, ,

Huge Ship, Tiny Error, Major Problem

Picture: LPhot Alex Ceolin, UK MOD© Crown copyright 2019

You may know the expression “don’t spoil the ship for a ha’pworth of tar*”, but we have a case now where the ship most certainly has been spoiled – or at least put out of service for some considerable time – because of a tiny error in manufacturing. The impact of this has also led to a tricky contract management situation.

In August 2022, the British aircraft carrier Prince of Wales broke down just one day after departing its Portsmouth base for training exercises off the US coast. That was hugely embarrassing for the Navy given the ship had cost some £3.1 billion and this wasn’t the first problem since initial launch in 2019. This time, the issue was traced to a starboard propeller shaft fault and an installation error. Responding to a recent parliamentary question, Ben Wallace, the UK Defence Minister, said that based on “initial reports” the shaft was misaligned by 0.8 – 1 millimetre. That is a tiny mistake, but apparently caused a huge problem.

As well as the operational issues this caused, the question of who should pay for the error is also complex. Construction and delivery of the warship was carried out by a consortium of three firms under the banner of the now defunct Aircraft Carrier Alliance. BAE Systems, Babcock and Thales were all involved, which makes it complex to assess liability. Will the Ministry of Defence (MOD) end up paying or will they be able to pin the responsibility onto one or more of the firms?

A report on the “Breaking Defence” website said that the MOD “declined to comment on why the repair bill liability decision has not been made yet, nor when a decision is likely to be made”.  But MOD did say that repairs were likely to cost some £25 million, and that an investigation was looking at how to ensure the failure was not repeated. Well yes, one would hope that the same won’t happen again!

John Healey, the Labour Party’s shadow defence secretary pointed out that since the ship entered service in December 2019, it had spent 411 days in dock for repairs, compared to just 267 days at sea. A previous deployment also ended in embarrassment and a quick return to base in Portsmouth after an internal flood left the engine room and electrical cabinets submerged for 24 hours. The current repairs were supposed to be completed at the Rosyth dockyard in Scotland by February, but at time of writing (May 2023) still seem to be going on.

We could draw analogies here between our (literal) flagship and the wider state of the UK. Still pretending to be a significant global power, but incapable of actually doing anything to live up to that fantasy and all that sort of thing. But keeping to the facts, in a more mundane fashion it does highlight the importance of absolute clarity in the contract whenever you are buying from a consortium of any kind – and that doesn’t just apply in the military world of course.

Don’t assume a consortium will act as one entity if something goes wrong. It’s just as likely that each party will fight to protect their own position, which can leave the buyer in a difficult position, as we may be seeing here. So a strong and clearly written contract, including a definition of what will happen if there are issues after the formal consortium is dissolved, is essential.

And you can see why the UK Treasury (finance ministry) is not too keen on increasing the MOD’s budget for spending on more equipment, even given the present Russian threat. Cases like this (as well as high-profile failures such as the Ajax armoured vehicles) all add to a lack of confidence that such money would be spent well.

* A bit of research suggests that the expression was originally about sheep rather than ships! I didn’t know that…

/0 Comments/by
, ,

An Interesting Fraud – – Maybe Bad Supplying Rather then Bad Buying?

There are a number of very common procurement frauds; well covered of course in the Bad Buying book.  “Inside jobs” based around a corrupt employee take a number of forms but often consist of someone internal diverting spend to fake companies that they control or have a stake in, or to companies that are paying them a bribe. Fraud from outsiders often means submission of fake invoices, or diverting invoice payments away from genuine suppliers to the fraudster.  However, most frauds could be prevented by some sensible and standard policies and processes.   

So having collected examples of fraud and corruption in a fairly serious manner for over a decade now, it is rare for me to see a new variant. But a recent case in the US was quite unusual, in that it was based on buyer impersonation, which we don’t see very often. I’m sure it has happened before, but this was certainly not a common or garden case. Indeed, it was quite impressive in a way, with the fraudster showing impressive attention to detail, and a good understanding of how procurement works. And the failing was not actually with procurement policy or people; it was the suppliers who were conned and whose processes let them down.

Fatade Idowu Olamilekan,  a citizen of Nigeria, was extradited from Nigeria to the US (with good cooperation between the authorities in each county) and recently sentenced to five years in prison in the US in connection with a scheme to fraudulently obtain and attempt to obtain millions of dollars.

From 2018 to 2020 he obtained details of various procurement executives in the US government sector. In particular, during the pandemic, he impersonated the Chief Procurement Officer of New York State to fraudulently obtain medical equipment, including defibrillators.  He set up email addresses that were as close as possible to the correct ones for the relevant people and organisations. He then contacted suppliers, principally those already working with New York, and said he was looking for quotes for items.

After they submitted quotes, he told the suppliers that they had been successful and won the contract, and issued them with fake purchase orders (POs). The goods were to be delivered to warehouses that he nominated, and from there he shipped them to locations in the UK, Australia and Nigeria.  The payment terms on the POs was 30 days, which is pretty standard, so didn’t raise any alarms. But of course that gave him 30 days to move the goods somewhere else once they were delivered, before the supplier started looking for their money. Presumably, when their cash didn’t arrive, the supplying firm eventually got through to the real buyer, who would then explain that they knew nothing about this order.

All very clever, although getting goods rather than direct cash via a fraud leaves you with the problem of disposing of the stolen goods. Criminals rarely get anything like the real value of their ill-gotten gains (so the bloke in the pub trying to flog me a laptop said).  So that’s a downside of this type of activity. 

Whilst this wasn’t really a very hi-tech fraud, it does raise some interesting questions as we move into the AI world.  A single phone call from the supplier and conversation with a real procurement manager from New York would have put an end to this within minutes.  So as transactions and even sourcing processes become more and more automated, you can imagine a situation where a clever fraudster uses a fake AI bot to place orders, which will then be processed by the suppliers’ AI powered bots. How long would it be before the supplier bot realises it has been conned?

This is not something I’ve thought about too much, but as we enter the ChatGPT era, there’s going to be a whole new world of Bad Buying fraud and corruption to think about and look out for!

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Committee Takes Aim at MOD Procurement

The UK government’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) which keeps a beady eye on government spend trained its attention on the Ministry of Defence last week. And PAC, made up of members of parliament from different political parties, was not impressed with what it saw. The PAC gets most of its ammunition from National Audit Office reports and investigations. It can then call “witnesses” to question in person. Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee said this as the committee’s report was published.

“If the MoD does not act swiftly to address the fragility of its supply chain, replenish its stocks, and modernise its capabilities, the UK may struggle to maintain its essential contribution to NATO. The 2022-2032 Equipment Plan is already somewhat out of date. It doesn’t reflect the lessons emerging from Ukraine, more than a year in. And every year it’s the same problems – multi-billion-pound procurement problems. Equipment arrives in service many years late and significantly over-budget, and some of it just isn’t arriving at all. The MoD still does not have or seem to be able to attract the skills it needs to deliver the Plan”.

The MOD does not have a great track record when it comes to major capital spend for equipment in particular. The latest disaster (which we’ve covered here previously) is the £5 billion Ajax armoured car programme. Delivery of vehicles from the supplier, US manufacturer General Dynamics, is years late, there have been problems with soldiers suffering from hearing problems after using the test vehicles, and the MOD is in a commercial dispute with the supplier.

As usual, many people are keen to offer simple-sounding solutions. Clifton-Brown speaking on Sky News said that MOD should bring in more private sector procurement people. But many of the (huge) current procurement team in MOD do have private sector backgrounds, and frankly buying MOD kit is not really very similar to anything the private sector does. Indeed, high profile and extremely smart private sector folk such as Bernard Gray have tried to fix defence acquisition and largely failed. The problems are far deeper and more intractable than a bit of a capability shortfall.

To be clear, a lack of skills in procurement is an issue (but probably even more true for contract management and project management capability), but there are other harder-to-fix problems in terms of MOD acquisition, such as these.

  • A conspiracy between MOD, Treasury and the supply side to consistently under-estimate the cost of new equipment at business case stage in order to get it approved.
  • Competition between the services (Army, Air Force, Navy) which means bidding for new investment is competitive rather than collaborative – this plays into the previous point about misleading plans and budgets.
  • Cosy relationships between industry and MOD staff, bordering on the corrupt at times, with a “revolving door” which often makes MOD people cautious about “upsetting” firms that might one day be their own employer.
  • The desire to keep changing specifications post contracts – driven by the rapidity of technological advances and also the desire of MOD senior leaders to have “the latest kit”.
  • Perpetual uncertainty about the highest level strategies around maintaining the UK’s manufacturing and maintenance capability, and setting that against the concept of buying the best value for money kit off the shelf from whoever makes it.
  • Unwillingness of the best staff to go and work on what are perceived to be failing programmes.

These issues should be addressed, but its not all going to be sorted out by recruiting a few more decent procurement professionals from Unilever or Toyota.

Then we also saw stories last week about another MOD dispute with a supplier. Babcock is building a new low-cost (in theory) frigate, which will not only be used by the British navy but will be sold to other countries. However, MOD and Babcock are now arguing about the commercial details of the contract for 5 Type 31 general purpose vessels. Babcock has warned investors it could lose up to £100 million on the contract and there is an argument as to who picks up the bill for the escalating costs. It appears to be related to inflation increasing far more than expected, putting pressure on the supplier as the cost of steel and other items rises.

So the question seems to be this. Who in the contract agreed to take “inflation risk”?  Now I would have expected this to be laid out very clearly – if it was not, then that was both Bad Buying and Bad Selling! Or just bad contracting. Then the problem may have arisen if Babcock foolishly agreed to take that risk, not thinking that we might see inflation at 10%+.  MOD would be perfectly within their rights to tell the firm to just get on with it, but perhaps there is something more nuanced in the contract, as the parties are now apparently going to a dispute resolution process. We’ll watch with interest to see what comes out of that.  

/0 Comments/by
,

Procurement “Transformation” and Supply Base Reduction

I’ve had a couple of abortive attempts at writing a book about “procurement transformation”. Perhaps one day it will happen. But my feeling over the years is that often presentations at conferences that claim to be about “transformation” are nothing of the kind. They might be about upskilling the function; or implementing a new piece of software; or launching a category management programme; but the ideas they describe are not really transformative. And in some cases, the central aim or achievement of the programme appears to be simply a reduction in supplier numbers.

There is no doubt that many organisations do have a supply base which is too large to achieve optimal performance or value.  So a reduction in supplier numbers can be beneficial – but the point is that it is usually not appropriate to consider supplier reduction as an end in itself. Rather it should be seen as one of the outcomes of a wider procurement improvement or transformation programme.

An excessively large supply base usually develops because of a lack of procurement spend visibility, control or influence. Budget holders decide where and how to allocate their money, leading to fragmented and un-coordinated spend. Hence getting such situations under better management will bring a number of benefits, and an effective procurement programme, probably category management based, will be needed to address matters. And even today, most organisations, in most categories, will find that the result of a well-planned and executed sourcing programme is fewer suppliers in that area.

So supplier reduction as an outcome of an appropriate programme can indicate real benefits have been achieved. Fewer suppliers means more concentrated spend, and there can be benefits from this aggregation. Although economies of scale are over-estimated in many industries and sectors, it is clear that when most organisations look carefully at a category, and find dozens or hundreds of suppliers, they derive benefits when they come to negotiate with a view to reducing that number.

But in some cases, the “right” answer once a spend category is considered will be more suppliers, not fewer. If the analysis shows that the organisation is worryingly dependent on certain suppliers, then that should be the desired approach, for instance. My personal baptism in procurement was a role where I was at the mercy of a monopoly supplier of a vital raw material. It was not a good place to be and I longed for “supplier increase” rather than supplier reduction!

Or even if risk is not the issue, there may be value opportunities through taking a more aggressive and tactical approach to a market, with frequent supplier switching. We should not be afraid of strategies that lead to more suppliers – as long as the benefits are weighed against the true costs of supplier management into account. So here is a summary of key points to consider.

  • Supplier reduction should be a potential outcome from doing procurement well.  It is rarely sensible as an objective or end in its own right, and it is not the most appropriate strategy for every occasion.
  • Understanding the starting point or baseline is important for any major procurement improvement initiative. And if supplier reduction is part of the business case, it is vital to have a clear and accurate view of the baseline. Supplier numbers are often overstated, though duplication or mis-categorisation, so a spend analysis maybe required as a starting point.
  • Similarly, if the savings from supplier reduction are going to form part of the business case for a procurement programme, the true cost of managing suppliers needs to be assessed, as well as realistic savings form any re-negotiations, so any savings can be calculated with realism and as much accuracy as possible.
  • For any category, and certainly before any supplier reduction initiatives are set in train, procurement must ensure that there is a good understanding of the markets, suppliers and associated risks that are being addressed.
  • Supplier reduction can be a sensitive issue amongst stakeholders and budget holders, who may see their favourite suppliers disappear. The benefits of rationalisation programmes may not be very visible to stakeholders either. So it is important to get the buy-in of your key stakeholders and engage them in the process, particularly if you are trying to make dramatic change.

That last point is important but often disregarded. Managing the internal stakeholder dimension is often more challenging for procurement than managing external markets, and needs significant focus. That is always true, but particularly applies when a major change in the supply base is likely. Indeed, I’ve seen that point in itself be enough to kill procurement change or transformation programmes stone dead.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Germany’s Military and More Bad Buying

In many countries, the UK included, there is still a lot of admiration for German business and industry. The common view is that the German economy and the nation’s way of doing business generally is focused on organisation, efficiency and competence – and generally succeeds in terms of the results.  

That might seem to be a bit of a myth however,  if you read the story of Brandenburg airport, which featured as a major case study in the Bad Buying book. Years late and billions over budget, the story included dreadful programme management, terrible specifications for the airport and its internal fittings (such as escalators that weren’t long enough to reach the next floor…) as well as substantial fraud and corruption.

Now a recent report into the German military, the Bundeswehr, from Eva Högl, the parliamentary armed forces commissioner, suggests that that sector is also home to quite a range of shocking “bad buying” stories of bureaucratic incompetence and general failure. Högl says that the Bundeswehr needs 300 million to modernise properly and that at current rates of progress, it will take 50 years.

Högl is an ex-politician and travelled to 70 German military sites around the world and interviewed over 2300 people, so this wasn’t a quick management consultancy review. The Times reported that her findings included some almost unbelievable examples. A military hospital had no internet connection, so sensitive medical devices had to monitored manually. A microbiological laboratory was still using a dot matrix printer and an ancient refrigerator. The standard uniforms – introduced decades ago – are susceptible to “cold and damp”, which sort of negates the whole point of clothing, really!

Troops often had to buy their own equipment, and IT staff at one site waited months for computers. The bureaucracy is not just around procurement though – a sergeant in HR waited 3 years for a routine check on him to be caried out, during which time he was not allowed to access the HR systems or visit his own workplace unaccompanied!

We’ve featured plenty of stories about wasted money in the UK Ministry of Defence (and indeed the Bad Buying book has examples from that sector in several other countries ). But most of the stories related to major capital programmes; the Ajax armoured car, or the new aircraft carriers. An exception is the long-running and sorry tale of the army’s residential property estate.  However, the German report seems to suggest that the issues run across and through pretty much every aspect of  general management, including but not limited to procurement. 

Why is the situation so bad? Germany must have huge expertise in terms of management, including procurement and supply chain – you only have to look at their successful industries such as automotive and industrial equipment to see this. Why isn’t this translating into a professionally run military?

This isn’t just something to worry the people of Germany, of course. The country is a major contributor to NATO efforts, and that has been brought into the spotlight since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Germany spent some 1.44% of its GDP on defence last year,  less than the UK or France and well below NATO’s 2% target. That spend in Germany surely must be increased if western Europe faces a long-term stand-off (or worse) with Russia. But just as the UK’s Treasury (finance ministry) is wary of pumping more money into the Ministry of Defence until it shows it knows how to buy expensive military hardware better, we might assume that there are similar worries in Germany. No-one wants to throw money at an organization that does not appear to know how to run itself properly and efficiently.

/0 Comments/by
,

HS2 Delayed – What a Surprise!!

So, the UK’s biggest case of Bad Buying for decades has hit the news again. The high-speed rail link (HS2) between London and “the north” is being delayed. The programme will slow down to spread the cost over a longer period. The line to Manchester will not open until at least 2043 and the new London terminal will also be delayed. So passengers travelling south will end their journey by being dumped in a siding near Willesden Junction*. Well, what a surprise.

The delays also kick the can down the road beyond the next election, so the government can continue making vague statements about levelling up and supporting growth in the north rather than just admitting they messed up. This is all stacking up to be a monumental waste of over £100 billion of our money.

I don’t claim amazing clairvoyant powers but since the beginning of the HS2 fiasco, I have predicted that it would cost far more than planned and would probably never be completed. I think it was on Twitter some years back that I got involved in an argument with a keen “train guy” who rubbished my claim that the eventual cost would be over £100 billion. And the business case was always dodgy – based on strange assumptions about how people use their time – but it became even more ridiculous once the working from home movement picked up steam during Covid. Back in September 2020 I wrote an article  – here is an excerpt.

“Construction of the HS2 high-speed railway network in England started formally last week. Some will be cheering – not me. At a time when working patterns have been changed because of Covid, perhaps for ever, and everyone is getting used to Zoom, Teams and the like, it seems crazy to be building new rail capacity so businesspeople can go to meetings. Other possibilities such as autonomous road vehicles make also make this very much a 20th century option.


HS2 is basically a job creation scheme, but an incredibly expensive one. The projected cost was initially £1-36 billion, but we’re now looking at £106 billion, incredibly.  The National Audit Office (NAO) report in January said this in summary. “In not fully and openly recognising the programme’s risks from the outset, the Department and HS2 Ltd have not adequately managed the risks to value for money”.

At the end of 2021, the eastern leg to Leeds got cancelled, and even the government had to admit that the business case was awful. As The Times said, “HS2 has long since ceased to be a project based on anything resembling a sound business case. The most recent business case published by the government, in June last year, awarded HS2 a benefit-cost ratio of 0.9. In simple terms, it will cost more to build than the advantages it bestows”.

Inflation is being quoted as one of the drivers for the delay – but ironically, delaying will only increase the cost further because of that very factor.  It is only the sunk cost fallacy that drives even the London-Birmingham leg to completion, and the political embarrassment if it were halted, after not just the money squandered but the impact on the countryside and wildlife through the construction to date.

In the meantime, much of the north of England suffers from dreadful public transport. A fraction of the HS2 budget could have made a real difference to local train and bus services, improving for instance the trans-Pennine routes which have been in a state of virtual collapse in the last few years.

The Times called for a “brisk inquiry into who got the country into this mess. Politicians, senior civil servants and the executives who have ridden the HS2 gravy train should be called to account”.  I’d also like to see a real analysis of why construction costs appear to be so much higher in the UK than elsewhere. There may be some genuine reasons – geographical, for instance – but I suspect there are other more addressable problems around the procurement process, risk appetite, the role of consultants and more. It would be good (but probably optimistic) to think that something could be learnt out of this disaster.

* Joke. Well, I think it is…

/1 Comment/by
, ,

Spotting the Dodgy Bidder

After a couple of weeks featuring the travails of the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply, let us return to the day-to-day world of Bad Buying.

Looking through a list of recent procurement-related frauds, there were the usual “fake invoice” incidents, still probably the most common way to extract money from an organisation. In most cases, it is an insider driving that, setting up fake companies and signing off payments themselves, but sometimes there may be external help too.

But then I spotted an interesting example of a type of fraud that is rarely reported. It involves a firm (or individual) submitting false information to a buyer and winning a contract on the basis of that information.  Now we might ask whether it is unusual to see this because it rarely happens – or because the perpetrators just don’t get caught!

In this case, Raymond White (who has used several other names during his long and not particularly illustrious criminal career) defrauded the US government by “submitting fraudulent documents and false information about himself, his company’s business, and his company’s finances in order to obtain a $4.8 million contract to build a munitions load crew training facility at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland”.

He also obtained a bond guarantee from the United States Small Business Administration in connection with the same contract, and just for good measure, he committed identity theft by using another person’s signature and Social Security number (presumably to avoid using his own name, as he was a known criminal!)

For his company, Kochendorfer Group USA Inc., to bid for the contract he submitted fake bank statements, accounting firm reports from a “firm” he had invented, and false financial statements. They showed the firm had plenty of cash when really it had almost nothing.  We shouldn’t laugh but some of it borders on the absurd – he also submitted a “false resume and firm dossier, which described fictitious construction jobs and provided fake references.  White claimed, among other things, that he had overseen the construction of a World Cup soccer stadium in Brazil from 2012 to 2014 when in fact, he  was in federal prison during that time frame, serving a prison term on a prior fraud conviction”.

I mean, if you’re going to lie, you might as well go big – not a local housing development but a World Cup stadium! Anyway, he won the contract but fortunately, the client (the National Guard) discovered the fraud before any work actually took place. White pleaded guilty, not surprisingly, and he will be sentenced in May.

If you are reading this and thinking, “this couldn’t happen here”,  then presumably you always check financial statements and take up supplier references, whether that is talking to another customer of the firm involved or indeed an employer or client if it is an individual contractor. Well done. But it doesn’t always happen.

A few years ago, I advised a firm that was challenging a procurement decision made by a very large UK government central department. Basically, another bidder had told lies in their bid and had won the contract. That bidder had provided a reference that would have exposed a lie – IF the Department has taken up that reference. There were other aspects of the bid that were dodgy and would have been exposed if the buyer had made a call or two. For instance, the bidder claimed that they were strong in certain regions of the UK when they clearly weren’t

When my client challenged this, the Department had an interesting response. They said that they were not required by procurement regulations to pursue references, or indeed that they had any obligation to check that anything a bidder said in their proposal was accurate and true! Now technically that might be correct, but we suggested to the Department that a judge might well make the assumption that a reasonably competent buyer had a duty to do some basic work around bid veracity! The Department went away to think about it, no doubt consulted their lawyers… and then re-ran the competition.

Obviously, buyers don’t always have time to check out every single detail of a bid and all the surrounding information and intelligence about the potential suppliers. But we are responsible for at least assuring ourselves that when someone claims to have built a football stadium in Brazil, they actually did, rather than being in jail at that time.  

/0 Comments/by
, ,

NHS Insourcing Contracts – Conflict of Interest alert..

Imagine you are a Head of Procurement. Workload is growing and you are suffering from staff shortages. Your team can’t keep up. So you go to your boss with a proposition. You and a handful of the team are prepared to work a few evenings in order to catch up with the work. But the firm will pay your own limited company, Procurement Excellence Ltd, on an outsourced service basis. Maybe £100K’s worth or work should help get up to date.

It would be interesting to see the reaction of the firm, but I suspect the Head of Procurement might not be in their post for long after that. However, a parallel situation in the UK’s health service has led to hospitals contracting with their own medical staff in exactly that manner. And that cannot be acceptable.

A report in the Observer over the weekend revealed that UK NHS health Trusts are paying businesses owned by their own doctors to perform services, often using the Trust’s own facilities.

“At Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, three top surgeons including a clinical lead and a former clinical director are the owners of Fortify Clinic , a company offering “end to end” services to tackle waiting lists. The firm was paid £1.3m by the trust for work in 2022.”

In another case, a Sheffield firm owned by three consultants (doctors) was sold to a private health provider for £13 million after winning a number of these “insourcing” contracts. Trusts are facing long patient waiting lists and declining standards of care and public health in the UK following Covid. Strikes by nurses and ambulance staff don’t help either. So these private firms carry out operations “out of hours”, in the evenings and weekends, often using the Trusts’ own facilities and sometimes even some of their own staff. But the firms are paid as external suppliers.

One driver of this is the pension situation for high-earning individuals, including many doctors. The “lifetime cap” on pension pots means that a doctor might face a crazy marginal tax rate if they earn “too much” and their pension contributions breach the limit. But if the money flows into a business, it can be managed in a more tax-efficient manner, presumably.

Although the pension situation is pretty stupid, it does apply to everyone, not just doctors. The government should address it – but doing do just for medics would rightly bring cries of “unfair” from others in a similar situation. But the tax position is no excuse for hospitals agreeing to this approach, which is fraught with problems.

The conflicts of interest are obvious and significant. Trusts are awarding contracts – without competitive process, I suspect – to their own “friends”.  The decision-making “buyers” are almost certainly close to those benefitting from the contracts. There are also conflicts for the medics involved. There may be less incentive for instance to work harder, more efficiently or rapidly if you know you will get a substantial contract and more income if the backlog of work grows rather than shrinks. And are the hospitals charging these firms for the use of their facilities? They should be, otherwise external private healthcare providers could cry “foul” for unfair procurement.

I worked in a factory one holiday when I was a student, making insulation for pipes (I’m pretty sure it was asbestos, but that is another story…) Work pretty much stopped after lunch on many Friday afternoons, just to make sure there was overtime for those who wanted it on Saturday. I’m not suggesting a surgeon would do the same quite as overtly, but even if they resist the temptation, a conflict of interest has been created.

It is also just another step towards the privatisation of the NHS. What is interesting is that this is not being driven by some secret political strategy. It is being driven by incompetent political management, resulting by staff within the NHS taking action in their own interest (and sometimes that of the patient too) that is leading to a de facto two-tier health service. It has already happened in dental services; now we are seeing it more widely, as more and more people who can afford it “go private”.

If you see a consultant (doctor), and they tell you that the waiting list within the NHS is 6 months, but they could do it for you privately next week, in the same hospital, using the same excellent facilities, for a few thousand pounds, what do you say? But if the doctor’s firm is making large amounts of money out of this, can they really offer unbiased advice – “Doctor, will my condition get worse if I wait six months for NHS treatment”? What are they going to say?

Finally, are procurement teams involved with this at all?  I’d like to think some might have pointed out the st issues. If not, perhaps they should start now.

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

National Audit Office Won’t Sign Off UK Dept. of Health Accounts

The UK’s National Audit Office recently refused to sign-off the accounts of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) for 2021-22.

“A lack of sufficient, appropriate audit evidence and significant shortcomings in financial control and governance” meant that NAO head Gareth Davies was unable to provide an audit opinion on the accounts of the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).  Even taking the “challenging context” into account, Davies called the UKHSA’s inability to produce auditable accounts “unacceptable”.

UKHSA replaced Public Health England in October 2021. That was a challenging time because of Covid, but even so, the financial management of the new organisation appears to have been chaotic.  

“UKHSA was unable to provide the NAO with sufficient evidence to support balances relating to £794m of stock, and £1.5bn of accruals from NHS Test and Trace, which were transferred from DHSC, or to support £254m of stockpiled goods transferred from its predecessor organisation, Public Health England (PHE). DHSC had not resolved issues with its management systems, financial controls and records, which the C&AG reflected in his report on DHSC’s 2020-21 accounts”.

Internal controls were lacking; there weren’t even effective bank reconciliations, something the smallest business would expect to have in place. “Shortcomings in the introduction of a new accounting system, combined with a reliance on temporary staff, meant that UKHSA was not able to provide the NAO with evidence to support key balances and transactions in the accounts”. So goodness knows what was happening in terms of errors or even fraud at that time.

Moving on to the wider Department, NAO “was unable to obtain the evidence needed to support £1.36bn of stock, due to issues related to inventory management”.

DHSC did not carry out end of year stock counts to check items including PPE (personal protective equipment) and Covid lateral flow tests, “as it was unable to access 5 billion items (which cost £2.9bn) that were stored in containers”. Whilst that might be excusable, or at least understandable, there was also a lack of adequate processes to check stock in warehouses, which is less so.

There was also a write-down of £6bn in terms of pandemic related purchases. £2.5bn of that is items already purchased but no longer usable, or where the market price is now way below what was paid. £3.5bn was a write-down on PPE, vaccines and medication which DHSC has committed to purchase, but no longer expects to use.

“Taken together with the £8.9bn written-down in its 2020-21 accounts, over the last two financial years, DHSC has now reported £14.9bn of write-down costs related to PPE and other items”. 

And if you are thinking, well, at least that’s it, there is more salt to rub into the wounds.

“DHSC estimates that ongoing storage and disposal costs for its excess and unusable PPE will be £319m. At the end of March 2022, the estimated monthly spending on storing PPE was £24m.”

So that’s £15 billion of taxpayer’s money gone. It has been in effect a huge transfer of wealth from the UK economy and citizens to a range of largely non-UK manufacturers and of course to a whole bunch of crooks, conmen, exploitative agents and middlemen, many with political connections, and the occasional genuine business person, all involved in the supply chain somewhere.  Every issue of Private Eye seems to have more examples – taken from the company accounts that are now emerging – of firms making huge margins, often 50% or more, on the PPE, tests and so on that were supplied during the pandemic.

We’ve discussed the reasons for this disaster many times over the last couple of years A failure to prepare and mis-management of the emergency PPE stocks; catastrophically bad demand planning which led to huge over-ordering;  incompetence in terms of drawing up specifications; a lack of even basic negotiation, cost analysis and supplier due diligence; political interference and nepotism; these drivers all feature. But as the NAO lays out the cold, hard numbers, we can say with confidence that when we construct the league table for the all-time costliest failures in UK public procurement, this is right at the top.

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

Supercomputer – Not Very Super Procurement

We started the New Year with an expensive error made in UK government procurement. Atos, the large French technology firm, were paid £25 million after the firm complained about the decision to award Microsoft the £850 million contract for a new Meteorological Office super-computer. Most of the cash was paid by the government’s Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy with the Met Office itself stumping up the rest.The language is often the same when this sort of case drops into the public domain. No-one is to blame. “There was no admission of liability”, said the government here.

That begs the question of course – why pay £25 million if you didn’t do anything wrong? Clearly, the government’s legal advisers must have thought there was a very high probability that Atos would have won if the case had come in front of a judge, and might have been awarded substantially more in damages.

The best description of the dispute I found is on The Register website. A fairly technical and technological issue around the specification of the computer and the solution proposed by Atos led to the French firm receiving a score of 0/5 for several evaluation questions and their bid being declared in effect “non-compliant”.  Then, as the Register reported, “It was also alleged the government was “disproportionate” in ruling its bid non-compliant without seeking further clarification on the architectural equivalence of the Atos system”.

Eliminating a serious bidder on a complex specification issue is rarely a good idea in my experience. You need to be absolutely sure the bid really does not meet your spec, and I would certainly have wanted “further clarification” from Atos before I took the drastic step of kicking them out of the competition. Poor judgement at the very least on the buy-side. Or maybe somebody just didn’t want Atos to win and was looking for an excuse to disqualify them (yes, that does happen…) 

There was then an interesting debate on Twitter about the case too. Duncan Jones, the highly respected expert who led who led the procurement practice at research firm Forrester until he “retired” last year, was rather angry about this money ending up with Atos. If a company is on the wrong end of a bad piece of procurement by a private sector firm, the disappointed bidder doesn’t get recompensed, he said. So why should it be different in the public sector, with our money going straight into the profits of Atos (and others).

It is a fair point. But my argument is that you must have some way for bidders to highlight when there has been incompetent or even corrupt public sector procurement. And if they have lost millions because of that, why shouldn’t they be able to get something back? Otherwise I do think we would see more nepotism and even criminality in public procurement, with politicians, advisers and public officials acting in their own interests rather than those of the taxpayer. If the procurement rules did not have the “teeth “ provided by bidders’ right to challenge decisions, I think we would see lots of cases that would make the UK pandemic PPE procurement experience look like a model of probity and effectiveness!  

However, I think Duncan made a fair point about how much compensation should be payable in cases like this. Working out “loss of profit” is an inexact art, and many suppliers make very low margin on big government contracts. So £25 million does sound on the generous side; but as I say, the lawyers must have felt the amount could have been a lot more if the dispute has continued.

At the early stages of development of the new UK Procurement Bill, I seem to remember that there were some major changes proposed around supplier challenges, compensation and so on. Introducing the scope for a less legalistic dispute resolution process was one idea I liked (some countries have a “procurement ombudsman” which is an interesting idea), alongside less scope for big supplier pay-outs. The proposals seemed interesting, but I believe most of those have gone now from the draft legislation, and the Bill is not going to drastically change the current situation. 

Finally though, the point to remember is this. If an unhappy potential supplier ends up being paid lots of money, it is ALWAYS because there has been a failure in the procurement process. Don’t blame the supplier – look at what went wrong on the buyer side. In the case of this Met Office supercomputer, it may have been something rather complex around the specification. But it was still a failure, another case of Bad Buying, and one that has cost us £25 million.

/0 Comments/by