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?

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.

Yes same units, same quality. I don’t want to say too much so I don’t out myself but this peapod for example is £129 from Amazon

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Playlearn-Compression-Kids-76x43cm-Inflatable-Kit-Comfy/dp/B0CKXQ8MRL/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?crid=2GWIHENBMKYU3&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.zzUFespytiQ4mRkV_w8yjhsi75G24XJ5emWUc6hmN1QCMUSdwJ46N-KYaLMUSyCrPVy5EY3EaP0xeasHKroeTcUOuGcKwLQaocaudG3Rao_l7-J2BCxMCVE2iCbEbsTcHhDB_7XqpxuOEuUd9zFzhIIrZjTjvJTsQO1WEGjYm4FzY8Z_lVnL49HS_-3ushNGTHgPzuP_E4QKIQ10T_rDtg.VHK4oDE3badNgVV8TS9-5WH704HTdlRVhXvnzEwLRUU&dib_tag=se&keywords=peapod+sensory+chair&nsdOptOutParam=true&qid=1731479546&sprefix=peapod%2Caps%2C114&sr=8-3

The exact same one with the picture of the same boy (Ha!) is £370 from the approved supplier.

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’

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

@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.

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.

Agreed. YABU OP.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.