Pickles spends £500K on travel
Discussion
Pan Pan Pan said:
Nope! you have just listed a set of specification items. If for any reason the item does not meet them, it should not be provided by the supplier, as in, it is not fit for purpose, and therefore not worth the money at any price, particularly not a ridiculously inflated one. It seems that once it is known that items will be paid for from the governments magic money tree, its price rockets no matter what it is.
I cannot for the life of me understand how you can fail to grasp how the specifications (and the overheads of meeting them) have an impact on the cost of an item. Despite my efforts you are considerably better informed, but none the wiser.PhilboSE said:
V8 Fettler said:
But that's not what the contract states. Unless the tenderers are equipped with crystal balls they cannot reasonably comply with the terms of the contract, which was my point. The clarification contradicts the contract clause.
Your interpretation is incorrect, and the clarification does not contradict the clause. The clarification only confirms that the commitment to comply with future undefined requirements can be reactive rather than proactive.The requirement is that if you supply something to the NHS under these terms, then if the NHS changes their standards, then you MUST change your product to comply with their new standards - even if you sold it to them some years ago (and the contract term is still in effect). So although you don't need a crystal ball to build unspecified future requirements into a product on day 1, you still need a crystal ball to know what those requirements are, because you will be required to update your product to comply with them. Note that this update will need to be done by the supplier at their own cost - you don't get to charge the NHS again for a "new" product. You are making the commitment, at the outset of the contract period, to continually update the product to comply with future UNKNOWN requirements, during the contract term, without charging the NHS more money. So as a supplier you have to try to guess at what potential exposure to future costs you might be exposed, based on the changing whims of the customer. The only way you can do this is to either take a risk that the standards won't change in an impactful way, or build in an extra contingency cost to your product. Crystal balls still required.
Maybe now you get some insight into why supplies to the NHS (and government in general) are more expensive than they "should" be!
Is not the contract you are referring to a standard form of contract? If so there should surely be a copy in the public domain.
I can certainly see why public sector procurement costs are high if tenderers are pricing for unknown risks. Imagine the potential savings if the procurement team did the job they are paid to do and quantified risks whilst developing the specification prior to tender?
BTW, you appear to be confusing product with service.
V8 Fettler said:
Has the crystal ball clause ever been enforced in court? The concept of exposing a contractor to a potentially unlimited loss due to a future, unspecified change to a standard is unreasonable. How do you quantify the contingency sum when the risk cannot be measured because the nature of the risk is unknown?
I don't know if it's ever been challenged in court. We accept this specific risk on the basis that adoption of new NHS standards tends to be relatively slow, and that we would probably want to keep our product in line with them anyway to support future sales, and that if they truly were unreasonable then we ultimately have the option to challenge the enforcement of the clause. Of course, the last option would cost lots of money, but again it's a contingency that we have to bear in mind when pricing a product. But you are correct that the contingency sum for us is nothing more than a guess (and actually we don't add anything on for it, on the basis that we expect new standards to be reasonable and ones that we would have to comply with anyway). What I can tell you is that these NHS contracts are pretty immutable. You accept them as they are, or you don't bid.V8 Fettler said:
Is not the contract you are referring to a standard form of contract? If so there should surely be a copy in the public domain.
All the contracts I've been given have been under NDA, and I'm not going hunting around for public equivalents (there may not be any). You'll just have to accept it from me that the clauses are present in contracts I've been given. Here is an example that has a similar clause, though not exactly in the same words:http://www.isb.nhs.uk/about-isib/isb-publications/...
"1.1 The Contractor shall ensure the Services comply with the relevant current
Information Standards at all times during the Term.
1.2 The Contractor nmonitor the Information Standards Board website for Information
Standards Notices. The Contractor shall promptly notify the Authority in the event it
is unable to obtain access to the Information Standards Board website.
1.3 The Contractor shall actively monitor the publications of Information Standard
Notices throughout the Term. The Contractor shall ensure that it reviews the
Information Standard Notices not less than weekly."
V8 Fettler said:
I can certainly see why public sector procurement costs are high if tenderers are pricing for unknown risks. Imagine the potential savings if the procurement team did the job they are paid to do and quantified risks whilst developing the specification prior to tender?
Until you've got first hand experience of a large public sector procurement, nothing can prepare you for how different it is from a normal business deal. It's quite emotional.V8 Fettler said:
BTW, you appear to be confusing product with service.
I don't think I am, what makes you say that?Edited by PhilboSE on Friday 29th May 15:47
Pan Pan Pan said:
Ari said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
It consisted of stainless steel pole about 1.5m long, with 5 legs about 450mm long with a castor on each with a piece of stainless steel wire weld to the top to hold the plasma bags. Knowing it was for a hospital I guessed at about 175 to 250 pounds absolute tops. The nurse said no, it cost ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED POUNDS, and this was for the `simple one' which did not have a cross bar at the top!
A nurse - who has absolutely nothing to do with the procurement process. And you believed her?That figure would have been Chinese whispered through about a thousand people through the NHS, each adding a bit to make it a little more dramatic with the retelling.
It's probably at £10,000 by now!
She told you it because she was told it and people love to be outraged by things without stopping for a moment to consider the validation of the statement or where it came from! Think about it, how on earth does a nurse know the price of all the equipment on the ward? You think they sent her out to buy it?
It is no different to people being outraged by the driver of the Winnebago that got awarded X million pounds after crashing because he/she engaged cruise control and climbed in the back or the bloke who apparently successfully sued Redbull because he didn't grow wings or any of the other 'you're never going to believe xxxxxxx' stories.
Think how many of those stands one hospital has. Thousands of them. Do you really honestly buy the fact that they pay £1,700 each for them?
Apply a bit of common sense FFS!
Ari said:
Oh do come on!
She told you it because she was told it and people love to be outraged by things without stopping for a moment to consider the validation of the statement or where it came from! Think about it, how on earth does a nurse know the price of all the equipment on the ward? You think they sent her out to buy it?
It is no different to people being outraged by the driver of the Winnebago that got awarded X million pounds after crashing because he/she engaged cruise control and climbed in the back or the bloke who apparently successfully sued Redbull because he didn't grow wings or any of the other 'you're never going to believe xxxxxxx' stories.
Think how many of those stands one hospital has. Thousands of them. Do you really honestly buy the fact that they pay £1,700 each for them?
Apply a bit of common sense FFS!
Do you know this, or is it just pub common sense?She told you it because she was told it and people love to be outraged by things without stopping for a moment to consider the validation of the statement or where it came from! Think about it, how on earth does a nurse know the price of all the equipment on the ward? You think they sent her out to buy it?
It is no different to people being outraged by the driver of the Winnebago that got awarded X million pounds after crashing because he/she engaged cruise control and climbed in the back or the bloke who apparently successfully sued Redbull because he didn't grow wings or any of the other 'you're never going to believe xxxxxxx' stories.
Think how many of those stands one hospital has. Thousands of them. Do you really honestly buy the fact that they pay £1,700 each for them?
Apply a bit of common sense FFS!
The US Airforce DID pay 100 times the regular price for items (a coffee maker etc) and found that 'reasonable' due to their supposed performance.
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/09/20/us/military-pric...
btw, i read this thread thinking it was about Mr Pickles, who I have a soft spot for.
Two minutes with Google throws up UK suppliers quoting 'suitable for hospital environments' mobile drip stands from £73 - £255.
And that is before you apply any kind of bulk or contract discount.
http://www.sunflowermedical.co.uk/products/mobile_...
And that is before you apply any kind of bulk or contract discount.
http://www.sunflowermedical.co.uk/products/mobile_...
Ari said:
That does sound rather more believable!
May I ask how you know this?
The NHS supply chain website; https://my.supplychain.nhs.uk/Catalogue/product/fa...May I ask how you know this?
Assuming you don't have a log in, you can still view the price by looking at the catalog amendments;
https://my.supplychain.nhs.uk/Catalogue/amendment/...
so this was b
ks?
'The nurse asked me how much I thought a wheeled stand next to my Mums bed used for supporting drips/plasma bottles cost. It consisted of stainless steel pole about 1.5m long, with 5 legs about 450mm long with a castor on each with a piece of stainless steel wire weld to the top to hold the plasma bags. Knowing it was for a hospital I guessed at about 175 to 250 pounds absolute tops. The nurse said no, it cost ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED POUNDS'
ks?'The nurse asked me how much I thought a wheeled stand next to my Mums bed used for supporting drips/plasma bottles cost. It consisted of stainless steel pole about 1.5m long, with 5 legs about 450mm long with a castor on each with a piece of stainless steel wire weld to the top to hold the plasma bags. Knowing it was for a hospital I guessed at about 175 to 250 pounds absolute tops. The nurse said no, it cost ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED POUNDS'
hairykrishna said:
The NHS supply chain website; https://my.supplychain.nhs.uk/Catalogue/product/fa...
Assuming you don't have a log in, you can still view the price by looking at the catalog amendments;
https://my.supplychain.nhs.uk/Catalogue/amendment/...
Perfect, cheers! Assuming you don't have a log in, you can still view the price by looking at the catalog amendments;
https://my.supplychain.nhs.uk/Catalogue/amendment/...
NicD said:
so this was bks?
'The nurse asked me how much I thought a wheeled stand next to my Mums bed used for supporting drips/plasma bottles cost. It consisted of stainless steel pole about 1.5m long, with 5 legs about 450mm long with a castor on each with a piece of stainless steel wire weld to the top to hold the plasma bags. Knowing it was for a hospital I guessed at about 175 to 250 pounds absolute tops. The nurse said no, it cost ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED POUNDS'
I've little doubt he was told that, and indeed little doubt that she was. As I said earlier, this will have been passed on and on, with everyone adding a bit to make it just a touch more dramatic in the telling. ks?'The nurse asked me how much I thought a wheeled stand next to my Mums bed used for supporting drips/plasma bottles cost. It consisted of stainless steel pole about 1.5m long, with 5 legs about 450mm long with a castor on each with a piece of stainless steel wire weld to the top to hold the plasma bags. Knowing it was for a hospital I guessed at about 175 to 250 pounds absolute tops. The nurse said no, it cost ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED POUNDS'
The problem is that people are very quick to get outraged and very slow to think 'hang on, is that really likely to be remotely true?'
It is why the Daily Mail is such a successful rag (and why ridiculous urban myths are passed on and on as fact, readily believed by most).
Are we at the post dissection stage? Fantastic.
The crystal ball clause is almost certainly unreasonable, therefore would be almost certainly unenforceable, but would need to be tested in court.
As a tenderer, you should always price for risk, otherwise there is the potential for catastrophic financial failure mid-contract, and no party wants that; the resource required from the client side to clear up the resulting mess can be substantial. A good procurement team should ensure that compliant tenders address risk.
To price a contingency sum at zero rings alarm bells, is the contingency sum not specifically identified within your tender return? The concept of an immutable contract at the tender stage is restrictive, it discourages innovative design proposals by tenderers.
You've mentioned product and service, the former generally revolves around a tangible physical asset e.g widgets, the latter is generally intangible e.g outsourced human resources. Generally different legislation, codes, standards and guidance therefore typically procured under different contracts, although there are grey areas.
PhilboSE said:
V8 Fettler said:
Has the crystal ball clause ever been enforced in court? The concept of exposing a contractor to a potentially unlimited loss due to a future, unspecified change to a standard is unreasonable. How do you quantify the contingency sum when the risk cannot be measured because the nature of the risk is unknown?
I don't know if it's ever been challenged in court. We accept this specific risk on the basis that adoption of new NHS standards tends to be relatively slow, and that we would probably want to keep our product in line with them anyway to support future sales, and that if they truly were unreasonable then we ultimately have the option to challenge the enforcement of the clause. Of course, the last option would cost lots of money, but again it's a contingency that we have to bear in mind when pricing a product. But you are correct that the contingency sum for us is nothing more than a guess (and actually we don't add anything on for it, on the basis that we expect new standards to be reasonable and ones that we would have to comply with anyway). What I can tell you is that these NHS contracts are pretty immutable. You accept them as they are, or you don't bid. As a tenderer, you should always price for risk, otherwise there is the potential for catastrophic financial failure mid-contract, and no party wants that; the resource required from the client side to clear up the resulting mess can be substantial. A good procurement team should ensure that compliant tenders address risk.
To price a contingency sum at zero rings alarm bells, is the contingency sum not specifically identified within your tender return? The concept of an immutable contract at the tender stage is restrictive, it discourages innovative design proposals by tenderers.
PhilboSE said:
All the contracts I've been given have been under NDA, and I'm not going hunting around for public equivalents (there may not be any). You'll just have to accept it from me that the clauses are present in contracts I've been given. Here is an example that has a similar clause, though not exactly in the same words:
It's been several decades since I accepted any statement on face value from anyone, I'm not going to start now. Specimen contracts for engineering and construction projects are widely available at minimal or zero cost, why are the contracts you refer to not available? Are they secret documents? Public money is involved, so transparency and accountability are paramount PhilboSE said:
http://www.isb.nhs.uk/about-isib/isb-publications/...
"1.1 The Contractor shall ensure the Services comply with the relevant current
Information Standards at all times during the Term.
1.2 The Contractor nmonitor the Information Standards Board website for Information
Standards Notices. The Contractor shall promptly notify the Authority in the event it
is unable to obtain access to the Information Standards Board website.
1.3 The Contractor shall actively monitor the publications of Information Standard
Notices throughout the Term. The Contractor shall ensure that it reviews the
Information Standard Notices not less than weekly."
That can be interpreted as current at the time of tender, yet more possible confusion."1.1 The Contractor shall ensure the Services comply with the relevant current
Information Standards at all times during the Term.
1.2 The Contractor nmonitor the Information Standards Board website for Information
Standards Notices. The Contractor shall promptly notify the Authority in the event it
is unable to obtain access to the Information Standards Board website.
1.3 The Contractor shall actively monitor the publications of Information Standard
Notices throughout the Term. The Contractor shall ensure that it reviews the
Information Standard Notices not less than weekly."
PhilboSE said:
Until you've got first hand experience of a large public sector procurement, nothing can prepare you for how different it is from a normal business deal. It's quite emotional.
Why should NHS procurement not be undertaken as a business driven by efficiency? I don't understand the emotional comment, is it a joke?You've mentioned product and service, the former generally revolves around a tangible physical asset e.g widgets, the latter is generally intangible e.g outsourced human resources. Generally different legislation, codes, standards and guidance therefore typically procured under different contracts, although there are grey areas.
V8 Fettler said:
Are we at the post dissection stage? Fantastic.
Looks like we are, and the outraged infant seems to have departed the thread, so we can probably wind it up.V8 Fettler said:
The crystal ball clause is almost certainly unreasonable, therefore would be almost certainly unenforceable, but would need to be tested in court.
As a tenderer, you should always price for risk, otherwise there is the potential for catastrophic financial failure mid-contract, and no party wants that; the resource required from the client side to clear up the resulting mess can be substantial. A good procurement team should ensure that compliant tenders address risk.
To price a contingency sum at zero rings alarm bells, is the contingency sum not specifically identified within your tender return? The concept of an immutable contract at the tender stage is restrictive, it discourages innovative design proposals by tenderers.
You seem to have answered your own question with your earlier observation that how can you quantify the exposuree/cost for an undefined risk? Welcome to the wonderful world of government contracts! There are way too many such clauses with exposure to risk that you can't identify the cost for them individually in the tender return, in fact the proscribed format for the financial model in the return makes this impossible. In reality, as a business, you just have to guess how much risk you are exposed to within your margin. I'm not saying all NHS contracts are like this, but the ones in my field (IT) are.As a tenderer, you should always price for risk, otherwise there is the potential for catastrophic financial failure mid-contract, and no party wants that; the resource required from the client side to clear up the resulting mess can be substantial. A good procurement team should ensure that compliant tenders address risk.
To price a contingency sum at zero rings alarm bells, is the contingency sum not specifically identified within your tender return? The concept of an immutable contract at the tender stage is restrictive, it discourages innovative design proposals by tenderers.
As for discouraging innovative design, spot on. Innovation and smaller (highly competent) suppliers have been driven out of my specific market area, purely because the overheads of doing business with the NHS are so high.
V8 Fettler said:
It's been several decades since I accepted any statement on face value from anyone, I'm not going to start now. Specimen contracts for engineering and construction projects are widely available at minimal or zero cost, why are the contracts you refer to not available? Are they secret documents? Public money is involved, so transparency and accountability are paramount
Well, that's fine, but I've got no reason to misrepresent this situation, so you can take it or leave it. If you've got any issues with the transparency and accountability of the NHS then you can take it up with them.V8 Fettler said:
PhilboSE said:
http://www.isb.nhs.uk/about-isib/isb-publications/...
"1.1 The Contractor shall ensure the Services comply with the relevant current
Information Standards at all times during the Term.
That can be interpreted as current at the time of tender, yet more possible confusion."1.1 The Contractor shall ensure the Services comply with the relevant current
Information Standards at all times during the Term.
V8 Fettler said:
PhilboSE said:
Until you've got first hand experience of a large public sector procurement, nothing can prepare you for how different it is from a normal business deal. It's quite emotional.
Why should NHS procurement not be undertaken as a business driven by efficiency? I don't understand the emotional comment, is it a joke?We withdrew because after financial discussions lasting over a year, where we tried to quantify and evidence all of the risks & costs (like you said earlier), it got to the point that the contract value wasn't large enough to cover them. The NHS wasn't prepared to pay the cost to deliver something against the specifications they had defined. The point where I decided enough was enough was when I was trying to have a sensible discussion about these issues with the tender lead, and he said "Do you know why I am screwing you over costs at the tender stage? It's because I fully expect you to screw me on additional charges when you get the contract". That's not how I play the game, I'm straight up and down, and I decided I didn't want to be in a business relationship where both sides entered a contract with the intent of screwing the other. But, having sacrificed a significant amount of time & effort, making the decision to flush it all away was quite tough. I summarised that as "emotional".
V8 Fettler said:
You've mentioned product and service, the former generally revolves around a tangible physical asset e.g widgets, the latter is generally intangible e.g outsourced human resources. Generally different legislation, codes, standards and guidance therefore typically procured under different contracts, although there are grey areas.
I'm highly familiar with the differences between them and the regulatory variations. I still don't know why you think I'm confusing them, but what the heck.PhilboSE said:
There are way too many such clauses with exposure to risk that you can't identify the cost for them individually in the tender return, in fact the proscribed format for the financial model in the return makes this impossible. In reality, as a business, you just have to guess how much risk you are exposed to within your margin. I'm not saying all NHS contracts are like this, but the ones in my field (IT) are.
Hang on, IT is a bit different though isn't it? I can believe that an NHS contract makes provision for the fact that (for example) you're contracted to supply email server services for three years, but might in that time be expected to upgrade the servers to cope with (say) more recipients coming on line or a new operating system being adopted, creating an unknown that you have to try and factor in. I really struggle however with the concept that suppliers are charging £1,700 for an IV drip stand (discounting for a moment that clearly they aren't really) because the NHS could turn round in 24 months time and say 'we have different beds now, you need to modify all these stands we bought from you to have slightly larger bases and slightly longer masts' (which is what we were talking about and elicited your suggested justification for NHS suppliers charging more).
PhilboSE said:
You seem to have answered your own question with your earlier observation that how can you quantify the exposuree/cost for an undefined risk? Welcome to the wonderful world of government contracts! There are way too many such clauses with exposure to risk that you can't identify the cost for them individually in the tender return, in fact the proscribed format for the financial model in the return makes this impossible. In reality, as a business, you just have to guess how much risk you are exposed to within your margin. I'm not saying all NHS contracts are like this, but the ones in my field (IT) are.
As for discouraging innovative design, spot on. Innovation and smaller (highly competent) suppliers have been driven out of my specific market area, purely because the overheads of doing business with the NHS are so high.
Ultimately, the risk should be defined by both parties to the contract, otherwise there is a risk that the contract could crash and burn, see grandiose NHS IT schemes (!). In the two areas of the public sector that I have some involvement in (not health), all parties are very much aware of the requirement to encourage tenderers to offer alternative solutions as part of the tender process. However, it appears that the health sector is different, Part A and Part B http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/f...As for discouraging innovative design, spot on. Innovation and smaller (highly competent) suppliers have been driven out of my specific market area, purely because the overheads of doing business with the NHS are so high.
PhilboSE said:
Well, that's fine, but I've got no reason to misrepresent this situation, so you can take it or leave it. If you've got any issues with the transparency and accountability of the NHS then you can take it up with them.
You're complaining about issues with the tender process, I'm suggesting the potential causes of the issues. I have had dealings with various insular empires within the NHS over the years, it won't improve meaningfully in my lifetime. PhilboSE said:
Indeed, so on the clauses I quote in our contracts we specifically queried them for clarification, with the results I posted before. Again, welcome to the world of NHS contracts. Fundamentally a simple process of supplying widget X becomes much more expensive and complicated because the contracts are so overblown, requiring all sorts of assessment for exposure & risk.
In my view, the clarification provided was incorrect, current means current at the time of tender, because a crystal ball clause with unquantified risk is unreasonable. If the NHS procurement process is flawed then the obvious question is: should the management of the procurement process within the NHS be open to competition?PhilboSE said:
Not really. You can really run an emotional rollercoaster with some of these contracts. There was one tender that we really had to respond to, because it offered the sole opportunity for us to deliver one of our products to the NHS. The contract process lasted 3 years, had direct costs during the bidding process of around 5% of our annual turnover just to be in the process (not counting the opportunity cost of what we could have done with the resource allocated to bidding), the NHS took 8 months to develop the specifications and then dropped them on us on the 20th December with a tender response date of 5th Jan - so that was a Christmas & New Year written off, then cancelled the tender, then re-started it from scratch a year later, before ultimately we withdrew from the process. It's quite emotional because of what you personally commit to the tender, and being the business owner I worried about the revenue opportunities and ultimately the responsibility for your staff and their jobs.
We withdrew because after financial discussions lasting over a year, where we tried to quantify and evidence all of the risks & costs (like you said earlier), it got to the point that the contract value wasn't large enough to cover them. The NHS wasn't prepared to pay the cost to deliver something against the specifications they had defined. The point where I decided enough was enough was when I was trying to have a sensible discussion about these issues with the tender lead, and he said "Do you know why I am screwing you over costs at the tender stage? It's because I fully expect you to screw me on additional charges when you get the contract". That's not how I play the game, I'm straight up and down, and I decided I didn't want to be in a business relationship where both sides entered a contract with the intent of screwing the other. But, having sacrificed a significant amount of time & effort, making the decision to flush it all away was quite tough. I summarised that as "emotional".
Your profit margins must be healthy if you can risk 5% of turnover per annum on one fee bid with dubious prospects. Antagonism during the tender period doesn't suggest a spirit of collaboration during the contract period, another ingredient for crash and burn during the contract period. A well written contract should create only minimal opportunities for additional expenditure under "unknown works", perhaps less than 1% of contract value on project works.We withdrew because after financial discussions lasting over a year, where we tried to quantify and evidence all of the risks & costs (like you said earlier), it got to the point that the contract value wasn't large enough to cover them. The NHS wasn't prepared to pay the cost to deliver something against the specifications they had defined. The point where I decided enough was enough was when I was trying to have a sensible discussion about these issues with the tender lead, and he said "Do you know why I am screwing you over costs at the tender stage? It's because I fully expect you to screw me on additional charges when you get the contract". That's not how I play the game, I'm straight up and down, and I decided I didn't want to be in a business relationship where both sides entered a contract with the intent of screwing the other. But, having sacrificed a significant amount of time & effort, making the decision to flush it all away was quite tough. I summarised that as "emotional".
PhilboSE said:
I'm highly familiar with the differences between them and the regulatory variations. I still don't know why you think I'm confusing them, but what the heck.
In one of your earlier posts you referred to service, subsequent posts hinged around products. Probably not really an issue within this thread.Ari said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Ari said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
It consisted of stainless steel pole about 1.5m long, with 5 legs about 450mm long with a castor on each with a piece of stainless steel wire weld to the top to hold the plasma bags. Knowing it was for a hospital I guessed at about 175 to 250 pounds absolute tops. The nurse said no, it cost ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED POUNDS, and this was for the `simple one' which did not have a cross bar at the top!
A nurse - who has absolutely nothing to do with the procurement process. And you believed her?That figure would have been Chinese whispered through about a thousand people through the NHS, each adding a bit to make it a little more dramatic with the retelling.
It's probably at £10,000 by now!
She told you it because she was told it and people love to be outraged by things without stopping for a moment to consider the validation of the statement or where it came from! Think about it, how on earth does a nurse know the price of all the equipment on the ward? You think they sent her out to buy it?
It is no different to people being outraged by the driver of the Winnebago that got awarded X million pounds after crashing because he/she engaged cruise control and climbed in the back or the bloke who apparently successfully sued Redbull because he didn't grow wings or any of the other 'you're never going to believe xxxxxxx' stories.
Think how many of those stands one hospital has. Thousands of them. Do you really honestly buy the fact that they pay £1,700 each for them?
Apply a bit of common sense FFS!
Pan Pan Pan said:
Strange how just to day the leader of the NHS stated that the NHS was being ripped off by suppliers?
The chief exec said they were overspending on temporary staff. That's a bit different from being "ripped off by suppliers"The thing the nurse told you cost £1700 actually costs less than £150. Did that not register at all?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff