To think that taxpayers should know about civil service procurement contracts

I’m to civil service but am in procurement for nfp organisation and I can get things a lot cheaper but our suppliers need to make a strict criteria as in paying the national living wage as a minimum (which includes any contractors they use), slave labour isn’t used, they are net zero etc. Financially it’s a rip off but the other option is …….

I know of a situation where staff procured a basic, mid value item from a high street shop because it was so much cheaper than the catalogue usually used.
There was an error putting said item into use- think, a missing bolt- and an accident as a result. They’ve had to audit all items to be sure the same issue isn’t going to happen again.
There are reasons these policies are developed, but the law of unintended consequences works both ways- save money, have accidents and get sued. Restrict to a set of reputable suppliers- ridiculous unwieldy tender processes

But why not check the process first instead of wasting hours shopping around?

You are 100% not being unreasonable. I’ve worked in the public sector. The public sector/civil service is ripped off by large firms. There is minimal flexibility. The threat of litigation if there’s deviation from the contract is real. It’s infuriating to be fully aware you and tax payers are being ripped off and there’s nothing that can be done for years. The procurement functions are poorly staffed and under pressure.

I’m willing to bet one of the reasons the Post Office scandal ran for so long was because the PO execs knew they couldn’t get out of the contract with Fujitsu so put their fingers in their ears to the complaints.

In a typical procurement process, the price is part of the tender and then formalised in the contract. Suppliers can't just 'whack the price up'.

Or the one who lies to look cheap and get on the list then whacks the prices up afterwards..?

Can you flag it to the Cabinet Office? They are trying to sort out gov procurement. There is a new law going thru at the moment about it.

www.crowncommercial.gov.uk/information-for-buyers-and-suppliers/start-buying

Ah finally, someone who knows what they're talking about.

It's like these anecdotes don't consider effective large scale purchasing because they have no experience of it.

How are you supposed to monitor slavery in a supply chain if you don't know where your goods come from?

How are you supposed to understand what you're buying if your spend is completely disaggregated?

How are you supposed to ensure the safety of travellers if they've all gone and purchased your own tickets and no one knows where you are?

OP - what are the bulk buying incentives you can get from that particular contract? Do you know? I suspect not if you're only managing £7k budget.

I hate some of procurement rules because they are too cumbersome, but having a free for all with how public sector money is spent would be ridiculous.

Out of interest, how would others do this on such a large scale?

The "hoops" are designed by the procuring team to select the most economically advantageous tender...if a suitable supplier doesn't win, that's on the procuring authority for setting the tests poorly.

I’ve worked in biotech for >25 years. Been involved and know multiple companies who don’t consider the NHS as a target market/customer because of procurement

Surely a biotech company can afford to employ people with experience of public sector procurement?

Fujitsu and 10 other IT contracts all poor standards of delivery irrespective of price. The vetting process in itself doesn’t guarantee quality or delivery. It’s a fallacy.

Because the processes are run poorly. A decent procurement process is worth is a very strong tool. The problem is teams trying to rush the process, not engaging early enough with the necessary teams and experts, and focussing on the wrong thing (largely driven from the top), and either doing things non-compliantly (and being challenged and then making payouts) or treating the whole thing as a pointless exercise/waste of time, and in doing so losing out on the protection it can bring.

Fujitsu wasn't the only issue with Horizon. The shocking management by PO had a lot to do with it.

This is what I was getting at - contracts don't go to the most suitable supplier. They go to the one most willing to spend the time jumping through procurement hoops.

I’ve worked in biotech for >25 years. Been involved and know multiple companies who don’t consider the NHS as a target market/customer because of procurement. On the one side, of course there needs to be check and balances and we would all want that.

On the other, companies choose to provide access to innovations that would directly impact patients to the US or other sectors, because of the NHS ‘says no’ procurement approach. It will always bias to those who know how to complete tenders. That is built in to the process. If you’re not motivated to do that as it’s considered a nightmare sales approach, or you’re a smaller company say seemed risky, NHS misses out. So do patients and jobs in the Uk.

And you don't think this is taken into account now as a massive f-up? IT contracts are being disaggregated everywhere...

Fujitsu and 10 other IT contracts all poor standards of delivery irrespective of price. The vetting process in itself doesn’t guarantee quality or delivery. It’s a fallacy.

Processes are necessary. If you think there aren’t inefficiencies in public sector procurement and significant improvements to make, we’ll agree to disagree.

The government places contracts with approved suppliers because these suppliers have been through a rigorous vetting process. They have had to agree to CCS T&Cs which are designed to be equally fair to the Buyer and Supplier. When buying directly from the Supplier, the government would be beholden to their T&Cs and what might end up being cheaper could cost the government (taxpayer) much more in the long run. With all due respect, there are procurement teams who negotiate contracts day in and day out and price is only one component potential suppliers are assessed on for good reason (e.g. Carillion bailout).

.A procurement process involves multiple departments a (frankly painful) process and several layers of scrutiny

If every “head of” could purchase from whoever they liked and whatever price - which process is more open to dodgy practices?

Yes the process could be better - but it is needed.

What sort of thing were you ordering op

Are they though? The big controversies such as PPE was done by circumventing the set regulations as it was 'urgent'. In the OP they could have asked the approver what they meant by they'll be fined if they don't use the supplier they suggested.

I disagree this happens to same extent. Regardless though the cost is passed on to the consumer somewhere along that value creation chain to maintain profitability.

In the public sector, it means lower quality or less service.

And when the processes and regulations are counter-productive?

Most large private sector organisations have very similar tender processes for large spends - so yes, it does.

Yes, that is exactly what is happening - 4 people are employed to manage a 7k budget 🙄🙄