To think that taxpayers should know about civil service procurement contracts

Only a small country, TonTonMacoute?

I'm only waiting for someone to link the usual reports "proving" how utterly efficient such bodies really are, as if anyone believes them in light of hard experience

And then it's wondered why current public employment involves an automatic rejection for some employers looking for real responsibility ...

Apart for national security type matters no contract should be off limits to the people whose money is being spent. It's a favourite of local councils to avoid answering tricky questions about how and why contracts are awarded by claiming this sort of crap.

Contracts should be published already. Under the new law, they will have to be. However there are always going to be areas exempt from that - government can't just publish the entire pricing and commercial model of a private company to all of a supplier's competitors, nor the IP/know-how in their solutions. That genuinely is commercially sensitive information and will continue to be redacted.

Another thing that really grinds my gears about all this is when any authority spending tax payers money claims commercial confidentiality to avoid telling the truth. Apart for national security type matters no contract should be off limits to the people whose money is being spent. It's a favourite of local councils to avoid answering tricky questions about how and why contracts are awarded by claiming this sort of crap.

💯

I’ve worked at start-ups that have gone on to be hugely successful businesses. The mindset that a 4x difference is ‘immaterial’ is completely alien to me and says it all. And not it’s just about the price. Those companies don’t grow by having poor quality products with dodgy supply chains.

But you can't see it like meh it's only £3k difference, it is 4 times the cost and it's costing the tax payer, imagine if every public service could be run at a quarter of the current costs...

The issue is, some people can justify the rationale as you’ve outlined. It’s sensible. However, it still doesn’t necessarily equate to ‘value for money’. Some people have a comfort factor that ticking all the boxes means, on average, good value whilst mitigating risk.

I disagree.

At some level, senior management, and I guess that means up to Wes Streeting and co, that we need to view risk differently.

The rules of 20+ even, 10 or 5 years, ago no longer apply, yet we’re attempting to apply them to a global economy environment with organisations with agile needs. It needs an overhaul.

DH is a commercial contract specialist and has worked on many big government IT contracts. The amount of money wasted in that area could run a small country for a year.

Senior managers will always refuse to challenge or intervene ...

And that's your answer to why the public sector "always gets a bad deal", @Atlanticwinds; nobody cares about being responsible for what's spent because it's not "their" money ... though the endless kickbacks may well be

Our own local authority has used the same maintencnce company for over 30 years, and apart from prices being several times anyone else's they're guaranteed to build faults into any work they do to engineer repeat visits/billing

This is how £20,000 (no that's not a typo) came to be spent on an internal door for our community facility, and that was faulty too, but never mind ... they still pay generous fees to a number of councillors as "consultants", so that's okay

Sorry, I was replying sarcastically to the poster I quoted - I absolutely believe that is not all you're doing!

Hi OP, you might find your contract has a benchmarking clause, or terms that state they can only apply a margin of x%. If not, at the very least it’s worth contacting your supplier and showing them the price difference and remind them that they’re receiving from the public purse and you need them to do better.

There are no proper budget controls with State contracts. I am being serious when I say this.

A quote for the Civil Service will be nowhere near as tight as a quote for the private sector. If you think NHS contracts are a problem, just wait until you see defence contracts.

The difference is shareholders demand their Directors run companies economically. The Treasury is really lax by comparison.

A lot of these are examples of bad procurement and contract management though. Who on earth on your commercial team is accepting a £40 increase for travel through London?

I've worked in many a public sector commercial role. The one place where suppliers take the absolute piss and fleece customers is the NHS. If Wes Streeting can sort out NHS efficiencies he deserves a knighthood. He's going the right way in making Chief Execs accountable. They're not held accountable for anything at the moment.

I also agree with PP re Donald Trumps public sector overhaul. We need it here too - so many people who have worked their way up the chain through longevity rather than talent. I think it's coming though, Labour made several nods to it in their manifesto.

As am I.

(That sounded a bit snarky - it wasn't meant to, I'm genuinely interested to know what you've seen)

We used to respond to proposals and submit tender offers on a regular basis for those where we could offer the service requested. We got frustrated at the level of deception required to get through to the initial stages. The procurement teams must know what's going on.

What do you mean by "the level of deception" exactly?

@Morph22010 You even get this crap in the private sector. When I worked at Carrillion I looked after engineers doing gas and electrical repair and maintenance. One branch of a client had their staff room fridge fail. So engineer takes a day out of schedule work (Highlands of Scotland) to confirm fridge is dead. I then order a new fridge from our approved supplier who charges way more than the Currys price. It was at least delivered but the branch won't plug it in and shove it back under the counter. Nope our engineer takes another day out to do that for them.
It was such stupid contracts that sent Carrillion down the toilet.

The alleged advantage in contracting out public services is public services can be supplied cheaper. But the reality is the contracts hold public services to ransom - look at nhs medicine prices.

Op the reason is because there is legislation in place that governs public procurement, and your department would potentially be in breach of the law if you did what you wanted. This could open up your department to legal challenges from aggrieved suppliers, if what you did was non-compliant which then would cost the taxpayer even more money to defend.

I'm not at all suggesting that what is happening now is ok. Whatever you do must be compliant with current procurement legislation and efficient in terms of the current contractual landscape. A cheaper supplier might have a less favorable performance, therefore you cannot just go on the initial cost of things, you need to consider the whole life cost e.g. procurement costs, running costs, cost of resource required to procure and manage additional contracts, and factor in any costs of risks that using a new supplier, plus a new supplier may not agree to as favorable terms as your existing supplier.

It's not as simple as you think.

If you don't have enough clipboards in your cupboard, the answer isn't "I should be able to buy one from Amazon". It needs to be dealt with before that - there should be procedures in place internally to manage stock so it's not an issue and doesn't actually get to that point.

Having seen some of the incredibly dodgy things that public bodies/employees try to do, whether intentionally or through genuine ignorance of the law, and seeing that it is only procurement law that stops them from doing it, I'm glad there are appropriate protections to encourage the public sector to stay on the straight and narrow with our tax money, rather than having carte blanche to spend without checks and balances. If that means authorities having to pre-plan a bit better, so be it.

Aside from the rest, this will get you nowhere. You’re talking about a misplaced sum for HMT.

As for what you do, you’re talking about casework and supporting individuals with regional procurement contracts, I presume you’re in DWP or DfE (or an ALB - it’s clear you’re not talking about departmental budgets but directorate so unsure if ALB). I’d go further and say you’ve provided a lot of identifying information, so even if not in DWP/DfE, if someone happens to find this in your department, there will be an investigation. You’ve broken security protocol over a few thousand pounds.

As for the procurement process, there are strict rules and regulations around how they must be tendered, bidding, and the final choice. There is unlikely to be obvious corruption (something you’ve said in another comment), all contracts would be above board. If you really don’t believe they are, you’re intranet will detail how to contest.

I would advise you ask for this thread to be removed. You’ve put enough details out there along with serious allegations, which if uncovered and linked to you at work, will get you in trouble with security, not following whistleblowing rules, etc. and you’ll end up in a disciplinary for gross misconduct with the potential outcome of being sacked.

I am long enough in the tooth to remember CS buying without these contracts. We used local office supplies for stationery. Got all sorts of nice stuff - branded post its, decent grade paper. Wouldn't pass the Daily Mail test. Same with GPC (government credit card) all purchases over a certain amount have to be published on the internet. Spending moved from it to these big contracts.
Have to say our travel booking is nothing like above examples, instant purchase and can use rail cards. It allows the centre to monitor budgets, CO2, and other targets. If everyone was purchasing individually there would be no over sight.

@Bjorkdidit Agree it is so frustrating. I have a railcard so would be saving the taxpayer loads of money to use it. LOADS. Our provider system won't accept them. [It would be so easy for them just to introduce software that did, like Trainline etc.] But nor can I book my own travel and claim it back thru expenses. Grrrr.

Agreed. YABU OP.

This. I agree that it's incredibly frustrating when you're on the ground and you can't do what you want to do because of the process. I also know it's not as straightforward as some people seek to think it is, to just buy stuff from Amazon as it's much cheaper.
It's a legal process that will take time to change. I honestly don't think it's about corruption.

@FartSock5000 'You could try to arrange certain items via petty cash if you have enough though. That's one way around some purchases'

There is no petty cash. No mechanism to reclaim where I work. For trivial cost occasional items, people just buy them from their own money and suck up the cost because they can't face the admin of going through 'the process', waiting weeks if not months for things we need 'now'.

I wanted a clipboard for some field work. There was none in the stationery cupboard and no-one had one in our office. I was told I could order one and it would be added to the next bulk order which comes once a quarter, so would have taken weeks.

I bought one for £3 from either Amazon using my Prime delivery or maybe picked on up in somewhere like Home Bargains.