JerseyMe digital ID (FOI)
JerseyMe digital ID (FOI)Produced by the Freedom of Information office
Authored by Government of Jersey and published on 07 September 2022.
Prepared internally, no external costs.
Please could you confirm:
Which supplier developed the JerseyMe digital ID system used by the States?
What was the cost incurred to develop JerseyMe? What are the ongoing annual costs associated with it?
Was a public procurement process run (e.g., such as that defined by the States Procurement Best Practice Procedures)?
Please can you provide any documentation associated with the procurement of JerseyMe, such as project brief / RFQs / EoIs / ITT / PQQs / evaluation reports, etc.
The JerseyMe Digital ID solution was developed by Vaiie in conjunction with the Government of Jersey.
Vaiie is part of the Jersey Post Group, a global and independent business that has been fully owned by the Government of Jersey since 1969.
Costs incurred to-date in the development and implementation of the JerseyMe Digital ID solution are approximately £800,000. This includes work by a number of third-party suppliers.
The exact detail related to development of the solution and ongoing annual costs are deemed commercially sensitive and are exempt under Article 33(b) (Commercial Interests) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.
Vaiie were awarded the work on a 'Direct Award' basis, through an exemption to the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2019.
The nature of the direct award basis means that the documentation related to this procurement is deemed commercially sensitive and is exempt under Article 33(b) (Commercial Interests) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.
Also, as the documentation includes technical information, it is considered that releasing it could cause a security risk. Article 42 (Law Enforcement) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has therefore been applied.
Article 33 - Commercial interests
Information is qualified exempt information if –
(a) it constitutes a trade secret; or
(b) its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the scheduled public authority holding the information).
Public Interest Test
Article 33(b) of the Freedom of Information Law allows an authority to refuse a request for information where its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the scheduled public authority holding the information).
Whilst it is accepted that the public may have an interest in the content of Government of Jersey contracts, it is considered that releasing this information could affect the commercial interests of the supplier.
The JerseyMe Digital ID solution is a 'white label' solution which could be deployed to other organisations. Releasing details of the commercial agreement between Vaiie and the Government of Jersey could be detrimental to future Vaiie negotiations. Additionally, the nature of the direct award has resulted in commercially sensitive information within the requested documents.
Article 42 -Law enforcement
Information is qualified exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice –
(a) the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, whether in Jersey or elsewhere;
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, whether in respect of offences committed in Jersey or elsewhere;
(c) the administration of justice, whether in Jersey or elsewhere;
(d) the assessment or collection of a tax or duty or of an imposition of a similar nature;
(e) the operation of immigration controls, whether in Jersey or elsewhere;
(f) the maintenance of security and good order in prisons or in other institutions where persons are lawfully detained;
(g) the proper supervision or regulation of financial services; or
(h) the exercise, by the Jersey Financial Services Commission, of any function imposed on it by any enactment.
Public Interest Test
It is recognised that there is a public interest in providing information in a transparent manner, however this public interest is not considered to outweigh the interests of the government in preventing cyber-crime or maintaining the integrity of its law enforcement assets. It is considered that the release of this information may increase risks, particularly in view of major cyber-attacks that have occurred in other jurisdictions in recent years.