Ukraine – Some Procurement and Supply Chain Thoughts

I’ve caused some controversy on LinkedIn by asking questions about how Russia seems to be able to afford so much more military equipment than the UK for about the same level of expenditure.  That generated some interesting comments and also some people feeling this isn’t the right time to ask such questions. 

But a foreign policy expert from the Atlantic Council (and an eastern European himself), Damir Mirusic, says this “ It’s time for Europeans to stop watching in sorrow and guilt, and start watching with furious anger. Stop eulogizing your dreams about a better world. Wake up”.

That comment has been playing in my head for a couple of days now. I’ve felt “furious anger” since Thursday, anger that we have allowed ourselves to be “played” by Putin. We’re almost all complicit in this – me included.

Russia is not an economic powerhouse. But we’ve run down our military capability, wasted money on military equipment that doesn’t work. We’ve offered succour to every Putin crony and Russian crook who wanted to launder their money through London and enjoy our lifestyle. Russian money has funded political parties and the Brexit campaign. (No, I wasn’t a Remainer, actually).  London lawyers get rich suing journalists when they get too close to the truth about the oligarchs.  Absolute di****ds like Arron Banks and Farage have spouted their nonsense in support of Putin (and don’t get me started on the equivalent in the US). And I haven’t been out on the streets or even out on Twitter making enough noise about these issues.

So it feels like a time to ask difficult questions, and not just in the UK, I should say. I heard a German commentator say that the entire German foreign policy approach of the last 20 years “lies in tatters”. Angela Merkel carries some responsibility here, as she does for Brexit.  Her reputation is slipping away. Many European countries have failed to spend enough on defence, relying on the US to protect us from our foes. Energy dependence was another mistake. That has to stop now, and the amazing response of many countries including Germany in the last couple of days suggests that we have entered a new era at incredible pace.   

Anyway, trying to be calm… there are going to be many more difficult questions for businesses over the coming and months. That will apply on the revenue side – if Russian assets are frozen in Europe and the US, what might happen to factories owned by “our” firms in Russia, or stakes in Russian firms e.g. BP now trying to offload its 20% of Russian oil giant Rosneft.  But of course there are also major supply chain and procurement implications. This isn’t by any means an exhaustive list, and things will change daily or hourly, but issues are going to include;

Materials / products sourced from Russia – sanctions will certainly restrict some trade and buyers will have to be aware not just of first tier issues but what happens down the supply chain. Some may not even be aware that a material or component is of Russian origin and is important for a supplier’s supplier or even a supplier’s supplier’s supplier… etc.  40% of the world’s supply of Palladium comes from Russia, for instance.

Suppliers in Ukraine – not just raw material or products are affected. Ukraine has a pretty large international services sector now. For instance, I have friends who have been working with very capable software development firms in that country. I have no idea what is going to happen to that sort of trade, or whether those young programmers are currently out in a trench somewhere with a rifle. It’s a terrifying thought. 

Shortages of some products and consequent inflation – we’ve already seen major price increases for a number of commodities (oil, grain etc).  Whatever happens it seems likely that some of these issues won’t be reversed quickly. There will no doubt also be shortages of some manufactured goods too, whether because of sanctions or reduced production levels.

A desire to improve supply chain resilience – I’ve been speaking about this via various webinars and articles for some time. The pandemic, alongside geo-political tension, has already led many organisations to look at reducing dependence on “global sourcing” and instead consider re-shoring, insourcing and local / regional sourcing.  That is only going to increase in pace, I suspect given what is going on now, meaning more work for procurement teams. 

Shipping – I’m far from being a deep logistics expert but just reading about the strategic importance of the Black Sea makes you realise that there may well be consequences of the conflict in terms of transportation costs, timings and availability of capacity.  Air space restrictions will have an impact too.

I’m sure there are major issues I’ve missed. But that’s enough for now and that list will I’m sure keep many of my professional colleagues busy for some time to come.  Finally, I have made a donation to the UNICEF Ukraine fund. It feels like the most useful and tangible thing I can do right now.

PS the importance of good logistics management is being demonstarted very vividly by the Russian advance …

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

NHS Digital Breaks the Rules, Shows Naivety

The vexed question of conflict of interest in public sector procurement came up the other day with reports that a senior executive in the National Health Service digital team had been doing rather well out of that organisation.

The HSJ reported that NHS Digital (NHSD) paid over £3 million to a small technology firm, Axiologik, one of whose owners was working as a Board-level interim director in the organisation.

“The money was paid to Yorkshire-based tech support company Axiologik, whose co-founder and director Ben Davison also served as NHS Digital’s executive director of product delivery – for which he received annual pay of £260,000, working as a contractor, in 2020-21.”

A number of issues arise from the HSJ investigation. Firstly, it appears that no other candidates were considered for the position when Davison was appointed. That seems odd, to say the least.

Then nine months after his appointment, Axiologik was appointed to provide programme management support for the Covid booking service, followed by more work (according to HSJ)  “to lead NHSD’s “tech and data workstream” which involved “portfolio level executive leadership across citizen-facing digital services” run by NHSD such as the NHS App, NHS.uk website and 111 Online”.

In the current year, turnover of the firm is set to grow from £6.5 million to £15m, not surprisingly. NHSD say that they put measures in place to avoid conflicts of interest – Davison had no involvement in the procurement process, or delegated authority for contracting or spend approvals. But as a top-level interim executive, how could he hold a supplier to account in any meaningful way if he was also a director of that supplying firm?  

Another issue arose because Davison was paid in the £260,000 – £265,000 band in 2020-21 according to the NHSD accounts, making him the highest paid person in the NHS.  But there is more. The Treasury then got involved because his appointment broke the rules on getting approval for contractors who work for more than six months!  (The engagement of two other NHSX contractors also broke the rules). That led to Treasury withholding £645,000 of allocated funding to NHSD because they have been such naughty boys and girls.

But perhaps the most important question is this. Was Axiologik appointed after a competitive process?  The HSJ does not make that clear – presumably because they do not know – although they report that the firm was appointed from the government’s G-Cloud framework.

There are many frameworks used in the public sector covering a wide range of goods and services. They enable users to bypass much of the formal “legal” public procurement process and can be very useful when used properly, retaining the ability to achieve value for money but simplifying the process. The Cabinet Office’s Crown Commercial Services (CCS), which runs G-Cloud, is the biggest manager and promoter of such contracts.

But too often, frameworks are being used today to award contracts without any real competitive process, leading to potential shortcomings in terms of value or even corruption.  In most cases, for example, users should (legally) run some sort of competitive process between at least some of the firms on any given framework to select the supplier that can provide best value. But in practice, users at times just pick their favourite and justify it on spurious grounds that “they are clearly the best…”

Some framework managers don’t really have an interest in whether the process is run properly either. They make their money as a percentage of the spend through their frameworks paid by the supplier, so CCS for instance is targeted on increasing its “sales”. If they put controls on usage, or police this issue of further competition too strongly, then users might just switch to another framework and CCS loses income. Indeed, the funding of CCS and other major framework managers leads to a range of perverse incentives in terms of ultimate taxpayer value – something I’ve been saying for many years.

Anyway, to be fair, we don’t know whether Axiologik was engaged without a competitive process, so maybe all this is irrelevant here. But in any case, someone at NHSD was very naïve about conflict of interest issues, and very ignorant when it comes to Treasury rules on interims. So definitely a contender for the next volume of Bad Buying!

/0 Comments/by
,

Buyer / Supplier Collusion – A Difficult Fraud To Spot

What is the most difficult type of procurement-related fraud to detect? In my book, Bad Buying, there are plenty of examples of different fraud, some related to dodgy invoicing, fake suppliers or invoices, purchasing card fraud and more. But perhaps the hardest to detect are around collusion between a buyer (or someone else with power “on the inside”) and a supplier, with “backhanders” being paid in return for favours or preference shown to the supplier.  

Last month a case that goes back some 10 years finally came to its conclusion. Not only did it have that sort of collusion at its heart, but it was also interesting to us because the victim was a firm well known in the procurement world – services firm Achilles, who run supplier qualification, risk and information services across industries including construction, transport, and energy.

Back in 2011, their interim head of IT, Brian Chant, led the process for choosing an IT supplier to whom Achilles would outsource significant work.  However, the firm that was successful in winning the work, with Chant’s endorsement, also paid him some £475,000, according to the evidence presented in court. As the Register website explained,

“Unknown to Achilles was the fact that Chant, of Andover in Hampshire, had quietly approached the eventual winner beforehand to hand-hold them through the procurement process – and to arrange a hefty secret margin straight into his wallet”.

Chant left Achilles and joined Hampshire Police as its head of IT in October 2014 – a post he held until his arrest in 2016. But only now has the case been resolved. It seems that the criminal activity was discovered by the tax authorities initially, who were looking at VAT claims made by the IT company relating to invoices from Chant’s consulting firm.  That led on to the criminal investigation, and finally to Chhant being sent to jail for 6 years.

What makes this type of fraud so hard to spot? Well, particularly if the contract is in a specialist area, it may be difficult for others in the buying organisation to realise that the fraudster is pushing the supplier selection decision in a particular direction. It may even be that the favoured supplier is not a bad choice (outside the corruption issue), and there may be no obvious losses to the organisation on the buy-side.  

You also don’t have the ongoing potential evidence and chance of discovery that exists if, for instance, fake invoices are being submitted for payment, or someone is spending money outside policy on a purchasing card. Unless the payments from the supplier to the crook are picked up, then it is hard to gather evidence of this sort of behaviour.

What seems odd in this case is that the supplier and the people involved at that firm have not been named or – as far as we can see – prosecuted. I’m curious how they have avoided that. It’s hard to see really how they could have thought these were legitimate payments to Chant’s firm.  It feels like other customers of that firm deserve to know its identity, apart from anything else.

So what can you do to try and avoid this sort of fraud? A strong procurement function (or even a single person for smaller firms) can help ensure that supplier selection processes are structured and as objective as possible. Involving multiple people in the analysis and the decision-making also helps, and of course, you should also ask those involved in procurement if they have any conflicts of interest. However, someone who is capable of fraud probably won’t worry about lying at that point!

/0 Comments/by

CIPS Consultation – Use Your Vote!

Last week, CIPS (the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply) launched a consultation with members in connection with the Institute’s proposed governance changes.  After our campaign to make sure members were properly involved, it is good to see CIPS consulting on a range of options, even if (as you might expect) the Institute does argue the case for its own preferred position.

For each of the four issues, you are invited to “vote” for your preferred. Whilst this is not a formal voting process, clearly CIPS will be heavily influenced by the numbers, so if you feel strongly about these issues, please do take 15 minutes to complete the consultation.

So here is my brief summary of the issues and my own personal thoughts.

Point 1 – The abolition of Congress and its replacement by a new “Membership Committee”.

I voted for OPTION 1 (the recommended option).  I think the abolition of Congress was handled badly and arguably should not have happened until after this sort of consultation.  However,  Congress never really established a clear role and, in any case, it would be hard to re-create it now. So we should give the Membership Committee a try, although I have some reservations about its role, which is to provide oversight of the Executive (CIPS staff) who will actually be responsible for member liaison. I worry that CIPS may not have the resource or skills to take on that wide-ranging responsibility, and I’d want to see proper plans if I was a Trustee … but we’ll see! 

Point 2 – Appointing or electing the GBT (Global Board of Trustees)

I voted for OPTION 3  (not the Board preferred option).  On balance, I believe that as a membership organisation, some democratic voting and election process remains important.  So if members no longer elect Congress, then we should have some ability to elect Trustees.  I appreciate that in CIPS preferred option, “all Members eligible to vote would be invited to approve the appointment of all Trustees at the Annual General Meeting”  but this would be rubber-stamping rather than a democratic process. I would also point out that no other professional Institute I’m aware of has moved to an all-appointed Board, and if half the Board is still appointed (rather than elected), I don’t see a problem with getting diversity and the “right people” in as Trustees.  Finally, if we have a combination of appointed and elected Trustees, we can assess which route brings in the best people over the next 2 or 3 years. If there is a clear “winner”, then there could of course be a future change.

Point 3 – The composition of the Nominations Committee

I voted for OPTION 1 (the recommended option). This is a no-brainer in my opinion. The Nominations Committee is very powerful now and will be even more so in the new structure. So it must be more independent of the Board than currently; but equally there should still be Board (Trustee) representation on it too.

Point 4 – Whether CIPS has a President (or multiple ambassadors, or a Patron)

I voted for OPTION 2  (not the recommended option).  This is a difficult question and caused me most thought.   I do see advantages to the multiple ambassadors option, which CIPS supports, but I also feel something important has been lost since we stopped having a President.  We should have had stronger representation and presence during the pandemic, when our CEO had enough on his plate managing the core organisation through difficult times.  Indeed, generally, I feel the lack of a President puts too much responsibility onto the CEO. The CIPS recommendation to abolish the post may be driven by one or two recent bad experiences with Presidents rather than clear logic, and I’d also argue that there is nothing to stop CIPS having multiple ambassadors as well as a President!

I reject the Patron idea – all that needs saying really is “Prince Andrew”. Finally, I don’t buy the argument that having ambassadors will save CIPS money compared to a Presidents.  CIPS does not have to fund a President to fly around the world. Again, that relates one bad experience, I believe (and I’ve heard there’s this neat tool called “Zoom” too …)  And surely managing “multiple ambassadors” has a cost anyway?  So on balance, I vote to retain the role.   

That’s it from me –if you are a CIPS member please do use your vote – and show that CIPS members are interested in the future of our profession and our Institute!

/0 Comments/by
, ,

MOD Versus Guy Hands – Seconds Out for the Big Fight!

After our last article featuring criticism of the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD), there has been more positive news in recent days, even if it relates to past failure. The development relates to the organisation gearing up for a legal battle with a private equity firm headed by billionaire businessman Guy Hands.

Twenty-five 25 years ago, MOD sold off houses that were used for military families. The deal was controversial at the time and has continued that way, as it became more and more obvious that it was a lousy deal for the taxpayer and indeed for many occupants of these properties. As The Guardian described it,

“In 1996, the Conservative government sold 57,400 properties in the so-called “married quarters estate” to Annington Homes, which was then bought for £1.7bn by Nomura, a Japanese investment bank that employed (Guy) Hands. He later left Nomura to found the Terra Firma private equity firm, and bought Annington for £3.2bn in 2012”.

An odd aspect of the deal was that the MOD retained responsibility for maintenance and refurbishment of the properties, whilst paying what was supposedly a discounted rent on a 200-year lease. In other government PFI-type deals of the period (including a vary large one that I was personally involved with), the buyer of the property took on full responsibility for maintenance, so at least the taxpayer was transferring a significant element of risk.  In the MOD case, the aim was to use the money raised from the sale to renovate the properties – but of course that would benefit the new owners too.  But in any case, the MOD has not done a great job of maintaining the estate in the intervening years.

The commercial naivety shown by MOD has enabled the buyers of the property to make huge profits on the back of house price inflation, with an annual return averaging over 13%, according to the National Audit Office.  That gain included Annington issuing debt last year (against the property income stream) that enabled it to pay a dividend of £794m to its parent company. Here is what I said about the deal in the Bad Buying book.

“A National Audit Office (NAO) report in January 2018 laid out failings in terms of the buying and contract management process. The Department’s own calculations suggested retaining ownership would be cheaper – but for fairly nebulous “policy benefits”, the sale went ahead anyway. It then made very cautious estimates about future house price inflation and failed to build any mechanisms into the contract to claim a share of windfall gains. Of course, house prices rose faster than MOD’s cautious model, and the rate of return for Annington and its investors has been far higher than expected.

The NAO identified other problems – for some reason, MOD retained responsibility for maintaining the property, which it hasn’t done well, and there has been little collaboration between MOD and Annington to seek further benefits. Overall, it’s an example of failure that could comfortably sit in several different chapters here, but a lack of commercial understanding and negotiation skills in MOD were certainly amongst the issues; the NAO report estimated that the Ministry of Defence would have been between £2.2 and £4.2 BILLION better off if it had retained the estate”.

But the government is now taking an interesting stance. Defence Procurement Minister Jeremy Quin is trying to take back ownership of the properties through exercising “statutory leasehold enfranchisement rights”, a somewhat obscure legal manoeuvre. The MoD has sought to take two houses initially to test whether Annington can be forced out, whilst as you might expect, Annington claims the government has no right to do so and is behaving badly.  This may end up in court; but the firm has now offered a one-off payment of £105 to contribute to refurbishment if the MOD backs off from the legal route.

So that suggests Annington knows there is some chance it might lose in court; and arguably that is already a potential £105 million “procurement benefit” for MOD. Not bad on Andrew Forzani’s end of year savings report… But maybe there is more if the Minister has the appetite for a fight.

And just to complete the story, the chair of Annington is Baroness Liddell, an ex-Labour Party MP and now a Labour peer. It’s quite amusing hearing her now justifying the unfettered capitalism that Hands has always propounded, whilst it is the Conservative Party that tries to claw money back from the billionaire’s firm …

/0 Comments/by