To think that taxpayers should know about civil service procurement contracts

For those of us on the ground, it's so frustrating. It's not more cost effective and it's not better quality or more ethical. Most suppliers that win contractors are the massive 'service providers' with dodgy business practices (remember Carillion?) financed by venture capitalists.

To buy anything or arrange travel etc we have to fill in endless forms and get it approved even when it's a day to day part of our job.

To book a train ticket I can't just use the Trainline, pay for it on my credit card and claim the cost back, oh no.

I have to fill a form in, get it approved by my manager, then the admin team upload it to the corporate travel provider who will come back and say something like if you travel 3 hours earlier and go via a different station so the route is two hours longer it's £5 cheaper. Then I push back because I've already chosen the route and made travel plans based on the train I chose.

Eventually it might get booked but it's an almighty fight to book an open ticket even when the extra cost is minimal and it eliminates the risk that I have to either cut a visit short or buy another ticket anyway because I missed the train I booked.

And the price for flights, trains and hotels are always higher than the exact same bookings available to the public online.

Plus they add on unrequested extras for no reason, bumping the cost up even further. I had a meeting on an island where I was going for the day and they booked a 23 kg hold case that pretty much doubled the cost of the ticket for no reason at all.

They add on cross London travel that's ridiculously priced. I'm currently looking at tickets to London that will require onward travel on the tube and if I follow their process and include the ticket to the final destination it will add about £40 for what is effectively a one day travel card.

its the same at universities. You have to wonder what exactly the incentive is for senior management to agree to these extortionate contracts.

Approved suppliers and contractors have gone through a vetting and onboarding process. They have won the right to be the authorised supplier/contractor by bidding for the contract. There is a legal agreement in place.

So, just because you can get 10 pens for £1 in Poundland does not mean you can save money and buy them from there. You have to use the supplier/contractor who was awarded the stationary contract or you are violating/breaking the contract in place with that company.

The issue isn't corruption or common sense. The issue is the tendering process and the team who award the contracts because they don't always go for the cheapest deal. Sometimes they pay more to go with a company who is solvent with a solid financial history and has all the appropriate insurances and procedures in place that align with the authority who has given them the contract.

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

Yes she has.

She is forced to purchase from those suppliers on the government approved list but could get the same thing loads cheaper elsewhere from a different supplier.

It means that they can't but as much and people go without.

It’s the same in the nhs. I know someone who had to buy something for their job. On Amazon it cost £20. But they had to use a specific supplier and that supplier charged £150 for exactly the same item.

Someone is making A LOT of money in supplying the NHS

Donald trump has the right idea cutting all the wastage in public services / civil service

This is so in efficient I'm sorry it is this way

That's not the way they work though.

I get government supply tender notification alerts daily, and whilst some will go to the most economically advantageous, most will go to whoever is best at following the process, playing the game, and working the tender scoring system to their best advantage.

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.

Unfortunately it is procurement law.
There will have been a competition open to bidders who have to meet x y z requirements and this supplier won. Sometimes they win because they've priced some items really cheap but have marked up others. Sometimes they have to provide other services too which they then price in the cost of the item. You may not see the whole picture here
That's the bad news.

The good news is that a lot of newer government contracts have brilliant clauses with things such as termination rights (for no reason) and benchmarking clauses. There's also a possible option of a single tender action if you've found an option that makes a lot better sense as a one off.
So go and talk to your procurement and contracts management people and see if you can get something done here to get the outcome you want.

It won't have been corruption, it will have been for all the reasons discussed on this thread.

The civil service are subject to the same procurement regulations as other public bodies so with the exception of a few exemptions you will be able to look this up online (although admittedly a cumbersome task through the government websites).

The buying power of the nhs as a whole they should be getting the chairs cheaper if anything.

Local government are corrupt. Going back some years now but a department in Swansea Council were paying a supplier £20.00 per ink cartridge when they were readily available from other suppliers at under £6.00.

They were only allowed to order the ink cartridges from the £20.00 supplier. It stinks as someone in the council was getting a back hander from the supplier for giving them the contract.

It was explained clearly enough.
She wants to buy something for her department and has found it at a good price. She has to get permission for the purchase. Permission has been declined because she has to use an approved supplier who charge over twice the original quote. A poor deal for the taxpayer.

Couldn’t agree more @Atlanticwinds DH works for the local council and it’s the same there, they need something they can’t just order off Amazon or whatever they have to fill in a request form, send it to procurement who source it, and let him know when it’ll come, usually for 3 times the price.

I temped in the finance dept of our local large hospital - all of the groundwork’s there (weeding, lawmowing etc) were contracted to a company which is based over a 2.5 hour drive away, they’d of course add into their invoices travel time and fuel for 4 employees and 3 vans every time. It could just have easily been given to a local company for cheaper but ‘that’s not how it works, there’s no point questioning it’

I was watching a scrutiny meeting at our local council on YouTube the other day. They were talking about procurement but in relation to children’s homes and the rising costs of placements rather than buying actual products however I’m guessing the same issue would apply. The sufficiency manager was saying they don’t get value for money as the procurement process indirectly favours larger organisations that have sales/marketing teams and someone whose job it is to tender for contracts. Smaller providers which potentially may offer better value for money the person who prepares the tender will be juggling several hats of which that is only a small part.

Assume they weren’t an approved contractor. There are rules to follow around procurement and you can’t just select a random company to buy from. If that was the case you could select your sisters company for example. Also i’d be careful posting stuff like this as its against the social media policy. Yes might be anon but if one of your colleagues spotted this, they’d be able to identify from details provided. You’re in breach of social media rules.

And this is what frustrates people.

in what world is wasting 3k not as bad as it sounds.

Three thousand pounds. For absolutely no reason. Just order the cheaper one. I’m a farmer running my own business. I cannot imagine a situation where we buy something, a member of staff says I saw that cheaper on Amazon and we go “oh, thanks I’ll get it from there”.

@Atlanticwinds this can seem counterintuitive, but let me explain a little. I am a Finance Director in a large public organisation.
Agreed suppliers go through rigorous procurement processes to get on the list, the outcome is not only linked to price as ‘value for money’ includes quality, service contracts, ability to deliver and other factors. It reduces the risk of misusing public funds by staff buying off their mates, or even worse buying from themselves (much more common than you’d think!)

I do agree that sometimes it really does seem daft, and I have the gift to approve not-approved supplier purchases with appropriate due diligence BUT on the whole these approved contracts protect the organisation, purchaser and the public purse.

This type of crap reminds me of an old family friend - now sadly passed - he procured for a small private hospital. At some big trade show he met his counterpart from the local NHS. In the course of his chat he discovered he'd paid considerably less per item for identical waiting room chairs than the NHS. He was buying two dozen his counter part over 100.

I get that in a lot of cases approval of supplier is important but there must always be an avenue for buyers to highlight such ridiculous inequities.

Procurement in the public sector is jobs for the boys!!!

Biotechs include start-up, SMEs, to multi-nationals.

All companies determine ease of access to a market, not just can we throw more people at it. And that is the point, what sales return do you get by deploying resource elsewhere. All customers are not equal.

Atlanticwinds · Today 20:27

Radiatorbasket · Today 20:19
You haven't explained this clearly enough

Sorry but what is it exactly that isn’t clear?

What are the units? Are they exactly the same, of equal quality/use?

Understand your indignation but these are important things to consider. Lots of goods sold on the internet are not fit for purpose, hence the low costs.

Bear in mind that this can be considered as a contravention of the civil service code if you’ve not already gone through internal channels to try and flag this for change. Not saying you shouldn’t but management might not be very happy, especially your director.