Guide to Public Sector CMS Procurement

Which contract type should your organization choose for the CMS? A good option is the SSA-L (Agreement for Ongoing Service Purchase). This is a contract for purchasing services over the internet, often referred to as SaaS ("Software as a Service") or PaaS (“Platform as a Service”). The agreement is aimed at establishing a standard service and supporting it.

Alternatively, if you plan to manage the solution internally, the SSA-V (Maintenance Agreement) may be suitable for subscription-based solutions without license purchases. Most CMS platforms follow a subscription-based pricing model.

SSA-L is not intended for the project itself or general consultancy services. In such cases, SSA-B (Assistance Agreement), SSA-S (Agile Agreement), or SSA-O (Assignment Agreement) is recommended to distinguish between the platform and services. This also creates a clear division of responsibility between subcontractors, where the CMS provider is fully responsible under SSA-L, and the consulting firm/agency handles the project and assistance.

SSA-L includes guidance for both the client and the provider in the appendices. It is recommended to thoroughly review this guidance.

Brief Overview of the Appendices

• Appendix 1: The client specifies the requirements.
• Appendix 2: The provider describes the solution and responds to the requirements.
• Appendix 3: The plan for the establishment phase should not be extensive, as it involves setting up a standard service. The provider mainly describes the creation of environments, configuration of user management, basic training for super users, and a proposal for acceptance testing. Acceptance here involves gaining access and conducting some sample checks of the solution. Handover for approval testing can typically be done within 1–3 weeks.
• Appendix 4: Service level with standardized compensations. The provider describes their SLAs and conditions. It is essential that the client specifies requirements for response times during incidents and expected uptime guarantee in Appendix 1.
• Appendix 5: Administrative provisions such as contact persons, etc.
• Appendix 6: The provider describes the remuneration for the service, the price for the establishment phase, other price elements, and hourly rates for consulting and assistance. It is not recommended that the client create their own pricing forms, as this could potentially alter the provider’s entire pricing model and lead to additional costs. Focus on providing as much information as possible to facilitate an accurate price based on the provider’s model.
• Appendix 7: No changes should be made here, as the agreement is clear for both the client and the provider.
• Appendix 8: Post-agreement provisions.
• Appendix 9: If the provider does not take full responsibility within the SSA-L agreement text and appendices, terms from e.g. the CMS or cloud provider may be included here. This increases the risk of additional costs and uncertainty during the contract period.

SSA-L can be included as part of the delivery from a consulting firm/agency or signed directly with the CMS provider, if appropriate.

Once the offers are received, it’s essential to conduct a thorough and fair evaluation to ensure the best supplier is chosen. The evaluation should be systematic and based on predefined criteria to ensure objectivity and transparency.

Evaluation Method

A structured evaluation method involves assessing each offer against the established award criteria. Set up an evaluation committee with representatives from relevant departments within the organization. The committee should review all offers individually before gathering to discuss and compare findings.

Award Criteria

To compare offers fairly, it is common to use a scoring system where each criterion is weighted according to its importance. Criteria may include price, functionality, user experience, support, and quality.

For example: An administrative body sets the following award criteria with corresponding weightings:

• Price (20%): Total cost over the system’s lifetime, including implementation and maintenance.
• Quality (50%):
  • Requirement Fulfillment: The extent to which the solution meets the technical and functional requirements.
  • User Experience: Intuitiveness and ease of use for both editors and end-users.
  • Support and Maintenance: Quality and availability of support services.
  • Relevant Experience: The supplier’s proven experience with similar projects and ability to deliver high quality.
• Environmental Considerations (30%): The supplier’s initiatives to reduce environmental impact, including energy-efficient solutions and compliance with environmental standards.

Each offer is given a score for each criterion, which is then multiplied by the weighting. The sum of these provides a total score for each offer.

For details on how to convert price into points effectively, confer with the guidance on anskaffelser.no. This guide offers practical methods to ensure that price is evaluated in a balanced manner alongside qualitative criteria.

Legal Review

Before entering into the contract, a legal review of the preferred offer and the draft contract should be conducted. This ensures that the agreement complies with applicable laws and regulations and that the organization’s interests are protected.

For example: A public organization involves its legal department to ensure that the contract terms meet GDPR privacy requirements, and that responsibilities and rights related to data and intellectual property are clearly defined.

Verification and Contract Signing

After the evaluation and legal review are completed, a final check of all documents and assumptions should be performed before signing the contract. This includes verifying that all requirements are met, that there are no ambiguities, and that all necessary appendices and attachments are included.

Before signing, the project manager may review the contract with the supplier to ensure a shared understanding of the scope of delivery, timelines, payment terms, and follow-up procedures. This lays the foundation for a good collaboration and reduces the risk of misunderstandings during the project.

After completing the procurement of the new CMS, it’s beneficial to focus on knowledge sharing and continuous improvement. This involves both internal evaluation and sharing insights with other public sector organizations to contribute to collective learning and development.

Internal Retrospective

An internal retrospective allows your organization to reflect on the entire process. By bringing together team members from various departments, you can discuss what worked well, what challenges arose, and how these were handled. This fosters a shared understanding and provides a foundation for improving future projects.

Sharing Experiences with Other Public Sector Organizations

Sharing your experiences with others in the public sector promotes knowledge exchange and can help others avoid common pitfalls. This can be done through professional seminars, publications, or by contributing to guidance materials.

A concrete example is the Norwegian Directorate of Health, which has shared its experiences with structured content in the CMS through a detailed guide. In this guide, they describe how they improved their digital services by implementing a comprehensive content model. By sharing their process, including challenges and solutions, they provide valuable insights to other public sector organizations considering similar initiatives.