road risk excepted). Therefore, please would you review the need for Professional Indemnity insurance for this contract and advise if it can be removed? If not, please would you advise what risk(s) specifically you are looking for cover against on this contract?

27. Please can you confirm how many mini-competition tenders have been issued under this DPS to-date.

26. Would it be possible to have an answer to the clarification question we asked in November (clarification question number 22). Our question was whether there is any scope to discuss (a) the number of the indemnities that are uncapped, this is not something we can ordinarily agree to, (b) the requirement that the Supplier / Lessor bears the risk of any change to general law (this is usually a Lessee risk) and (c) the requirements of clause 14.3 and 14.8 of the Core Terms are very onerous and go beyond the usual requirements of agreements of this kind.

25. During the consultation process we raised concerns about certain clauses in the Core Terms and the Order Schedules, a number of these key concerns were rejected and were not amended or addressed in the final form documents presented. Our concerns include (but are not limited to): (A) a number of the indemnities are uncapped, this is not something we can ordinarily agree to, (B) the requirement that the Supplier / Lessor bears the risk of any change to general law (this is usually a Lessee risk) and (C) the requirements of clause 14.3 and 14.8 of the Core Terms are very onerous and go beyond the usual requirements of agreements of this kind. Please clarify to what extent further amendments may be considered to the documents. Thank you.

24. Good morning: Are you able to share with us how the any bids under the DPS will be presented to the lessee please? I.e, how are the DPS going to summarise the bids submitted and present these for evaluation.

23. RE: Order Schedule 26 (Operating Lease Terms) - Extension Notice - 30 Days' Notice: Normally the Leasing industry would require 90 days notice on larger infrastructure items - this enables better Residual Value pricing and value and is a fair and equitable position currently in place within the industry - can I ask the rationale as to why has the CCS chosen a 30 day notice period please?

22. RE" Order Schedule 26 (Operating Lease Terms) - If completed - the aggregate of the Extension Rentals should not be more than the Residual Value": - This does not provide / allow for any Lessors interest and equipment obsolescence risk premium to be factored in - can I ask how you would expect a Lessor to recover any on going interest and risk premium please?

21. RE Order Schedule 25 (Finance Lease Terms): This key document has been poorly drafted and ambiguous - we would suggest there needs to be clarity (and distance) between the roles of the equipment and goods supplier and the supply of financial services - for instance would suggest that "Lessor" or "Funder"" be used rather than "Supplier" for the avoidance of any doubt in this document and all related documents. We would suggest that a review of (non Supplier funded) lease documents in use currently in the Public Sector would be advantageous to the CSS - is this being considered?

20. RE: DPS Schedule 8 (Self Audit Certificate) "We have tested a sample of XX Orders and related invoices: for the same or similar Deliverables for the UK public sector not supplied under the DPS Contract during our audit for the Contract Year ending [Insert dd/mm/yyyy] We confirm that the orders and invoices have been procured under an appropriate and legitimate procurement route and could not have been procured under the DPS Contract. 5. We attach an audit report which details: the methodology used for this review the sampling techniques applied details of any issues identified & remedial action taken": It is difficult for us to warrant to the DPS that all our non DPS Public Sector business has been procured in a compliant manner - as a responsible, regulated, lender we ensure where possible that procurement regulations have been followed but we are in part reliant on lessees assurances and could not offer confirmation on their behalf - can this requirement be waived?

19. Re the DPS Schedule 5 (Management Levy and Information) "8.2 The Default Management Levy shall be the higher of: 8.2.1 the average Management Levy paid or payable by the Supplier in the previous six (6) Month period or, if the MI Default occurred within less than six (6) months from the commencement date of the first Order Contract, in the whole period preceding the date on which the MI Default occurred; or 8.2.2 the sum of five hundred pounds (£500)." - This appears to be one sided - what redress does a supplier (Lessor) have in the event of extra costs they may incur as a result of poor admin by the CCS or Lessee?