PPE contract for £108m given to 'Pestfix'
Discussion
The PPE deal that was awarded to 'Pestfix' for £108m back in April 2020 went Pestfix's way because there was no tender.
https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:230683-20...
There are, surely, questions to be asked about how that company Crisp Websites Ltd t/a Pestfix came to be the only firm considered by the government as the supplier.
https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:230683-20...
There are, surely, questions to be asked about how that company Crisp Websites Ltd t/a Pestfix came to be the only firm considered by the government as the supplier.
UKGOV said:
Explanation:
Covid-19 is serious and its consequences pose a risk to life. Cabinet Office published PPN 01/20: Responding to COVID-19 on procuring with extreme urgency in March 2020 which states that contracting authorities may enter into contracts without competing or advertising the requirement where certain tests are met.
1) There are genuine reasons for extreme urgency as there is a significant public health risk requiring immediate action as a result of Covid-19;
2) The Covid-19 situation is novel and the contracting authority could not have reasonably foreseen these events;
3) It is not possible to comply with the timescales of another procedure due to the urgent requirement to obtain the [supplies]being contracted for. Additionally, there are many buyers competing for the same supplies. It is imperative that security of supply is maintained. Demand for equipment is high and there is little or no incentive for suppliers to participate in competitive procurement procedures;
4) The situation is not attributable to the contracting authority.
Covid-19 is serious and its consequences pose a risk to life. Cabinet Office published PPN 01/20: Responding to COVID-19 on procuring with extreme urgency in March 2020 which states that contracting authorities may enter into contracts without competing or advertising the requirement where certain tests are met.
1) There are genuine reasons for extreme urgency as there is a significant public health risk requiring immediate action as a result of Covid-19;
2) The Covid-19 situation is novel and the contracting authority could not have reasonably foreseen these events;
3) It is not possible to comply with the timescales of another procedure due to the urgent requirement to obtain the [supplies]being contracted for. Additionally, there are many buyers competing for the same supplies. It is imperative that security of supply is maintained. Demand for equipment is high and there is little or no incentive for suppliers to participate in competitive procurement procedures;
4) The situation is not attributable to the contracting authority.
JagLover said:
UKGOV said:
Explanation:
Covid-19 is serious and its consequences pose a risk to life. Cabinet Office published PPN 01/20: Responding to COVID-19 on procuring with extreme urgency in March 2020 which states that contracting authorities may enter into contracts without competing or advertising the requirement where certain tests are met.
1) There are genuine reasons for extreme urgency as there is a significant public health risk requiring immediate action as a result of Covid-19;
2) The Covid-19 situation is novel and the contracting authority could not have reasonably foreseen these events;
3) It is not possible to comply with the timescales of another procedure due to the urgent requirement to obtain the [supplies]being contracted for. Additionally, there are many buyers competing for the same supplies. It is imperative that security of supply is maintained. Demand for equipment is high and there is little or no incentive for suppliers to participate in competitive procurement procedures;
4) The situation is not attributable to the contracting authority.
Covid-19 is serious and its consequences pose a risk to life. Cabinet Office published PPN 01/20: Responding to COVID-19 on procuring with extreme urgency in March 2020 which states that contracting authorities may enter into contracts without competing or advertising the requirement where certain tests are met.
1) There are genuine reasons for extreme urgency as there is a significant public health risk requiring immediate action as a result of Covid-19;
2) The Covid-19 situation is novel and the contracting authority could not have reasonably foreseen these events;
3) It is not possible to comply with the timescales of another procedure due to the urgent requirement to obtain the [supplies]being contracted for. Additionally, there are many buyers competing for the same supplies. It is imperative that security of supply is maintained. Demand for equipment is high and there is little or no incentive for suppliers to participate in competitive procurement procedures;
4) The situation is not attributable to the contracting authority.
But in additon to that, we all knew Coronovirus was coming. Aside from China, we already knew all about Italy, and they went into lockdown 9th of March.
A competent government would have finished sourcing PPE in Feb. An incompetent one on the 9th of March when Italy lockdown-ed. But instead April...
Don't get me wrong, a small low overheads, nimble company may well have been ultimately the right choice. it does need looking into though.
Edited by hyphen on Monday 15th June 08:36
The bit that raises the question for me is how pestfix became the only supplier considered when the NHS already has a raft of approved suppliers and there are also a number of manufacturers / distributors - with stock - to consider
Fair play to pestfix, it will be transformational for the business
Fair play to pestfix, it will be transformational for the business
JPJPJP said:
The bit that raises the question for me is how pestfix became the only supplier considered when the NHS already has a raft of approved suppliers and there are also a number of manufacturers / distributors - with stock - to consider
Fair play to pestfix, it will be transformational for the business
As far as I am aware they are not the only supplier.Fair play to pestfix, it will be transformational for the business
They have a contract for £108 million and it is not clear how much of that they have been paid so far as it would surely depend on deliveries. Meanwhile the government has spent £340 million on PPE since the start of the outbreak.
JagLover said:
As far as I am aware they are not the only supplier.
They have a contract for £108 million and it is not clear how much of that they have been paid so far as it would surely depend on deliveries. Meanwhile the government has spent £340 million on PPE since the start of the outbreak.
They were, according to the ted database, the only supplier considered for £108m of gloves, gowns and masks. They have a contract for £108 million and it is not clear how much of that they have been paid so far as it would surely depend on deliveries. Meanwhile the government has spent £340 million on PPE since the start of the outbreak.
How did a company with no significant track record of PPE supply and no significant track record of supplying to the NHS become the exclusive bidder? That's my question.
Al Gorithum said:
To be fair, in context £106m is a small contract, and many firms including my own have repurposed to PPE and medical equipment.
Total government spending on PPE is 300m, so whilst I appreciate a national government spends billions, for this particular projext, its one third.Al Gorithum said:
To be fair, in context £106m is a small contract, and many firms including my own have repurposed to PPE and medical equipment.
How many small £106m contracts has a government awarded to your firm since it did the repurposing? If none, how many has it been invited to tender for?hyphen said:
Total government spending on PPE is 300m, so whilst I appreciate a national government spends billions, for this particular projext, its one third.
As far as I am aware no.The value of a "contract" will only be fully paid once all deliveries are made.
If the contract is still ongoing then the company will not have received all of that money yet.
This is an example
Capita wins a contract for £500m. The contract length is ten years
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/19/c...
JPJPJP said:
Al Gorithum said:
To be fair, in context £106m is a small contract, and many firms including my own have repurposed to PPE and medical equipment.
How many small £106m contracts has a government awarded to your firm since it did the repurposing? If none, how many has it been invited to tender for?We have always been involved in medical supplies and quickly had to change how we worked back in March. 3 weeks later we had multi-million £ orders from the government. They paid up front and we drop shipped from an existing supplier in China. Doing business recently has been very strange indeed with suppliers calling the shots if they have access to the stock.
Has anyone tried to get hold of 3M masks recently in large quantities? They are most definitely calling the shots.
JPJPJP said:
How did a company with no significant track record of PPE supply and no significant track record of supplying to the NHS become the exclusive bidder? That's my question.
I would guess that we simply need to look at who is friends with the Englands and/or shareholders in that firm. Cui Bono and all that.AB said:
They are desperate and if you can get the spec of your stuff in front of the right person, a decision is made very, very quickly.
We have always been involved in medical supplies and quickly had to change how we worked back in March. 3 weeks later we had multi-million £ orders from the government. They paid up front and we drop shipped from an existing supplier in China. Doing business recently has been very strange indeed with suppliers calling the shots if they have access to the stock.
Has anyone tried to get hold of 3M masks recently in large quantities? They are most definitely calling the shots.
Correct. And the prices are increasing almost daily.We have always been involved in medical supplies and quickly had to change how we worked back in March. 3 weeks later we had multi-million £ orders from the government. They paid up front and we drop shipped from an existing supplier in China. Doing business recently has been very strange indeed with suppliers calling the shots if they have access to the stock.
Has anyone tried to get hold of 3M masks recently in large quantities? They are most definitely calling the shots.
jjones said:
dailymail would have posted an alternative article had it gone to tender "government waste time with tender process when PPE is urgently needed"
This all day long.A few short weeks ago the Government was under fire for not being able to purchase PPE quick enough. Any supplier that could supply it would have had their arm snapped off.
Look at the respirators issue. The government issued a functional spec, and said they would buy any respirator manufactured that met it. That's not normal, yet was exactly what they should have done.
Normal processes were out the window.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff