, , ,

Government Procurement Cards – Wasteful or Wonderful?

The focus in the UK public sector is now firmly on cuts, saving money and trying desperately to stay within the chancellor’s ‘financial envelope”.   There have been some signs of a structured approach that could save money in the procurement space, such as this story in The Times about more spend governance in the Home Office.

“An audit of costs, ordered by Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, has found evidence of “excessive spending” on awaydays, public opinion research and contracts handed out by the department to external suppliers. As a result, ministers have demanded personal sign-off of all large expenses in the department and have put some future spending plans on hold”.

The other initiatives that hit the news last week was the freezing of all government ‘Procurement (or purchasing) Cards’. Spend on the Cards has more than quadrupled over the last four years, apparently. As the BBC reported:

“Thousands of taxpayer-funded credit cards will be cancelled under plans to crack down on “wasteful” spending, the government has announced… the government said spending on the cards had quadrupled in the past four years without enough scrutiny.

The Cabinet Office will order departments to freeze almost all of the around 20,000 cards in circulation this week, with a strict new application process aiming to cut the number by 50% …

More than £675m was spent on the cards by central departments and core agencies last year, up from £155m in 2020/21”.

Now any procurement professional reading this knows that ‘procurement cards’ are in reality ‘payment cards’. In themselves, they do not define or dictate a particular procurement route. You might buy by making just one phone call, or run a 6-month long tendering process, and in both cases, ultimately pay with a Card.

So the key aspect (to avoid Bad Buying) is that the decision to make a purchase with a Card must be legitimate and controlled, as in the case of any other purchase. The difficulty is establishing just from the headlines whether this has been the case here. Examples quoted included “£1,200 on luxury coffee pods by one team in two months and more than £1,800 on a “value for money” course”.

At first glance, some of the expenditure does sound dodgy, but really we need to know what the process for approval, sign-off and audit was before we can talk about fraud or incompetence here. And sometimes there are innocent explanations for what sounds odd at first. This is from my Bad Buying book.

“Some years ago, I talked to a logistics manager based in the UK Ministry of Defence’s Head Office. He told me he had not long returned from Afghanistan, where he was working as a logistician in a big military camp there …

We talked about the need for buying processes to be flexible and for buyers and logistics people to be able to react quickly in military situations. The use of the Purchasing Card came up, and he explained there had been a bit of an internal furore when finance had looked at expenditure on the card in use at the Camp. One invoice related to expenditure on a range of golf equipment. That looked very strange, possibly fraudulent.

But it wasn’t. He explained that opportunities for rest and relaxation were limited for the troops in Afghanistan. Not many friendly bars, you couldn’t just go off for a run through the hills or take a trip to the beach. So, someone had the bright idea of buying some golf equipment and rigging up practice nets. Even non-golfers were getting into it, with more expert players offering lessons. The golf kit showed up on the Card bill, and looked odd, but most people would agree it actually was an appropriate and intelligent use of public money.

As a corporate executive, and on behalf of the firm, I’ve bought retirement presents, flowers for staff to celebrate a wedding or birth, strange items to be used on corporate away-days, booze, and many items that would have looked odd on that card bill. But all were justified and for the organisation’s benefit, not mine. Another case saw a government body chastised for spending money at a horseracing venue. But that was explained as the fees for a legitimate business meeting, booked in the hospitality suite on a day when no racing was taking place. Today, horse tracks and football grounds often have good meeting facilities, and can be cheaper than equivalent hotels, so again this might well have been good buying rather than fraud or failure”.

So don’t jump to conclusions when you see headlines about use of Cards. Having said that, it seems sensible and reasonable for the government to be taking a hard look at this. Looking back, we can now see there was precious little management of the civil service going on in the later years of the chaotic Tory government, so a bit more control and scrutiny now is no bad thing.   

/0 Comments/by
, ,

The Things We Do for Love…

Procurement related fraud is often committed against organisations by outsiders, as in the case of invoice misdirection, for instance. Other fraud can be highly sophisticated, involving multiple people inside and outside the organisation. But insiders working alone are frequent perpetrators too, and approving invoices from a fake supplier that is actually owned by the member of staff involved is perhaps the most common purely internal procurement fraud. Or the crime can be even more straightforward – as in the case of simply buying stuff with the organisation’s money, then stealing it, usually to resell.

There are many examples of these basic frauds in my Bad Buying book, and it is interesting to note the drivers for this sort of criminal action.  Getting into debt, often gambling related, is one common driver. Pure greed and the desire for the finer things in life – nice cars, big houses and so on – is a pretty generic motivation. There was the senior manager for instance who defrauded the UK health service in order to fund her stud farm and buy high quality horse semen! But often the driver is love and / or sex, and we see someone who is trying to impress a partner or potential partner, and that was the reason behind a recent British Army fraud.

Jed Charlot was jailed for three years recently after stealing half a million pounds worth of supplies from the Army in order to fund gifts such as a Louis Vuitton handbag and holidays for his mistress. He stole items such as printers and toner cartridges to sell on eBay after he told her he was rich, rather than an Army quartermaster probably earning £35K a year, working for the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME) in Wiltshire.

As a quartermaster sergeant in charge of stores, he used his MOD account from 2021 to order items, then sold them on. He placed 676 orders over a year and stole £498K worth of products, making £349K income from the sales. He was caught in 2022 when a civilian colleague was preparing for an operation in Germany and realised there was a shortage of printers.  She checked and found that the defendant’s unit had spent far in excess of the budget, and thought, ‘that seems odd…’ Well done to her!

Charlot claimed initially that his MOD account had been hacked but that excuse didn’t stand up for long. It is a sad story really. Charlot was ‘genuinely remorseful’, he had reacted badly to pressures in his life (his lawyer said) and his previous conduct in the Army and Police before that was exemplary. But theft it theft.

The large number of orders was presumably his way of avoiding more scrutiny. I suspect there was a sign-off threshold, maybe at £1000, where someone else would have needed to authorise the order. So keep it below that level and there is less chance of detection. Maybe someone should have checked the budget sooner, but at least it was spotted after a year or so. Another NHS case in my book which was similar saw a women stealing increasingly large quantities of supplies such as printer cartridges from a health organisation for about 5 years before anyone noticed!

So how do we mitigate the risks of such actions? Regular checks on orders, even relatively low value, should be implemented. That might be random rather than 100% for really low value transactions, but staff should know that they might be examined. Scrutiny of budgets and a close look at any areas of overspend is key – the lack of that oversight in the NHS example was shocking. Maybe better use of data, perhaps even using AI, could help to detect unusual spend patterns by comparing the purchases of different people or cost centres.  

But sadly, there will always be someone who is tempted by easy money, particularly if their judgement is clouded by l’amour.   

/0 Comments/by
,

Beware the Fake CFO!

I have mixed feelings about Ove Arup. One the one hand, they are an engineering company with a strong track record, great achievements, and one of my best friends worked for them for many years. On the other hand, they wrote me a nasty letter threatening legal action after I mentioned their role in the London ‘Garden Bridge’ scandal which involved some VERY dodgy procurement by Transport for London (still have the lawyer’s letter in my files somewhere…) 

That scandal was driven by Boris Johnson and Joanna Lumley, two individuals who suffer from poor judgment.  At least Lumley is not driven by arrogance, but her public persona gives her more power then she deserves – her ‘support’ for the Gurkhas for instance did not increase global happiness, I’d argue. Anyway, that’s for another day and another website.    

Going back to Ove Arup, I tried to resist feelings of schadenfreude when I read that the firm has been conned out of more than £25 million last year. Their recently published annual report confirms that the firm (as The Times reported) “revealed in May that it had been the victim of fraud in Hong Kong, with criminals using “fake voice, signatures and images” to convince a member of staff to deposit money into several accounts’. Project delivery was unaffected, however.

This is being positioned as a ‘cyber-attack’ I guess because that is very contemporary and it sounds like the firm is relatively blameless but really this is a classic invoice misdirection fraud, just enhanced by the use of deepfake technology.  A cyber attack uses technology to gain access to a company’s internal systems and data. It does not sound like this is the case here. This is presumably the classic fraud play which consists of a message to a mid-level finance executive saying, ‘hi, this is your CFO, please send £25 million to this bank account because we’re working on a top secret acquisition project’.

I am not claiming that this is the case here (I don’t want another lawyer’s letter, please) but sometimes this sort of fraud is enabled by someone on the inside, who can claim they were misled but in truth is part of the fraud-committing gang. What it always means is that the firm has been sloppy in terms of its process, systems and training.

So all suppliers and bank accounts (or any other organisations to whom money is going to be paid) should be authenticated and validated before any money is paid to them. Any alleged changes in bank details from an existing supplier must be verified by a phone call to a known individual on an established phone number.  (Also, if you’re doing a private transaction through a lawyer e.g. buying a house, and you get an email saying ‘we’ve changed our bank account’ the day before you are due to make the payment, PHONE THEIR OFFICE).

Significant payments should have multiple authorisations. In his case it may have been several payments rather than one £25M hit, but even so, this is serious money, so you must have multiple involvement and sign-off to guard against the lone internal fraudulent collaborator. All staff in roles where they have access to the firm’s money in any way must been trained in the right approaches. processes and policies. 

At least this isn’t quite as bad a case as the Essilor Luxottica (huge ophthalmic lens firm) Thailand invoice fraud, where the firm lost up to 190M euros, basically their entire annual turnover in that country. That really was one of the most breathtaking examples of process incompetence I have ever seen in a major company.

So if you work in procurement or finance, do make sure your processes for paying suppliers (or other organisations, or even unknown bank accounts that are supposedly linked to your own organisation) is watertight. In particular, any one-offs, emergency payments and similar must go through a really strong checking and verification process. Just because someone who looks and sounds like your CFO sends you a WhatsApp message telling you that it is vital you help the firm NOW by authorising a payment, you should not rush off and send them loads of cash.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

When in Rome – watch out for potholes!

When I lecture on Bad Buying, as I do at the Skema business school in Lille, I ask the students to think about what sort of procurement related fraud or corruption is particularly difficult to protect against or detect – and why. Certainly right up there in the top three examples is the supply of goods or services that deliberately and maliciously don’t meet the quality level or specification agreed between supplier and buyer.

So the supplier substitutes an inferior product (or service, although more often this is seen with supply of goods) that costs less to provide, meaning the supplier makes additional profit margin and the buyer potentially suffers from the lower quality provided. It may not cause a major issue for the  buyer – but in some cases, it certainly does.

A case included in the Bad Buying book covered oil supply.  “In March 2015, a case going back to the 1990s finally came to the courts. Global trading giant Glencore was ordered to pay $40 million to OMV Petrom SA (a large oil company, headquartered in Romania), by a UK court, for shipping oil of a lower quality than it was supposed to be to the firm in the 1990s.

Bloomberg reported that Marc Rich & Co., which went on to become Glencore International AG, sold about 32 shipments to Romanian state firms from 1993 to 1996. But this was cheaper crude oil blends than the specification that had been promised. The seller falsified documents to support the fraud, which made it some $40.1 million, according to evidence in court. The fraud only came to light when a former trader from Glencore split the beans to Petex, the firm that had organised the oil importing process”.

This case showed how difficult such frauds can be to detect, as the client here actually didn’t notice anything amiss.  One barrel or tanker of oil looks very much like another!  But a recent case demonstrated an interesting twist on this. The danger for the supplier is obviously that the client spots the deception. So how about bribing the buyer(s) to turn a blind eye to what is going on?

That appears to be what has happened in Rome. The Vatican celebrates a Jubilee next year – it will be the 1,700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), and I’m sure we can all see just how important it is to celebrate that in 2025. So Rome is preparing for millions of visitors and is trying to tidy up its somewhat run-down and chaotic infrastructure. Residents have been complaining about potholes in the roads for some time, and even when they were ‘repaired’ somehow the problems seemed to re-occur very quickly.

The cause seems to be a group of allegedly crooked city officials and road workers, conspiring in league with a dodgy supplier who provided substandard asphalt for the road repairs, material that crumbled far too quickly. Raids on the Rome city hall recently searched for documents that police claim show the firm paid kickbacks to officials to win contracts worth 100 million euros.  

The firm also offered jobs to the children of officials, it is claimed, and the inferior quality material meant potholes reopened at the first sight of rain. There are other interesting procurement aspects too. As The Times reported, investigators ‘believe that the man behind the firm set up front companies to allow corrupt officials to pick a different winner to successive tenders to give the appearance of legality’. That’s clever, because of course the same firm winning this sort of contract over and over again would eventually arouse suspicion.

So how can we guard against this sort of behaviour? In terms of checking quality of supply, you would hope that a good procurement organisation would be doing some sort of quality checks on the actual material. And not just asking the supplier to send a sample, but going out and looking at what was actually being used and doing some ‘live’ product sampling. 

In terms of avoiding the bribery aspect, there are a number of risk management options here. Not keeping procurement people in the same job for too long to make it harder for them to develop corrupt relationships with suppliers is one. Making sure multiple people are involved with supplier selection decisions and indeed in ongoing supplier management is another.

However, even that might not be enough if you have an organisation that becomes corrupted endemically. We saw in the case of the Fat Leonard / US Navy scandal, when you get to the point where even those who are supposed to investigate whistleblower complaints have been bribed themselves by the supplier, corruption can expand and run unchecked for some considerable time. So investigators will want to look at just how many Roman officials were corrupt. Was it just one or two – or was this a case where the rot spread more widely?

/by
, ,

Manipulating the specification for procurement fraud

One of the more creative ways of committing procurement-related fraud is by the manipulation of specifications. It requires a little more skill than simply bribing a decision maker to choose your firm  or over-invoicing a client and hoping no-one notices, but it can be very effective.  The basic approach is that during the process to select a supplier or suppliers, a key person or people in the buying organisation make sure the specification favours strongly one particular supplier that they want to win the contract.

It is by definition a fraud that requires internal involvement, although often the supplier that wins the contract will be aware of it. Indeed, usually the supplier will be paying some sort of bribe or ‘thankyou’ to their internal accomplice(s). But sometimes, the supplier who benefits is not aware of what is going on, and sometimes the internal protagonist might not even get anything personally out of it. They may even feel they are doing the right thing for the organisation – “I know that Smith and Co are the best firm to do this consulting work, so I just want to make sure nothing goes wrong in the procurement process and they do win it”.

But I would argue this is still corruption if the specification is maniplated away from what would be the ‘best’ for the buying organistion, even if that is ‘just’ corruption of the process rather than corruption for personal gain. Bidding firms often spot this. They will read a specification and think “that has been written to favour our main competitor”.  Often they don’t bid on that basis, and the level of competition is reduced.  There have been many allegations of this practice in the defence sector for example over the years, and this is from the Bad Buying book.

‘One case where corruption was allegedly involved is the long-running saga of the Indian government helicopter contract with AgustaWestland, worth some $466 million. India terminated the contract after accusations that the firm – owned by Finmeccanica of Italy – bribed officials. The Indian government said in 2014 they “terminated with immediate effect the agreement that was signed with AgustaWestland International Ltd (AWIL) on 8 February 2010 for the supply of 12 VVIP/VIP helicopters on grounds of breach of the pre-contract integrity pact and the agreement by AWIL.”

The allegations surrounded manipulation of the specifications, with suggestions that the company had used middle-men to bribe Indian officials to win the 2010 contract. The allegation was that a defence ministry specification insisting its new helicopters should be capable of flying at 6,000 metres altitude was cut to benefit AgustaWestland’.

Actually one of the worst examples I saw of this was when a consultant was repeatedly used by local authorities to help develop the specification for a particular fairly specialist service – he often worked on the procurement as well. Oddly enough, his specifications always seemed to favour one particular supplier, the same one that the consultant regularly worked for in the periods between his work on the buy-side! All the other suppliers knew this and generally didn’t bother bidding if they saw he was involved with the procurement.

Another interesting example popped up recently. The State of Oklahoma in the USA decided to give all its schoolkids a copy of the Bible. But rather oddly, the specification included the requirement that the bible must also include certain US historical documents, such as the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Funnily enough, the only version of the Bible that has these additions is what is known as the “God bless the USA bible”, produced with the endorsement of Donald Trump for which he gets a cut of the revenue. It’s a luxury item, bound in leather and sells for the ridiculous amount of $60. A standard bible can be acquired for a fraction of that.

Critics alleged that Oklahoma leaders are keen Trump supporters and deliberately manipulated the specification. However, whether or not that was true, there was good news this week. The state amended its request for 55,000 school Bibles, so other versions can be state approved. The request was altered, removing some of those onerous requirements, a victory for “good buying”!  

So remember how important a good and fair specification is, and if you want a strong competition, try and make sure it isn’t too obviously tilted in favour of one bidder. Unless you want it to be, of course …

(Footnote – you might expect me as a Humanist to be against forcing kids to read the Bible. But actually, I cannot think of anything more likely to make young people feel negative about religion and maybe help them make up their own minds about their beliefs and how they want to live their lives!)

/by
, ,

Can politics learn from the ethics of procurement?

The headlines in the UK have been dominated in recent days about whether it is acceptable for politicians to receive gifts and hospitality from political donors. The new Labour government has come under fire for taking money to buy clothing as well as accepting tickets to Taylor Swift concerts and football matches. Looking at it from a procurement perspective, I’ve spotted three major fallacies in how Ministers have defended their actions.

Fallacy 1 – “Well it’s within the rules”. 

The obvious answer here is that “well, the rules are wrong.”  And once your party is in charge, or if you are the new CPO / head of procurement function, you have an opportunity to change the rules. So Labour people accepted these gifts when they were the opposition and no-one noticed too much. But wouldn’t it have been great if the Prime Minister had announced a major “clean up politics” initiative in his first weeks in power? You’re in charge now people, you can make the rules based on what is ethically right.

Fallacy 2 – “It’s OK as long as I declare it”.

No, it is not.

I discovered this issue when I joined the civil service way back in the 1990s. I was told by my team that there was a register of gifts and hospitality, and that made everything OK. As long as things were registered, it was all fine.

The counter to that is pretty obvious. If I registered a two-week holiday in the Seychelles paid for by a current supplier, or my category manager accepted a gift of a Rolex from a firm that is going to bid on the forthcoming major tender, is that OK? Of course not. The other problem with the “register” concept is that it often is an “after the event” process. In other words, I’ve already been to the Seychelles and my category manager is already proudly showing off his new watch before anything is public or able to be approved.

So that was the immediate change I was able to make in my civil service role. Staff would need to ask permission before accepting anything – if their boss or I said “yes”, then it could be recorded in the register. But you ask permission before you do or accept anything. Incidentally, I do believe that sometimes corporate hospitality can be justified as a way of building relationships at a senior level, maybe with a key strategic supplier,. If Bill Gates was in the UK and invited my software category manager to join him for a lunch, I’d absolutely say yes.  Or if I’d travelled to Brittany to inspect a new dairy and talk to the owners (as I did at Mars, at our corporate expense), then I’m not going to refuse a quick steak frites lunch in the local café!

Fallacy 3 – “I am incorruptible, so it doesn’t matter what I accept”. 

You will hear this a lot, usually from senior people, particularly if you try and tighten up an ethics policy. They are respected and respectable people, they are affluent, and of course they would not give a supplier a contract merely because they were entertained at the Cup Final or got a Harrods hamper at Christmas.

There are a number of problems with this. Firstly, it is exactly what a genuinely corrupt person would say if challenged. If I was actually giving a supplier contracts unfairly, or facilitating them being paid a higher price than the market dictates, and receiving bribes in return, then that is how I would respond if challenged.

Secondly, even if you don’t feel consciously that you now owe the supplier something, and you haven’t been asked for anything in return, you are now obligated. That is a basic aspect of human psychology, proven in experiments.

“Since gifts represent our desire to build or cement a relationship, they also require some form of reciprocation. Contemporary sociologist Dimitri Mortelmans argues that gift giving creates a “debt-balance”, so to prevent ill feelings gifts must be repaid creating a cycle of gift giving”.

It is why gift-giving is a key element in many communities, probably going back to pre-historic times. You exchange gifts with the neighbouring tribe, you are less likely to kill each other. That’s the positive side; but in a business context, it means I feel somewhat obliged to you when it comes to marking that latest tender.

So do Lord Ali and other gift-givers want something in return from Labour? Possibly not – perhaps they just like the people and the Party. But if they do want something, it is clear that there will be powerful people now who feel some obligation because of gifts. That is just human nature. I would be less nervous actually if all gifts were given to the Party, which can then decide whether the PM’s spectacles or Bridget Phillipson’s party is a good use of funds. But the personal nature of these gifts feels risky.

I also wonder whether one problem is that few people work in “proper” companies before they get into politics. If Labour had a few more ex Martians or Marks and Spencers veterans on board, they might be more sensitive to these issues.

/by
,

Labour Wants to Use “PFI” – Please Be Careful!

As we’re into the election period in the UK, the Labour Party is promising capital investment (in roads for instance) but saying that much of the money will apparently come from the private sector. This has brought back memories of the previous “Private Finance Initiative”, which was actually invented by the conservatives under John Major in the early 1990s but was enthusiastically embraced by Labour after 1997 when Tony Blair won the election.

I was procurement director at the Department for Work and Pensions for two and a half years, 1995-7, serving when Labour came into power, and was involved in some large PFI projects, including new construction programmes and some IT initiatives. Then in the noughties, I was consulting in government and held a couple of interim commercial director posts where PFI or similar initiatives were relevant too, including the ID Card programme.

So speaking from the inside, I can say that there were a number of positive aspects to PFI, despite later criticism. Having a single entity responsible for the financing, construction and then maintenance of a new hospital for instance created a clarity of purpose and an interest in whole-life costs. However, there were some less positive aspects which Labour must avoid if it is to make a success of PFI Mark 2 (or Mark 3, or wherever we are up to now).

In the past, some dubious financial engineering was definitely encouraged to get projects through the business case process. The comparisons were generally made in terms of the basic cost of the building in the case of construction projects. So PFI projects were often compared using “cost per square metre” metric, as the ongoing PFI charges overt the contract period were often based on that as the charging “unit”. That figure included the cost of capital, the construction cost and probably the basic infrastructure maintenance. It would then be looked it against the “public sector comparator”, i.e. what it would cost the government to provide the same facilities.

I actually sat in meetings where the PFI adviser (more on that later) said to a supplier, “the public sector comparator is marginally lower than your figure – you need to improve that”. Now that sounds like good negotiation, but the twist was this. The contract usually included a whole list of ongoing activities where the buyer would be locked into using the PFI supplier. And these were rarely included in that value for money comparison. So suppliers were encouraged to make their money on these extras, often around ongoing supply of goods or services, and keep their base charges low to get through the business case process.

The other way of making the contract attractive for the provider was to make it longer. Hence ridiculous 60 year contract periods, with guaranteed price increases of course, which again circumvented the business case issue as the comparisons would rarely look that far into the future.

So this is why seemingly trivial services or one-off type activities ended up costing schools and hospitals a fortune.  “Another school had to pay £302 for a socket, five times the cost of the equipment it wanted to plug in”, as the Daily Telegraph said in one report. This wasn’t an accident or bad negotiation – this was because the payment mechanisms were constructed deliberately to make the basic occupation charges look lower, with the provider making their money from these ‘extras’.

That would improve the apparent business case; then later on the occupier gets hit with unexpectedly high charges. It represented a conspiracy really between all the parties to make these projects happen, and arguably was a failure of finance and procurement across many organisations while these deals were being done; or at least a failure to stand up to pressure from other quarters and point out loudly the problems that were being stored up for the future.  I will take some credit though – one of the (probably few) good things I did in my DSS job was refuse to allow catering, cleaning and security to be included in one large property PFI deal we did, because I was concerned about future lock in for decades. That probably saved millions.

The other very dodgy aspect of “old PFI” was the role of Partnerships UK (PUK) in all this.  From 2000 onwards, Treasury promoted the use of PUK’s services – at extortionate consulting rates – for advice to public sector clients on particularly the commercial and financial elements of PFI deals. If you didn’t pay your three grand a day for a PUK adviser, you wouldn’t get your project approved by Treasury, was the feeling.

Yet PUK was 49% government owned, and 51% owned by the banks! That was a clear conflict of interest there in terms of PUK’s enthusiasm for PFI deals which made huge profits for those same banks. And the politicians – and even some top civil servants – were probably looking forward to their nice non-exec roles with the same organisations once they retired.

So Labour needs to take care here if it wants to bring back PFI-type ideas. It needs considerable commercial and procurement expertise on the government side of the table – and it must make sure the people who are supposedly representing the taxpayer in those discussion really do have our interests at heart, and are not feathering their own nests.   

/0 Comments/by
,

Guildford Council “Fraud” – WTF?!

After writing last week about competence in UK local government, as if by magic, a case of alleged fraud in a council very close to my home popped into view the other day.

Now several of my local councils haven’t been doing very well in recent years in terms of looking after taxpayers money. The Tory council in Surrey Heath, where I live, now ousted by the LibDems, bought well over £100 million worth of commercial property in Camberley right at the top of the market, and is now sitting on a loss in asset value of £50 million or so. Woking council, a few miles to the east, has basically gone bust after property deals and investments that make Surrey Heath’s look minor.

And now Guildford, to the south-east, has published a report into what is an alleged fraud and is at best a prime example of Bad Buying in its housing department. Two employees have been suspended and five agency workers had their contracts terminated.

The report to the Council by Jeanette McGarry of SOLACE, (the society of local government CEOs), is good but focused more on the governance issues rather than the procurement events. That may be because the matter is with the police now and an arrest was made in March, so precise details of the core issues may be sub judice.

But basically, a contractor working on the council’s housing stock was paid far more than the original contract value (which is not disputed) and also there was a possibility (as the report says),

  1. That work may have been ordered when it wasn’t necessary;
  2. That work may have been ordered, invoiced and paid for when it was not completed at all or;
  3. Not to a satisfactory standard;
  4. That duplicate invoices may have been submitted and paid for the same work;
  5. That works may have been ordered and undertaken that were not the responsibility of the Council.

Back in 2022, the council agreed to spend £24.5 to update its housing stock. But there were no in-house surveyors and doesn’t appear to have been much in the way of internal procurement either, as “Several agency staff were appointed and were able to appoint housing repair and maintenance contractors”.

A three-year contract for £2.4 million was agreed for EICR (electrical installation condition reports) testing and inspection to Seville Developments Ltd, “under direct award” via a framework. This was apparently achieved under the Council’s procurement process and “was found to be compliant”. I’d like to know more about how a direct award of that size could be acceptable, and if there was no competition within the framework, but the report does not go into that.

But the council realised in 2023 that expenditure had reached £18.9 million with Seville, with no authorisation or action taken such as contract variation. At this time, “the Corporate Procurement Team was staffed solely by temporary officers and there is evidence that an officer identified the unauthorised expenditure and raised this with the Housing client but did not escalate the matter”.  

Whistleblowing concerns were raised in 2023, and the staff suspensions and terminations took place in September 23, and in March 24 “An arrest was made by the South East Regional Organised Crime Unit”.

If we look at the anti-fraud measures outlined in my Bad Buying book, we can see a number of flaws in the Guildford process. There will I suspect be questions around the lack of transparency in supplier selection. Then we have the issues on signing off work – was that power too concentrated? Perhaps the biggest question is how on earth invoices that exceeded the contract value by £16 million got signed off and paid – that entire budget control process at Guildford must have been absolutely pathetic.

But an interesting point which is not one I really covered in the book is this dependence on contractors and temporary staff. To have a procurement team that is entirely “temporary officers” brings obvious dangers. It is not that contractors are necessarily crooks, but they cannot have the knowledge of the organisation and the internal relationships that are vital when things go wrong or strange events occur.

I also don’t understand why if Guildford was so short of staff, they didn’t call on Orbis for help. Orbis is the shared service organisation, hosted by Surrey County Council, that runs procurement for Surrey, East Sussex, and Brighton councils, and does a pretty good job. Surely they could have assisted Guildford if the council there couldn’t find its own procurement staff?

Anyway, another case study for “Bad Buying 2”!

/by
, , ,

Avoiding Bad Buying in UK Local Councils

As the results come in from local elections in England, it is clear that basically the country just wants the Conservative Party to go, the sooner the better. I don’t think there is huge enthusiasm for anyone else but most of the public are just sick of the infighting, incompetence and idiocy of the ruling party in recent years.

However, will changing our local councils make things better? A very interesting article in The Times   looked at data provided by a new agency, the Office for Local Government (Oflog). Ministers set up Oflog last summer to provide “authoritative and accessible” performance data to support improvement in local government.

The data looks at the efficiency and effectiveness of local councils across 27 categories in five main areas: waste management, corporate and finance, adult social care, planning and roads. It revealed for example that some councils have recycling rates that are twice as good as others and that some authorities are failing to process half of planning applications on time, while others are not late on a single one. The figures also show the extent to which many councils are struggling with debts, with six local authorities already having declared themselves bankrupt since 2021. That is certainly in part becuase of lower funding from the centre of government, but competence (or lack of) seems to come into play too in most cases.

The Times accessed all the data to look at variations, which are huge and pretty inexplicable other than by sheer management competence. For example, in the year to September 2022, Hinckley & Bosworth borough council in the East Midlands completed less than half of household planning applications on time. But Tamworth borough council, just 30 miles away, was not late on any.  

The Times also came up with league tables to see if there was any political correlation with performance. Nottingham (Labour controlled) was the worst performing authority. Torridge district council, on the north Devon coast, came top of the table – it is run by independent councillors.

But the results actually supported a theory I’ve held for years, suggesting it is not that the Conservatives (Tories) are generically better or worse than Labour in terms of competence (with the Lib Dems in the picture too in a smaller way). Of the ten worst-performing councils, six are controlled by Labour. Of the ten best-performing councils, six are in coalition or are run by independents, while the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives run two each.  Eight of the ten worst-performing county councils or rural unitary authorities are controlled by the Conservatives – while seven of the best-performing ten are in coalition or run by independents.

So what it does seem to show is that the worst-performing councils are almost always in areas, towns or cities where there has been a long-term dominant party, whether that is Labour or Tory. Conversely, the best-performing councils are generally more contested, so independents rule the roost, or no single party has a clear majority, or power has changed hands over recent years.

That stands to reason really. If there is a long-term dominant party, there is more scope for arrogance to creep into decision making, or fraud and corruption to spring up, and there is less scrutiny of decisions. “Bad buying”, whether it is just wasting money on frivolous or unnecessary spending, or more serious fraudulent or corrupt expenditure, is more likely where power is well entrenched. Take fraud for example. You are less likely to bribe a councillor, or to stand as a councillor yourself so you can influence planning decisions for nefarious purposes, if it is not clear who will be in charge after the next election.

Similarly, some of the arrogance we have seen in councils such as Woking, where the dominant Tory council invested hundreds of millions in unwise property deals, or in Nottingham, where the council (Labour in power since 1991, 50 of 55 councillors) thought it could run an energy firm better than the professionals, came about I’d suggest in part at least because the councillors thought they were unchallengeable and had complete power.  My own council, Surrey Heath, has also lost money – not as much as Woking though – on property deals put in place by a very arrogant Tory leadership. But last year for the first time ever the Lib Dems took power here.  

However, the correlation is far from perfect. Thurrock, where the council is now suing “businessman” Liam Kavanagh, who allegedly cheated the council out of over £100 million with dodgy solar farm investment schemes (hopefully the ex-finance head at the council will end up in court too), has actually had a few changes of council over the years.

But Liverpool is another example where single-party dominance led to a culture of corruption. Even after commissioners came in to run the City in 2021, the job description I saw for the Head of Procurement role still did not suggest a real appetite to put in place all the controls and governance you would want to see as a taxpayer!

Anyway, all this suggests that if your main interest as a voter is in the effective running of local services, rather than any deep political beliefs, you should aim to keep your local council and councillors on their toes by creating a competitive environment. How you can best do that will vary by area and even local electoral ward. But that seems the best strategy if you want your money to be used honestly and well.

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

What Happened to Ethics, we ask “Professional” Services Providers!

Bad buying obviously covers every potentially sector and category, but I have had a long interest in professional services spend and procurement for many years, including as co-author of “Buying Professional Services”, my first published book.

A couple of recent stories highlighted that although most of the people working in that sector are highly educated and intelligent, they can still behave just as badly and even illegally as any petty criminal.

The first story was about a survey of lawyers run by the “rolllonfriday” website, anonymous of course given that 35.5% of the respondents admitted that at some point they have been guilty of adding time that hadn’t been incurred to their time sheets (which then means the invoices to clients are also inappropriately inflated). As the report said,

Thirteen percent admitted they did it regularly, 12.6% confessed to being “occasionally” culpable, while around 10% said it was something they had done, albeit “rarely”. 

Well, that probably won’t come as any surprise to most of us, but it was interesting to see our suspicions as cynical buyers confirmed. It reinforces the view that whenever possible, engaging professional service providers on some sort of fixed fee, outcome, output or success based basis is better than a simple “time and materials “ hourly or daily rate.

However, it can be difficult in the world of law, because we often don’t know just how much work will arise from a particular assignment, particularly if other parties are involved (litigation for instance). So it is hard for the parties to arrive at a sensible view of risk, which you need in order to agree a fair fixed price.

You should always look for where you can define some sort of clear work package and agree a price for that, but one thing buyers can also do is challenge their provider if bills look “padded”.  Many people feel nervous about actually digging into a statement and saying to their lawyer, “so did you really spend 30 minutes on that two-line email”?

Now they are unlikely to immediately back down and reduce that bill, but next time, they might just think “perhaps I’ll just put 20 minutes for this email” because they know you will challenge. So don’t be scared to be a nuisance and analyse billing carefully.

The second piece of news was even more shocking. Consulting and auditing firm KPMG was fined  in  the Netherlands for endemic cheating around professional examinations taken by their staff. As the Times reported, “The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in the United States found that between 2017 and 2022 hundreds of KPMG workers in the Netherlands, including senior partners and managers, had shared questions and answers with one another. This included for exams that they had to sit to test their understanding of professional ethics”.

Cheating on an ethics test! You have to laugh really. But I don’t understand why it is the US regulator doing the fining though rather than the Dutch equivalent.  

To make it worse, KPMG lied to the investigators, saying they knew nothing at senior levels about the answer sharing – but it turned out two board members had indulged in these activities themselves! A $150,000 fine was also imposed on Marc Hogeboom, who used to run KPMG’s Dutch audit division, and he was banned for life from working for any firm that audits American public companies.

These people are auditing public companies and giving investors confidence (or otherwise) in those businesses – so having the right skills and training is critical beyond just KPMG’s own operations. The cheating means there may be incompetent people doing important work, which is not a good thought, and of course it means buyers have paid for people whose qualifications (which largely determine the level of fee paid) were bogus. Maybe some big clients should sue the firm now.

It seems that it isn’t the first time this has happened and KPMG is not the only firm that has transgressed. Last week the American regulator also fined Deloitte’s businesses in the Philippines and Indonesia $1 million each for answer-sharing on professional tests. And two years ago EY was fined $100 million by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, because a “significant number” of its American auditors cheated on the ethics component of their Certified Public Accountant exams.

The lack of ethics and morals of those involved is quite shocking for supposed “professionals”. Whilst the latest fine was substantial, it does not seem to be enough really to reflect the seriousness of the crime. I think it would have been appropriate to ban KPMG from all audit work in the Netherlands for a few years. I also think maybe a few jail sentences for the most senior people involved might have made others sit up and take notice.

So the advice to procurement people is this. As with the lawyers, don’t necessarily believe everything your consultants or auditors tell you, or everything they put on the invoice, just because you think they are ethical and trustworthy professionals. Not all seem to fit that description.

/0 Comments/by