There's a couple of sections that would seem to apply. Paragraph 21:
FAILURE OF CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE THE PRODUCTS, SOFTWARE OR SERVICES AS AGREED If Contractor fails to properly and satisfactorily perform the Services or provide the Products or Software ordered by the District under a purchase order that has been received by Contractor (a"breach"), and, except to the extent of a delay arising from a Force Majeure Event, if any of the following conditions occur:a. a breach by Contractor capable of being cured within thirty (30) days, is not cured withinthirty (30) days after Contractor's receipt of written notice of breach from the District to Contractor; orb. a breach by Contractor not capable of being cured within thirty (30) days and Contractor failsto (i) proceed promptly and diligently to correct the breach, and (ii) cure the breach within ninety (90) days after receiving the District's written notice of such breach; or then, the District may make arrangements elsewhere for the purchase of the particular Products, Software, or Services, that were not provided as required by this Section 21,provided, however that nothing in this Section 21 shall limit or be construed as limiting the District's obligations to issue prompt and full payment to Contractor for amounts dueContractor for Services, Products and Software provided. A "breach" may include but is not limited to: late or non deliveries, partial deliveries, delivery of wrong material, products notmeeting specification, giving wrong prices, invoicing problems, etc
Paragraph 42:
42. SUBCONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS a. Performance Of Contract The Contractor shall: (1) Be responsible to the District for all acts and omissions of its own personnel, and of subcontractors, suppliers and their employees; and(2) Be responsible for coordinating the work performed by subcontractors and suppliers.(3) As the prime contractor, Apple should serve as LAUSD's primary contact for any and all questions involving the hardware, software or related services offered under its Common Core Solution. Additionally, in order to provide consistent and accurate messaging, Apple requires its subcontractor to include it in any and all substantive communications or negotiations with LAUSD. Should a portion of the subcontracted performance of this Contract not be performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, or if a subcontractor commits or omits any act that would constitute a breach of the Contract, the subcontractor shall be replaced and shall not again be employed under the Contract
And 44
44. STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE a. The Contractor shall perform and require its subcontractors to perform the Services and manufacture the Products in accordance with the requirements of the Contract and in accordance with professional standards of skill, care, and diligence adhered to by firms recognized for their expertise, experience and knowledge in performing work of a similar nature. The Contractor shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy,completeness, and coordination of the performance of the Contract, it being understood that the District will be relying upon such professional quality, accuracy, completeness, and coordination in utilizing the Products, Software and Services. The foregoing obligations and standards shall constitute the "Standard of Performance" for purposes of the Contract.
The structure of the contract is weird in that it structures Pearson as the subcontractor, but Apple did not select them (the School board did) and they district is responsible -- and not Apple. This leads me to believe that although Pearson was designated the subcontractor it in fact was not, it was just arranged contractually that way for the purposes of approving one contract and not two independent ones (even though in fact they were independent contracts).
Amazingly the Pearson materials were selected based on samples (not the actual curriculum) and for such a large project expense, it seems there was very little oversight on deliverables by the district.
Everyone would have been better suited if they first developed (platform agnostic) the multimedia curriculum then worried about the hardware at the very end. They probably should have contracted the work for the curriculum be done under a "creative commons license", selecting the best material to teach each subject. Unfortunately, even though we have all the pieces, no-one is really putting them together in a 21st century solution. Instead it seems to be the delivery of texts on iPad, etc.
What it should be is organized as a knowledge map (similar to a mind map) in that every small teachable nugget is identified and taught through the best platform for each (videos for teaching at different levels of ability, text, examples, tests to see if the knowledge was understood) with connections prerequisites and related material that it is a prerequisite for.... then pop-testing every once in a while for already completed work and unmarking it if the knowledge did not persist.
This district was a disaster... pick the hardware and pick someone to provide materials without really working out what and how each item was to be taught then worrying about platforms later.
The structure of the contract is weird in that it structures Pearson as the subcontractor, but Apple did not select them (the School board did) and they district is responsible -- and not Apple. This leads me to believe that although Pearson was designated the subcontractor it in fact was not, it was just arranged contractually that way for the purposes of approving one contract and not two independent ones (even though in fact they were independent contracts).
Always remember the only things that are binding are written within the bounds of the contract pages. In this case Apple accepted their designation as the responsible party, no matter whether you think they shouldn't have or how Pearson ended up as Apple's sub-contractor.
Always remember the only things that are binding are written within the bounds of the contract pages. In this case Apple accepted their designation as the responsible party, no matter whether you think they shouldn't have or how Pearson ended up as Apple's sub-contractor.
In normal situations.... yes... but reading paragraph 42 above, the subcontractors performance was the responsibility of the district and not Apple and if the subcontractor did not deliver it would be replaced (again decision lying with the district). A normal single contract would set out what is deliverable by Apple and Apple would be responsible for everything (including selection of the subcontractor).
In normal situations.... yes... but reading paragraph 42 above, the subcontractors performance was the responsibility of the district and not Apple and if the subcontractor did not deliver it would be replaced (again decision lying with the district). A normal single contract would set out what is deliverable by Apple and Apple would be responsible for everything (including selection of the subcontractor).
Simple question: Who is the "contractor" referred to in that paragraph?
Pretty darn sure that's Apple and thus the contractually-bound party. Pearson was Apple's to deal with and if they can't correct the the deficiency after official notice then the School Board has the right to search for a replacement, up to and including even the hardware that Apple was supplying per paragraph 21. Isn't that how you read it?
Simple question: Who is the "contractor" referred to in that paragraph?
Pretty darn sure that's Apple and thus the contractually-bound party. Pearson was Apple's to deal with and if they can't correct the the deficiency after official notice then the School Board has the right to search for a replacement, including even the hardware that Apple was supplying.
The contractor is Apple. From reading the sections it is the lead on the project, but it also indicates the district is responsible for the performance of the subcontractor. It is up to the district to notify Apple (as the lead) which co-ordinates with the subcontractor, and then communicate back if their is a failure of the subcontractor and it is up to the district to replace the subcontractor if the subcontractor is not meeting contractual obligations. The contract recognizes each of the parties and their core-competencies -- which to me is acknowledging that Apple is not responsible for knowledge in things related to curriculum etc. I have seen no action by the district requesting the subcontractor be replaced prior to the cancellation of the whole contract. The rest of the details will have to be hashed out in court, but so far I think the least liable party in the 3 is actually Apple when it comes to execution of the contract. The district itself is responsible if it failed to notify Apple of it's dissatisfaction with the performance of Pearson -- until after the contract was cancelled.
It will be an interesting court case to watch - obviously we are not privy to the bulk of the information that the case will rest on.... I just hope it actually goes to court.
The contractor is Apple. From reading the sections it is the lead on the project...
... the details will have to be hashed out in court, but so far I think the least liable party in the 3 is actually Apple when it comes to execution of the contract. The district itself is responsible if it failed to notify Apple of it's dissatisfaction with the performance of Pearson -- until after the contract was cancelled.
According to news reports the district notified Apple about the curriculum deficiencies a year ago. The action Monday was a response to Apple's failure to cure it according to other published reports.
IMHO it's actually the district trying to distance themselves from the entire shady project that began with the the way the bidding process was set up to eliminate any contractor but Apple and their partner Pearson from meeting the requirements.
According to news reports the district notified Apple about the curriculum deficiencies a year ago. The action Monday was a response to Apple's failure to cure it according to other published reports.
When was the contract cancelled? It seems like it was a year ago that happened, but I am too lazy to search and find out.
Curriculum problems are not Apples responsibility, it is Pearson's (i.e. core-competency) .... Did Apple co-ordinate with Pearson (that is Apples responsibility)? What was Pearsons response? Did the district select a replacement for Pearson due to lack of performance? Not that I heard.... The curriculum itself is the core-competency of Pearson and the district. If the district was dissatisfied with the curriculum that Pearson was providing, it was their responsibility to select a replacement.
IMHO it's actually the district trying to distance themselves from the entire shady project that began with the the way the bidding process was set up to eliminate any contractor but Apple and their partner Pearson from meeting the requirements.
I do agree that something was rotten to the core, which is why I hope there is no settlement and it goes to full court with discovery on all sides. Education should not be locking itself into a specific platform or set of companies. If they want to spend the money, spend it on educational software that is platform agnostic. If the problem is that kids from poor neighbourhoods are disadvantaged, they should have set minimal functional requirements needed and allow the parents / children to select anything that meets those minimums (the board could list all that meet the requirements - the companies could submit how they meet the requirements). Then if they want to subsidize the hardware for disadvantaged kids, just issue a voucher that could be used for anything that meets those requirements.
Seems to me Apple wasn't interested in this at all beyond a few headlines and talking points they could use. Apple definitely didn't seem to interested in fixing it before it got this far.
Whether that points to collusion at the LAUSD level or at a broader level it will probably come out. I bet not soon enough to damage Apple in any significant way.
I think Apple will get away with their reputation/purse intact. Would anyone else get away scot-free that is involved now or even hypothetically? Probably not.
If Pearson did not implement correctly and have there software fully tested obviously the iPads will only follow the programming implemented by Pearson. If that software was faulty then obviously there is no way it would work for anyone on any platform. Blaming Apple for someone else's software is idiotic! Apple has plenty of schools and districts that have had total successes and lead in having there hardware in schools. L.A. did not prepare or do there homework properly and Pearson over promised and obviously did not deliver which made Apple look bad. L.A. should have modeled there program off of another school district that already had a proven track record and could have brought there technical team to one of those schools to train and learn how to implement in there own county instead of trying to create a whole new program.
Its not that shocking they where using bond money. But its not a good idea, bonds are for capital improvement. My district had purchased some iPads with bond funds but have stopped. Both iPads and chromebooks are considered disposable and not a capital improvement or outlay.
In the end this will damage pearson greatly. As they will have a repo from screwing up the LA unified thing which will come up overtime they contract. However they are good at using shell companies to sell their products under a different name.
I know Apple wanted to make a big splash about their iPad for education initiative but they should not have picked LA. They should have picked smaller schools first to test the waters and work out any bugs.
I know Apple wanted to make a big splash about their iPad for education initiative but they should not have picked LA. They should have picked smaller schools first to test the waters and work out any bugs.
I think LA picked Apple, not the other way around.
Comments
There's a couple of sections that would seem to apply. Paragraph 21:
FAILURE OF CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE THE PRODUCTS, SOFTWARE OR SERVICES AS AGREED If Contractor fails to properly and satisfactorily perform the Services or provide the Products or Software ordered by the District under a purchase order that has been received by Contractor (a"breach"), and, except to the extent of a delay arising from a Force Majeure Event, if any of the following conditions occur:a. a breach by Contractor capable of being cured within thirty (30) days, is not cured withinthirty (30) days after Contractor's receipt of written notice of breach from the District to Contractor; orb. a breach by Contractor not capable of being cured within thirty (30) days and Contractor failsto (i) proceed promptly and diligently to correct the breach, and (ii) cure the breach within ninety (90) days after receiving the District's written notice of such breach; or then, the District may make arrangements elsewhere for the purchase of the particular Products, Software, or Services, that were not provided as required by this Section 21,provided, however that nothing in this Section 21 shall limit or be construed as limiting the District's obligations to issue prompt and full payment to Contractor for amounts dueContractor for Services, Products and Software provided. A "breach" may include but is not limited to: late or non deliveries, partial deliveries, delivery of wrong material, products notmeeting specification, giving wrong prices, invoicing problems, etc
Paragraph 42:
42. SUBCONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS a. Performance Of Contract The Contractor shall: (1) Be responsible to the District for all acts and omissions of its own personnel, and of subcontractors, suppliers and their employees; and(2) Be responsible for coordinating the work performed by subcontractors and suppliers.(3) As the prime contractor, Apple should serve as LAUSD's primary contact for any and all questions involving the hardware, software or related services offered under its Common Core Solution. Additionally, in order to provide consistent and accurate messaging, Apple requires its subcontractor to include it in any and all substantive communications or negotiations with LAUSD. Should a portion of the subcontracted performance of this Contract not be performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, or if a subcontractor commits or omits any act that would constitute a breach of the Contract, the subcontractor shall be replaced and shall not again be employed under the Contract
And 44
44. STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE a. The Contractor shall perform and require its subcontractors to perform the Services and manufacture the Products in accordance with the requirements of the Contract and in accordance with professional standards of skill, care, and diligence adhered to by firms recognized for their expertise, experience and knowledge in performing work of a similar nature. The Contractor shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy,completeness, and coordination of the performance of the Contract, it being understood that the District will be relying upon such professional quality, accuracy, completeness, and coordination in utilizing the Products, Software and Services. The foregoing obligations and standards shall constitute the "Standard of Performance" for purposes of the Contract.
The structure of the contract is weird in that it structures Pearson as the subcontractor, but Apple did not select them (the School board did) and they district is responsible -- and not Apple. This leads me to believe that although Pearson was designated the subcontractor it in fact was not, it was just arranged contractually that way for the purposes of approving one contract and not two independent ones (even though in fact they were independent contracts).
Amazingly the Pearson materials were selected based on samples (not the actual curriculum) and for such a large project expense, it seems there was very little oversight on deliverables by the district.
Everyone would have been better suited if they first developed (platform agnostic) the multimedia curriculum then worried about the hardware at the very end. They probably should have contracted the work for the curriculum be done under a "creative commons license", selecting the best material to teach each subject. Unfortunately, even though we have all the pieces, no-one is really putting them together in a 21st century solution. Instead it seems to be the delivery of texts on iPad, etc.
What it should be is organized as a knowledge map (similar to a mind map) in that every small teachable nugget is identified and taught through the best platform for each (videos for teaching at different levels of ability, text, examples, tests to see if the knowledge was understood) with connections prerequisites and related material that it is a prerequisite for.... then pop-testing every once in a while for already completed work and unmarking it if the knowledge did not persist.
This district was a disaster... pick the hardware and pick someone to provide materials without really working out what and how each item was to be taught then worrying about platforms later.
Always remember the only things that are binding are written within the bounds of the contract pages. In this case Apple accepted their designation as the responsible party, no matter whether you think they shouldn't have or how Pearson ended up as Apple's sub-contractor.
In normal situations.... yes... but reading paragraph 42 above, the subcontractors performance was the responsibility of the district and not Apple and if the subcontractor did not deliver it would be replaced (again decision lying with the district). A normal single contract would set out what is deliverable by Apple and Apple would be responsible for everything (including selection of the subcontractor).
Pretty darn sure that's Apple and thus the contractually-bound party. Pearson was Apple's to deal with and if they can't correct the the deficiency after official notice then the School Board has the right to search for a replacement, up to and including even the hardware that Apple was supplying per paragraph 21. Isn't that how you read it?
Simple question: Who is the "contractor" referred to in that paragraph?
Pretty darn sure that's Apple and thus the contractually-bound party. Pearson was Apple's to deal with and if they can't correct the the deficiency after official notice then the School Board has the right to search for a replacement, including even the hardware that Apple was supplying.
The contractor is Apple. From reading the sections it is the lead on the project, but it also indicates the district is responsible for the performance of the subcontractor. It is up to the district to notify Apple (as the lead) which co-ordinates with the subcontractor, and then communicate back if their is a failure of the subcontractor and it is up to the district to replace the subcontractor if the subcontractor is not meeting contractual obligations. The contract recognizes each of the parties and their core-competencies -- which to me is acknowledging that Apple is not responsible for knowledge in things related to curriculum etc. I have seen no action by the district requesting the subcontractor be replaced prior to the cancellation of the whole contract. The rest of the details will have to be hashed out in court, but so far I think the least liable party in the 3 is actually Apple when it comes to execution of the contract. The district itself is responsible if it failed to notify Apple of it's dissatisfaction with the performance of Pearson -- until after the contract was cancelled.
It will be an interesting court case to watch - obviously we are not privy to the bulk of the information that the case will rest on.... I just hope it actually goes to court.
IMHO it's actually the district trying to distance themselves from the entire shady project that began with the the way the bidding process was set up to eliminate any contractor but Apple and their partner Pearson from meeting the requirements.
According to news reports the district notified Apple about the curriculum deficiencies a year ago. The action Monday was a response to Apple's failure to cure it according to other published reports.
When was the contract cancelled? It seems like it was a year ago that happened, but I am too lazy to search and find out.
Curriculum problems are not Apples responsibility, it is Pearson's (i.e. core-competency) .... Did Apple co-ordinate with Pearson (that is Apples responsibility)? What was Pearsons response? Did the district select a replacement for Pearson due to lack of performance? Not that I heard.... The curriculum itself is the core-competency of Pearson and the district. If the district was dissatisfied with the curriculum that Pearson was providing, it was their responsibility to select a replacement.
IMHO it's actually the district trying to distance themselves from the entire shady project that began with the the way the bidding process was set up to eliminate any contractor but Apple and their partner Pearson from meeting the requirements.
I do agree that something was rotten to the core, which is why I hope there is no settlement and it goes to full court with discovery on all sides. Education should not be locking itself into a specific platform or set of companies. If they want to spend the money, spend it on educational software that is platform agnostic. If the problem is that kids from poor neighbourhoods are disadvantaged, they should have set minimal functional requirements needed and allow the parents / children to select anything that meets those minimums (the board could list all that meet the requirements - the companies could submit how they meet the requirements). Then if they want to subsidize the hardware for disadvantaged kids, just issue a voucher that could be used for anything that meets those requirements.
Seems to me Apple wasn't interested in this at all beyond a few headlines and talking points they could use. Apple definitely didn't seem to interested in fixing it before it got this far.
Whether that points to collusion at the LAUSD level or at a broader level it will probably come out. I bet not soon enough to damage Apple in any significant way.
I think Apple will get away with their reputation/purse intact. Would anyone else get away scot-free that is involved now or even hypothetically? Probably not.
In the end this will damage pearson greatly. As they will have a repo from screwing up the LA unified thing which will come up overtime they contract. However they are good at using shell companies to sell their products under a different name.
I know Apple wanted to make a big splash about their iPad for education initiative but they should not have picked LA. They should have picked smaller schools first to test the waters and work out any bugs.
I think LA picked Apple, not the other way around.