To think that taxpayers should know about civil service procurement contracts

True. Also true is that £7k budget and expenses of just over £1k is not exactly the same level of risk as procuring all the PPE for the NHS.

Proportionality.

Yeah just let whoever spend public money with no process or regulations, sounds great.

As an example: I heard on the radio poor delivery of one project does not mean disqualification from future tender processes. That is to say Fujitsu continue to ‘deliver’ government IT contracts and I think only recently stopped tendering. WTAF.

The Procurement Act which is coming in force in Feb (was delayed from October) is changing the law so that poor past performance on other contracts can be considered and suppliers barred from tendering.

It happens in the private sector too.

But there is a very big problem with allowing staff to just buy things cheap online, how much do you know about product safety standards? How good are you at avoiding fake products before you purchase them?

(and a good chunk of the extra you pay is no doubt being credited back to the purchasing department, and the company that got the supply contract had to spend a fortune tendering and supplying paperwork for every product on the list - but those are different problems)

The whole ‘it might not make sense to switch’ is bollocks. This would never fly in the private sector, who also care about quality and security of supply and all those other standards. It’s waste - end of and I am pleased you are challenging.

As an example: I heard on the radio poor delivery of one project does not mean disqualification from future tender processes. That is to say Fujitsu continue to ‘deliver’ government IT contracts and I think only recently stopped tendering. WTAF.

Apart from what previous posters have mentioned re vetting etc, quite often there is a reduction added at the end of the financial year or end of contract which is applied across the total number of the item ordered so Team A orders 10 items, Team B orders 15, Team C orders 20, none of the teams know about what the other is ordering so centrally any discounts negotiated through the tendering process is then applied reducing the overall unit cost of the item.

But there are so many fakes sold on Amazon, it’s impossible to do sufficient due diligence to guarantee authentic and good products each time.

There are some bizarre rules - my husband works for a company selling a certain product to the NHS, except they won’t buy it from him as he sells with a one year warranty. He instead sells it to a third party who sells to the NHS with a three year warranty at 1.5x the price as he just increases the price to cover a potential failure rate and make a profit. The NHS would certainly be better off buying cheaper with a one year warranty and replacing any items that happen to fail - but their policies prohibit this.

I think it’s called the goodheart rule - rules brought in with good intentions but that are ultimately detrimental. However when implemented at scale they may end up being beneficial for the whole NHS/civil service .

Next time any moron says that public services are underfunded, they should be shown this.

Public services are not underfunded. They are bloated, wasteful and criminally inept. Civil servants are increasingly corrupt and almost entirely incompetent. The government and scummy MPs are robbing the taxpayer and stealing openly. Giving public money away to their friends.

If you think otherwise, you are naive.

Because the approved supplier list is vetted. They go through a process and have to prove things like financial stability (so they don’t go under with your money), anti slavery policies etc.

Are there dodgy practices within procurement - very likely. At the very least “friends” are notified that the contracts will be available and are no doubt scored highly on the non tangible parts of the process. But as a concept procurement is sound. You have overall cost savings - and the suppliers are sound(ish).

Yeah write to the socialists so they spend other people’s money better. Said no one ever.

On the other hand, write to the Daily Mail or the Telegraph. Blow the whistle in the public interest. Name your department, send evidence. Then watch the corrupt civil servants and politicians try and cover their arses for stealing from the taxpayer.

Public sector procurement is a nightmare. So many frustrating rules than mean that 9/10 contracts definitely end up with a worse supplier - but one good at jumping through the tendering hoops.

Do you not have a whistleblowing hotline

The rationale is government gravy trains and creating more government jobs

i thought people knew about all this tbh.

edit - to be clear I don't approve of this. I just feel it's hopeless because even the Tories wouldn't address it. I can't see Labour going anywhere near it.

Is your whole departmental budget £7k? I’m assuming you have other parts of your job, otherwise 4 people managing such a small budget makes zero sense…

You're tilting at windmills @Atlanticwinds

Ha just noticed your username OP. You should harness it. I expect to see a complete overhaul of government procurement in the next 6 months.

Write to your MP and copy in Rachel Reeves, asking your MP to speak to RR about it - Members of Parliament are supposed to be your point of contact with government and a request via your MP gets more attention.

I imagine that the procurement process is run in line with procurement compliance guidelines and all your contacted suppliers are vetted to ensure that they meet certain standards . The procurement team will send out invitations to tender and then select from whichever suppliers respond. However it sounds as if there is a marked difference between the price you pay and the price at which the product is freely available on the open market, so definitely worth asking the procurement team when this contract is next due for review. Escalate if you don't get a sensible response

Sometimes just putting concerns in a well written balanced email can be enough to prompt some action.