Editing Becta (section)

==Purchasing Frameworks==
Becta awarded certain vendors placement on approved "purchasing frameworks": 
{{Blockquote|The frameworks are awarded in accordance with EU procurement legislation... against a range of criteria based around quality of provision and service, and against the extent to which they meet the requirements of the functional and technical specifications – specifications that have been developed in conjunction with all stakeholders, including members of the open source community...<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.businessreviewonline.com/os/archives/2006/11/becta_denies_op.html |title=Becta denies open source school barriers |date=23 November 2006 |publisher=Computer Business Review |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070206190125/http://www.businessreviewonline.com/os/archives/2006/11/becta_denies_op.html |archivedate=6 February 2007 }}</ref>}}

The purchasing frameworks were criticised as being outdated, and for effectively denying schools the option of benefiting from both free and open source and the value and experience of small and medium ICT companies.<ref name="osedm">{{cite web|url=http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=31752&SESSION=885|title=Software in Schools|date=21 November 2006|publisher=UK Parliament|accessdate=7 January 2007|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070218092156/http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=31752&SESSION=885|archivedate=18 February 2007|url-status=dead}}</ref> Participating companies had to have a net worth of at least £700,000 to qualify and had to satisfy a list of functional requirements.<ref>{{cite web
 |url=http://industry.becta.org.uk/content_files/industry/resources/Specification_key_docs/functional_req_learning_platforms_v1.1.pdf
 |date=3 May 2006
 |title=Learning platform functional requirements version 1
 |publisher=Becta
 |url-status=dead
 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20060715011717/http://industry.becta.org.uk/content_files/industry/resources/Specification_key_docs/functional_req_learning_platforms_v1.1.pdf
 |archivedate=15 July 2006
 }}</ref> A concern was raised about the "over-comfortable relationship the government has with some of the bigger players."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://education.guardian.co.uk/elearning/story/0,,1985425,00.html|title=Open source argument|date=9 January 2007|work=The Guardian|accessdate=10 January 2007| archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20070112052453/http://education.guardian.co.uk/elearning/story/0%2C%2C1985425%2C00.html| archivedate= 12 January 2007 | url-status= live}}</ref>

In January 2007, Crispin Weston, who had helped Becta draw up the criteria used to select suppliers, asked the EC Competition Commission to investigate his allegation that a significant number of the successful tenders had failed to implement the mandatory functional requirements, including particular aspects of inter-operability.<ref name="euinvest">{{cite news|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/08/becta_ec_complaint/|title=Becta's schools software scheme reported to EC|author=Mark Ballard|date=8 January 2007|publisher=The Register|accessdate=7 February 2007| archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20070210003910/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/08/becta_ec_complaint/| archivedate= 10 February 2007 | url-status= live}}</ref> He also added in his letter to the Commission that they should take action on the further issue of:
{{Blockquote|[T]he insistence that many different categories of software within a particular school or Local Authority should all be supplied by a single supplier [which] has serious anti-competitive implications."<ref name="westoneu">{{cite web|url=http://www.alphalearning.co.uk/ojeu.htm|author=Crispin Weston|publisher=Alpha Learning|title=Becta's Learning Platform Procurement|date=5 January 2007|accessdate=7 February 2007|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070128193252/http://www.alphalearning.co.uk/ojeu.htm|archivedate=28 January 2007|url-status=dead}}</ref>}}