Just in case anyone hasn't heard, we were unsuccessful with the BECTA contract. Apparently some company that has no known experience or track record in FOSS won it. Looking at the detailed assessment criteria, they seem skewed away from FOSS and towards subjective judgements about what professional attributes are important in such a project. Of course none of that detail was in the spec so I'm afraid I naturally assumed a track record of building FOSS communities in the target education sector would be important. Clearly that was a critical error. Apologies.
You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
> Just in case anyone hasn't heard, we were unsuccessful with the BECTA > contract. Apparently some company that has no known experience or track > record in FOSS won it. Looking at the detailed assessment criteria, they > seem skewed away from FOSS and towards subjective judgements about what > professional attributes are important in such a project. Of course none > of that detail was in the spec so I'm afraid I naturally assumed a track > record of building FOSS communities in the target education sector would > be important. Clearly that was a critical error. Apologies.
> Ian > --
1) Ian, you have no cause to apologise. 2) Our only mistake was assuming that Becta would behave honourably. 3) Practically the entire education free software and open source community in the UK will have been insulted by this decision.
The sooner this ineffective Quango is dismantled the better.
Up to now we have been very polite in our campaigning, I believe the time for politeness is over.
I believe we would be entirely within our rights to request a review of the decision; appointing a company with no track record in delivery of key aspects of the product tendered for seems a highly inappropriate way to disburse public funds. If Becta procurement assessors do not understand the complexities of successfully creating a sustainable open source product, they should have engaged a consultant to help them.
> Just in case anyone hasn't heard, we were unsuccessful with the BECTA > contract. Apparently some company that has no known experience or track > record in FOSS won it. Looking at the detailed assessment criteria, they > seem skewed away from FOSS and towards subjective judgements about what > professional attributes are important in such a project. Of course none > of that detail was in the spec so I'm afraid I naturally assumed a track > record of building FOSS communities in the target education sector would > be important. Clearly that was a critical error. Apologies.
> Ian > -- > New QCA Accredited IT Qualifications > www.theINGOTs.org
> You have received this email from the following company: The Learning > Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 > 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
-- My employers website: http://thehumanjourney.net - opinions in this email are however very much my own and may not reflect that of my current employer, past employers, associates, friends, family, pets etc..
Documents attached to this email may be in ISO 26300 format: http://iso26300.info
There's absolutely no need to apologise Ian. Thank you for all you hard work, enthusiasm, experience and professional attitude.
This is a real disappointment for us all, hopefully not for schools use of Open Source. I have no doubt that you and the proposed team demonstrated a professional attitude and cannot help wondering if this indicates really 'not getting it' as far as how Open Source operates. Mozilla and Open Office clearly demonstrate that managing the complexities of a large community for everyone's benefit and creating high quality 'products' and services requires skills and and attitudes that can sometimes appear to be distanced from a limited traditional view of what 'professional' means. You just need to look at the results to see it works so well.
We can only hope that the successful company are open as well as doing a professional job and really embrace Open Source models.
-- Steve Lee -- Open Source Assistive Technology Software web: fullmeasure.co.uk blog: eduspaces.net/stevelee/weblog
> Just in case anyone hasn't heard, we were unsuccessful with the BECTA > contract. Apparently some company that has no known experience or track > record in FOSS won it. Looking at the detailed assessment criteria, they > seem skewed away from FOSS and towards subjective judgements about what > professional attributes are important in such a project. Of course none > of that detail was in the spec so I'm afraid I naturally assumed a track > record of building FOSS communities in the target education sector would > be important. Clearly that was a critical error. Apologies.
> Ian > -- > New QCA Accredited IT Qualifications > www.theINGOTs.org
> You have received this email from the following company: The Learning > Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 > 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Again, thank you for all your work on this, absolutely no need to apologise.
The decision does seem odd; I think it would make sense to have the most thorough debrief with Becta that we can get to find out why our bid was marked down. On the face of it, it seems like an odd decision, but I'd like to know more.
(I'm happy to do the debrief from our side if you like).
> Just in case anyone hasn't heard, we were unsuccessful with the BECTA > contract. Apparently some company that has no known experience or > track > record in FOSS won it. Looking at the detailed assessment criteria, > they > seem skewed away from FOSS and towards subjective judgements about > what > professional attributes are important in such a project. Of course > none > of that detail was in the spec so I'm afraid I naturally assumed a > track > record of building FOSS communities in the target education sector > would > be important. Clearly that was a critical error. Apologies.
Axiom Tech Ltd is registered in England and Wales at 92 Didsbury Road, Stockport, SK4 2JL, company no 5684132, VAT no 878 6568 46. Unless agreed otherwise, all services and products supplied by Axiom Tech are subject to our standard terms and conditions, available on request.
> There's absolutely no need to apologise Ian. > Thank you for all you hard work, enthusiasm, experience and > professional attitude.
> This is a real disappointment for us all, hopefully not for schools > use of Open Source. I have no doubt that you and the proposed team > demonstrated a professional attitude and cannot help wondering if this > indicates really 'not getting it' as far as how Open Source operates. > Mozilla and Open Office clearly demonstrate that managing the > complexities of a large community for everyone's benefit and creating > high quality 'products' and services requires skills and and attitudes > that can sometimes appear to be distanced from a limited traditional > view of what 'professional' means. You just need to look at the > results to see it works so well.
> We can only hope that the successful company are open as well as doing > a professional job and really embrace Open Source models.
I'm sorry I have to disagree. As I said earlier, Becta is simply not behaving honourably in this - and the time has come to stop hoping that they will ever do so. It is not that they 'don't get' FOSS, it is that they loathe bottom-up movements as they might force them to actually do something.
This tendering process was a farce and they have reached they outcome they wanted - and they don't give a damn about: * us * value for money * kids' education They care about: * themselves.
/rant
R
-- Richard Rothwell, richa...@m6-it.org Education Consultant http://m6-it.org
Web services * Back-ups * Support * Training & Certification * E-Mail M6-IT CIC ``Software Freedom for the Education and Voluntary Sector''
M6-IT is a Community Interest Company, limited by guarantee Registered in England & Wales, Registration No: 6040154 11 St Marks Road, Stourbridge, West Midlands, DY9 7DT
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 07:36 +0100, Iain Roberts wrote: > Hi Ian,
> Again, thank you for all your work on this, absolutely no need to apologise.
Ok, I have had time to go over the assessment feedback in a bit of detail
Its obvious that the nature of the mark scheme is our downfall. There is a set of general and specific guidance in it. Anyone who has seen this -and it was not available with the tender - would be at a massive advantage. Rather like showing one candidate the exam questions the mark scheme and everyone else just the questions. I happen to be Chief Assessor at a QCA accredited Awarding Body so I know these things :-)
So if one bidder has been through this or a similar process with BECTA in the past they are at an unfair advantage. Secondly since a track record in FOSS in schools seems to be entirely eliminated from the assessment criteria, probably the most important factor gets no weight in the assessment.
Here are our scores and an analysis. Of couorse if anyone wants a copy of the bid I can supply it. If anyone wants copies of the other bids to make a comparison, do a Freedom of Information Request to BECTA. personally I have spent enough time on this. Some of us have to earn a living without relying on state hand outs :-)
Capability and experience 40% 30.2% Quality of proposal 20% 14.4% Value for Money 20% 10.8% Ability to meet timescales 20% 13.3%
Capability and experience
Relevant sector experience 13.3% out of 13.3% - ok we couldn't have done better
Relevant subject matter knowledge and skills 11.9% out of 13.9%
If the subject matter is an Open Source project in education it's rather difficult to see how we would be worse than anyone else, but of course if everyone scores close to full marks there is no differentiation.
Professionalism and quality management 2.7% out of 8%
How a set of people who run successful small businesses and have recent teaching experience that includes going through OFSTED etc, can set up a new Awarding Body from scratch and satisfy the national regulators on Quality Assurance can be scored as completely incompetent in terms of professionalism and quality management is beyond me. Apart from that I was an OFSTED RgI - how can I then have no idea about quality assurance? Joan Knott is Principal Moderator for GCSE statistics so she has no idea about quality management? We had Two people with PhDs in technical areas that obviously involve quality control. The Spec criteria said quality of the people involved. It did not say ability to double guess a marking scheme that is completely opaque. Our bid was full of evidence in this area but of course if it is mechanistically scored against specific structures not clear in the spec an outcome like this is likely. What it means is that the score bears no relationship with reality.
Provide three client references as evidence of relevant sector experience on similar types of project. 2.4% out of 5.3%
AFAIK none of the references was actually contacted. Less than half the marks but what is the definition of a similar type of project? If it includes building open source communities in the schools sector I could easily justify that if one reference does not include this the bid should score zero and if it does it should score maximum points. In other words the definition of the assessment criteria while crucial is arbitrary.
Specify project deliverables, which should meet the stated requirements 7.8% out of 10%
Since we surpassed the stated requirements by a long way at the start why was that not 10 out of 10?
Outline of project method 4% out of 6%
Who knows?
Outline project roles and responsiblities and detail corresponding work effort, including client involvement 2.7% out of 4%
Again impossible on this to know why what was provided was or was not enough.
Value for money Analysis of the cost submission balanced against the deliverables of the proposal. 8.3% out of 12%
All I can say is to score higher than our proposal someone would have to provide as sponsorship a good deal more than the value of the grant available as sponsorship. That would be interesting to see.
Of course this method also seems to have ignored all proposed sponsorship and the value already built up by SF-UK over 5 years and the investment of TLM in the existing community site.
Payment phasing 2.5% out of 7.5% Payment phasing is not a value for money issue, except very slightly at the margins. We specifically said in the interview that we were happy to phase the payments in any way that BECTA wanted and that what was in the bid was just a suggestion. Even so it was to put money in Escrow with payment in arrears only on delivery so I can't see how we could score less than half on that. Of course any bidder with knowledge of BECTA's preferred methods is at an immediate advantage if other don't have that information.
Ability to meet time scales. Outline the proposed timeframe for delivery, including key milestones 6.7% out of 10
How can you score less than 100% when your proposal at outset surpassess the targets set in the spec? What evidence is there that we won't meet the timescales? We could of course have set undemanding targets - would we then score 10 out of 10?
Current capacity to deliver 6.7% out of 10
Since we have already demonstrated a capacity to deliver with no funding from BECTA why would theoretical considerations over-ride what is manifestly proven? Again any bidder with access to the general guidance from previous project applications has a massive and unfair advantage since this guidance was not available to all bidders at the time of making the bid.
> The decision does seem odd; I think it would make sense to have the > most thorough debrief with Becta that we can get to find out why our > bid was marked down. On the face of it, it seems like an odd > decision, but I'd like to know more.
> (I'm happy to do the debrief from our side if you like).
> > Just in case anyone hasn't heard, we were unsuccessful with the BECTA > > contract. Apparently some company that has no known experience or > > track > > record in FOSS won it. Looking at the detailed assessment criteria, > > they > > seem skewed away from FOSS and towards subjective judgements about > > what > > professional attributes are important in such a project. Of course > > none > > of that detail was in the spec so I'm afraid I naturally assumed a > > track > > record of building FOSS communities in the target education sector > > would > > be important. Clearly that was a critical error. Apologies.
You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
One other thing that puzzled me at the time is why BECTA would invite a company to bid that has no track record in FOSS? Only one company fell into that category of 4 bidders as far as we can tell and the tender was not widely advertised except to targeted groups like us. So why target a single company with no track record? Then use a mark scheme that is not going to give any credit to a company bidding with a track record in FOSS in schools.
You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
> One other thing that puzzled me at the time is why BECTA would invite a > company to bid that has no track record in FOSS? Only one company fell > into that category of 4 bidders as far as we can tell and the tender was > not widely advertised except to targeted groups like us. So why target a > single company with no track record? Then use a mark scheme that is not > going to give any credit to a company bidding with a track record in > FOSS in schools.
> Hm,
> Ian > -- > New QCA Accredited IT Qualifications > www.theINGOTs.org
> You have received this email from the following company: The Learning > Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 > 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
-- My employers website: http://thehumanjourney.net - opinions in this email are however very much my own and may not reflect that of my current employer, past employers, associates, friends, family, pets etc..
Documents attached to this email may be in ISO 26300 format: http://iso26300.info
> > One other thing that puzzled me at the time is why BECTA would invite a > > company to bid that has no track record in FOSS? Only one company fell > > into that category of 4 bidders as far as we can tell and the tender was > > not widely advertised except to targeted groups like us. So why target a > > single company with no track record? Then use a mark scheme that is not > > going to give any credit to a company bidding with a track record in > > FOSS in schools.
> > Hm,
> > Ian > > -- > > New QCA Accredited IT Qualifications > > www.theINGOTs.org
> > You have received this email from the following company: The Learning > > Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 > > 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
> -- > My employers website: http://thehumanjourney.net - opinions in this > email are however very much my own and may not reflect that of my > current employer, past employers, associates, friends, family, pets etc..
> Documents attached to this email may be in ISO 26300 format: > http://iso26300.info
Great isn't it. They get the contract, the money and then work in
"cooperation with the Open Source community" We end up telling them
how to do the job. Stinks, and I am very depressed/angry/etc.
Garry
I'll play devil's advocate for a moment, if I may, and pass on a contrary suggestion that's been made to me.
It goes something like this:
"Grow up! This is the way procurement often works: a company with close links to the procurer wins the business and then subcontracts all or part of the work out to the guys with the skills to do it (who are often other unsuccessful bidders). Yes, it's ludicrous, yes it's a waste of public money but for a risk-averse public sector it makes a strange sort of sense.
The question is what to do about it. If we boycott, we could see another OSS project fail, further discrediting FOSS in the UK public sector. If we work with AlphaPlus in a commercially mature way, we'll see a proportion of the funding money coming into the community and end up with a successful project.
We can point out that Becta, in following this procurement strategy, have been rather foolish (substitute alternative comment about Becta to fit your mood) but trashing the whole project is little more than an ego trip."
Iain.
----- "garry" <ga...@scholarpack.org> wrote: > Great isn't it. They get the contract, the money and then work in > "cooperation with the Open Source community" We end up telling them > how to do the job. Stinks, and I am very depressed/angry/etc. > Garry
Axiom Tech Ltd is registered in England and Wales at 92 Didsbury Road, Stockport, SK4 2JL, company no 5684132, VAT no 878 6568 46. Unless agreed otherwise, all services and products supplied by Axiom Tech are subject to our standard terms and conditions, available on request.
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 14:38 +0100, Iain Roberts wrote: > I'll play devil's advocate for a moment, if I may, and pass on a > contrary suggestion that's been made to me.
> It goes something like this:
> "Grow up! This is the way procurement often works: a company with > close links to the procurer wins the business and then subcontracts > all or part of the work out to the guys with the skills to do it (who > are often other unsuccessful bidders). Yes, it's ludicrous, yes it's > a waste of public money but for a risk-averse public sector it makes a > strange sort of sense.
> The question is what to do about it. If we boycott, we could see > another OSS project fail, further discrediting FOSS in the UK public > sector. If we work with AlphaPlus in a commercially mature way, we'll > see a proportion of the funding money coming into the community and > end up with a successful project.
> We can point out that Becta, in following this procurement strategy, > have been rather foolish (substitute alternative comment about Becta > to fit your mood) but trashing the whole project is little more than > an ego trip."
I can't agree I'm afraid. Becta have treated the entire community with contempt. They have appointed a contractor who, by their own admission, cannot deliver the contract.
For the time being we should concentrate on demonstating that Becta have broken every rule in this contract.
Then we should do the work without them.
rgds, R
On 13/06/2008, John Ingleby <j...@coronet.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm with Iain on this. We don't usually chastise a baby the first time > he/she tries to walk & falls over: let's celebrate the first baby step!
> Trouble is, we also have to change the nappy...
> John > ****
> On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 14:38 +0100, Iain Roberts wrote: >> I'll play devil's advocate for a moment, if I may, and pass on a >> contrary suggestion that's been made to me.
>> It goes something like this:
>> "Grow up! This is the way procurement often works: a company with >> close links to the procurer wins the business and then subcontracts >> all or part of the work out to the guys with the skills to do it (who >> are often other unsuccessful bidders). Yes, it's ludicrous, yes it's >> a waste of public money but for a risk-averse public sector it makes a >> strange sort of sense.
>> The question is what to do about it. If we boycott, we could see >> another OSS project fail, further discrediting FOSS in the UK public >> sector. If we work with AlphaPlus in a commercially mature way, we'll >> see a proportion of the funding money coming into the community and >> end up with a successful project.
>> We can point out that Becta, in following this procurement strategy, >> have been rather foolish (substitute alternative comment about Becta >> to fit your mood) but trashing the whole project is little more than >> an ego trip."
>> Iain.
-- Richard Rothwell, richa...@m6-it.org Education Consultant http://m6-it.org
Web services * Back-ups * Support * Training & Certification * E-Mail M6-IT CIC ``Software Freedom for the Education and Voluntary Sector''
M6-IT is a Community Interest Company, limited by guarantee Registered in England & Wales, Registration No: 6040154 11 St Marks Road, Stourbridge, West Midlands, DY9 7DT
I see what you mean: Like dealing with a pupil who is being wilfully disruptive in class. Send them out of the room for a while, and have a quiet talk with them afterwards. Our school expects higher standards of behaviour. John ****
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 20:33 +0100, richa...@m6-it.org wrote: > Hi John,
> I can't agree I'm afraid. Becta have treated the entire community > with contempt. They have appointed a contractor who, by their own > admission, cannot deliver the contract.
> For the time being we should concentrate on demonstating that Becta > have broken every rule in this contract.
> Then we should do the work without them.
> rgds, R
> On 13/06/2008, John Ingleby <j...@coronet.co.uk> wrote:
> > I'm with Iain on this. We don't usually chastise a baby the first time > > he/she tries to walk & falls over: let's celebrate the first baby step!
> > Trouble is, we also have to change the nappy...
> > John > > ****
> > On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 14:38 +0100, Iain Roberts wrote: > >> I'll play devil's advocate for a moment, if I may, and pass on a > >> contrary suggestion that's been made to me.
> >> It goes something like this:
> >> "Grow up! This is the way procurement often works: a company with > >> close links to the procurer wins the business and then subcontracts > >> all or part of the work out to the guys with the skills to do it (who > >> are often other unsuccessful bidders). Yes, it's ludicrous, yes it's > >> a waste of public money but for a risk-averse public sector it makes a > >> strange sort of sense.
> >> The question is what to do about it. If we boycott, we could see > >> another OSS project fail, further discrediting FOSS in the UK public > >> sector. If we work with AlphaPlus in a commercially mature way, we'll > >> see a proportion of the funding money coming into the community and > >> end up with a successful project.
> >> We can point out that Becta, in following this procurement strategy, > >> have been rather foolish (substitute alternative comment about Becta > >> to fit your mood) but trashing the whole project is little more than > >> an ego trip."
> I see what you mean: Like dealing with a pupil who is being wilfully
> disruptive in class. Send them out of the room for a while, and have a
> quiet talk with them afterwards. Our school expects higher standards of
> behaviour.
> John
> ****
> On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 20:33 +0100, richa...@m6-it.org wrote:
> > Hi John,
> > I can't agree I'm afraid. Becta have treated the entire community
> > with contempt. They have appointed a contractor who, by their own
> > admission, cannot deliver the contract.
> > For the time being we should concentrate on demonstating that Becta
> > have broken every rule in this contract.
> > Then we should do the work without them.
> > rgds, R
> > On 13/06/2008, John Ingleby <j...@coronet.co.uk> wrote:
> > > I'm with Iain on this. We don't usually chastise a baby the first time
> > > he/she tries to walk & falls over: let's celebrate the first baby step!
> > > Trouble is, we also have to change the nappy...
> > > John
> > > ****
> > > On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 14:38 +0100, Iain Roberts wrote:
> > >> I'll play devil's advocate for a moment, if I may, and pass on a
> > >> contrary suggestion that's been made to me.
> > >> It goes something like this:
> > >> "Grow up! This is the way procurement often works: a company with
> > >> close links to the procurer wins the business and then subcontracts
> > >> all or part of the work out to the guys with the skills to do it (who
> > >> are often other unsuccessful bidders). Yes, it's ludicrous, yes it's
> > >> a waste of public money but for a risk-averse public sector it makes a
> > >> strange sort of sense.
> > >> The question is what to do about it. If we boycott, we could see
> > >> another OSS project fail, further discrediting FOSS in the UK public
> > >> sector. If we work with AlphaPlus in a commercially mature way, we'll
> > >> see a proportion of the funding money coming into the community and
> > >> end up with a successful project.
> > >> We can point out that Becta, in following this procurement strategy,
> > >> have been rather foolish (substitute alternative comment about Becta
> > >> to fit your mood) but trashing the whole project is little more than
> > >> an ego trip."
On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 04:43 -0700, Peter Kemp wrote: > Has anyone actually had any dealings with these guys? Do they have > any links with the groups represented on here?
Do you mean BECTA or AlphaPlus?
Sure we have had dealings with BECTA but not much with those that assessed the bids. AlphaPlus as far as I know, none. They look like the sort of outfit that gets set up when people take early retirement, have a decent government pension and the connections to then become "consultants" working on contracts with former colleagues or associates of them without too much risk to themselves. That doesn't mean that there was necessarily corruption as such, it just affects things like the way mark schemes for tenders are designed.
I am inclined to go with Iain and John although I think it is worth registering a specific complaint to BECTA to try and prevent such a farce happening again. Let's face it I'm probably the most snubbed as BECTA's official point of contact with the OSS community and the person with the most similar professional credentials to the winning bidder. I said several times in the interview that getting broad community support was important if this project was to be a success. What they are saying is that I'm professionally inferior to the people at AlphaPlus, can't write a successful application (despite more than 200 specialist schools apps, several EU projects etc) and my FOSS experience and knowledge counts for nothing.
But despite that, if it looks like something sensible can be retrieved from all of this I'm not going to just take my ball home. Equally I'm not making any secret of the fact I think the process was not only broken but demonstrates rank incompetence and someone should be held accountable.
You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 15:47 +0100, John Spencer wrote: > The Education Consultants don't really have any in house expertise > regarding ICT,
This educational consultant does. I do know others that do.
> they get their words from brochures and then call up a > supplier. They have v few leads as to how OSS works but we could advise > them.
> Actually, probably ONLY we could advise them.
That is just a touch arrogant. I know people that know about FOSS in education through NAACE who are not members of OSC or SF-UK. We don't have a monopoly on expertise.
> Maybe my assault on Iain was > wrong headed, perhaps us little fleas should jump on the backs of fleas > with money.
> it boils down to what is the value of our expertise to education:
> then > 1) should we give it away to the fleas? (SchoolForge) > 2) should be attempt to sell it to the fleas? (Axiom) > 3) do we try to displace the incumbent fleas? > 4) should we try to de-louse the system? (Blue Fountain)
I believe we do not let BECTA off the hook for a flawed tender but we can also use SF-UK as the umbrella community group for education to make the project workable.
The mission of Schoolforge-UK is "to bring together individuals and organisations that advocate, use, and develop open resources for UK schools and colleges.
So AlphaPlus can join SF-UK and use the SOSP to fund projects like rationalising the case studies and giving the web site a revamp. They can be a subset of SF-UK and we can look to bring in other supporters to really make the SF-UK project buzz.
Thanks to John Ingleby for the idea of AP joining SF-UK.
You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
|
