To think that taxpayers should know about civil service procurement contracts

[Atlanticwinds]

This topic has always made me so uncomfortable and extremely annoyed but today I nearly lost the plot. I’m a civil servant working in a department that deals with public protection. The government sends us millions every year to run the “business” including salaries, housing of the service users, food, healthcare, personal development…etc. We’re a small department made of 4 middle managers and are given less than £7000 per year to use on providing good service and support. This is nowhere near enough and we’re always waiting for the next financial year. We spend hours per month shopping around to make sure that we spend that funding wisely and our service users benefit from it as much as possible, however many times the budget approver declines the purchase request because we are using a different provider than the ones we’re contracted with. They won’t let us buy anything from anyone else as apparently they will be fined. The contractors charge stupidly high prices and definitely aren’t good value for money.

Last week we submitted a request for 150 units from online sellers at a total cost of £1355. This is just under £10 per unit which is brilliant and it means our service users will have the items before Christmas and we still have some more money to spend on other things. The approver declined the purchase and asked us to use the contracted provider charging £27.50 per the SAME unit which is totalling £4125 and £20 delivery fee (the cheek of it!!). We are deflated and feel so let down by this corrupt system as this means that we can only buy for 54 service users and the rest will have to wait until the next budget is received next May.

Our service users are mainly people from very deprived backgrounds, with complex mental health issues, traumas and addictions. How can you keep on making cuts to save money and yet sign contracts with wealthy businesses that are constantly salivating over profits? AIBU to think that these contracts should end and we should be allowed to shop around given the tight budgets that we’re given?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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

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'.

Of course our roles aren’t around managing 7k budget. We’re all specialists and provide support to specific service users and are given 7k to support our work. I did mention in the thread that we spend a few hours per month shopping around to get the best price/quality to get items for people on our caseload, not our full 37 hours per week! I wish! We’re sinking and have to support around 600 men per month between us 4.

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.

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

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

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 …….

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

@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.

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”.

Because thankfully the contracted suppliers don’t stock every items that we order and we are then allowed to purchase from other providers. Around 30% of our purchases are from online retailers that aren’t contracted. The only way to find out is by submitting the purchase form and crossing fingers that the contracted suppliers don’t stock them. We don’t have access to their websites either as the procurement staff are the only ones that are given logins to these platforms, and many times they have to email to ask about the price of each unit and then get back to us.

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.