NHS Procurement
Discussion
I am just putting this out there in case any NHS Procurement Officers are Reading this. I will provide masks, which may or may not work for the NHS’s needs for less than £21,000,000 commission.
I am utterly astounded at the sheer incompetence regarding this issue as reported on tonight’s news.
How can anyone let a contract for expense items, ie not capital equipment, at this level of payable commission, and it’s payable out of NHS funds. This commission was paid to essentially a Miami based fashion brand owner on his promise to supply x number of ppe in a certain timeFrame. He subcontracted the requirement to a third party who was looking for£1,600,000 in commission.
The MOD used to have the record for duffest procurement, but think this has exceeded even their poorest performance.
I am utterly astounded at the sheer incompetence regarding this issue as reported on tonight’s news.
How can anyone let a contract for expense items, ie not capital equipment, at this level of payable commission, and it’s payable out of NHS funds. This commission was paid to essentially a Miami based fashion brand owner on his promise to supply x number of ppe in a certain timeFrame. He subcontracted the requirement to a third party who was looking for£1,600,000 in commission.
The MOD used to have the record for duffest procurement, but think this has exceeded even their poorest performance.
What I don't understand is the items that turn out not to meet specifications. How many steps along the way have these been certified? Surely whoever deemed them unfit should've been the same person to approve the purchase. If not as described, contract void. Although it seems the government didn't attempt that in the case of the ear loop masks. Although why didn't they just tie knots on the ear loops if required?
nikaiyo2 said:
If you have ever had the misfortune of supplying anything to the NHS you will understand that literally no level of incompetence is unbelievable.
Did a lot of work in hospitals and LA housing during my apprenticeship for the leccy board. Still find myself involved with the latter from time to time.
The ability of both (and every other governmental unanswerable entity) to take routine stupid little nothing jobs and complicate them into costing 2 or 3 or 4 times more than they should would be astounding were it not so tiresomely predictable.
I work in pricing for a pharma company here in the UK. The NHS bought some medicines for us. They told us what they wanted to pay, it was three times what we could normally get for it so we said of course. Now in the grand scheme of things this was a relatively small amount, but I can only assume that the DH just doesn't have the staff and therefore the time to look into things properly. Which is nuts when the staff wouldn't be that expensive and could save a lot more money than they cost.
MX5Biologist said:
The NAO are working on a report on the procurement of PPE during the start of the Pandemic. It shpuld be published I think in the next couple of weeks.
They reported on ventilators, and its interesting reading in painting a picture of what was going on, globally, in February and March:
https://www.nao.org.uk/report/increasing-ventilato...
Essentially it was every country for themselves. EU common procurement failed to deliver any ventilators. Huge markups on available stock once suppliers got whiff a government was involved, and gazumping of stock was occurring.
The government had to approach manufacturers indirectly.
Absolutely.They reported on ventilators, and its interesting reading in painting a picture of what was going on, globally, in February and March:
https://www.nao.org.uk/report/increasing-ventilato...
Essentially it was every country for themselves. EU common procurement failed to deliver any ventilators. Huge markups on available stock once suppliers got whiff a government was involved, and gazumping of stock was occurring.
The government had to approach manufacturers indirectly.
When the s
t storms were kicking off in the media about PPE, quite a few of us predicted this would be the next thing.The next will be a government trying to quietly dispose of out of date PPE that was never used at great cost financially and to the environment.
Murph7355 said:
Absolutely.
When the st storms were kicking off in the media about PPE, quite a few of us predicted this would be the next thing.
The next will be a government trying to quietly dispose of out of date PPE that was never used at great cost financially and to the environment.
I thought it was interesting that Hancock was trying to spin this huge increase in testing capacity as having long term benefits for the country. I just can't see how a huge glut of testing equipment is going to be a big help once we get past this. Suppliers of diagnostic equipment (PCR machines etc) are going to have a bleak few years after this one though. When the s
t storms were kicking off in the media about PPE, quite a few of us predicted this would be the next thing.The next will be a government trying to quietly dispose of out of date PPE that was never used at great cost financially and to the environment.
PeteinSQ said:
Murph7355 said:
Absolutely.
When the st storms were kicking off in the media about PPE, quite a few of us predicted this would be the next thing.
The next will be a government trying to quietly dispose of out of date PPE that was never used at great cost financially and to the environment.
I thought it was interesting that Hancock was trying to spin this huge increase in testing capacity as having long term benefits for the country. I just can't see how a huge glut of testing equipment is going to be a big help once we get past this. Suppliers of diagnostic equipment (PCR machines etc) are going to have a bleak few years after this one though. When the s
t storms were kicking off in the media about PPE, quite a few of us predicted this would be the next thing.The next will be a government trying to quietly dispose of out of date PPE that was never used at great cost financially and to the environment.
The question is, how much are we prepared to pay to maintain it.
This was the problem with PPE in the first place. How did we have such low stockpiles of the stuff? Because to have s
t loads of equipment with "sell by dates" on it sat around JIC would have resulted in the newbie journalist for <insert rag> exposing the sheer waste in the NHS 
I did some work in business recovery a while ago. Threats of terrorism were on the up and the clients I worked for had a mandate to start looking at options. The programme ended up running to hundreds of millions and the timing of it was fortuitous for all manner of reasons and not just business recovery/continuity...but over time as threats diminished and costs became paramount, the thing was wound down and no longer exists. It's the same sort of balance.
If they maintain the capability (which I don't see happening) then they (whoever is in power) will be ridiculed if there is no pandemic in the remainder of their term. If they don't and there is one they will be ridiculed. Don't maintain and there is no pandemic, nobody notices. So there's only one of the 4 options that results in a positive outcome. We shouldn't wonder why they take the paths they do.
The country is full of know it alls who have the luxury of both hindsight and not having to be concerned with the practicalities of "normal" running and the choices that need to be made.
If you have to rush through procurement in a situation like we had, people will have to cut corners and you will pay over the odds. To be in any other position is going to cost in other ways...
Murph7355 said:
PeteinSQ said:
Murph7355 said:
Absolutely.
When the st storms were kicking off in the media about PPE, quite a few of us predicted this would be the next thing.
The next will be a government trying to quietly dispose of out of date PPE that was never used at great cost financially and to the environment.
I thought it was interesting that Hancock was trying to spin this huge increase in testing capacity as having long term benefits for the country. I just can't see how a huge glut of testing equipment is going to be a big help once we get past this. Suppliers of diagnostic equipment (PCR machines etc) are going to have a bleak few years after this one though. When the s
t storms were kicking off in the media about PPE, quite a few of us predicted this would be the next thing.The next will be a government trying to quietly dispose of out of date PPE that was never used at great cost financially and to the environment.
The question is, how much are we prepared to pay to maintain it.
This was the problem with PPE in the first place. How did we have such low stockpiles of the stuff? Because to have s
t loads of equipment with "sell by dates" on it sat around JIC would have resulted in the newbie journalist for <insert rag> exposing the sheer waste in the NHS I did some work in business recovery a while ago. Threats of terrorism were on the up and the clients I worked for had a mandate to start looking at options. The programme ended up running to hundreds of millions and the timing of it was fortuitous for all manner of reasons and not just business recovery/continuity...but over time as threats diminished and costs became paramount, the thing was wound down and no longer exists. It's the same sort of balance.
If they maintain the capability (which I don't see happening) then they (whoever is in power) will be ridiculed if there is no pandemic in the remainder of their term. If they don't and there is one they will be ridiculed. Don't maintain and there is no pandemic, nobody notices. So there's only one of the 4 options that results in a positive outcome. We shouldn't wonder why they take the paths they do.
The country is full of know it alls who have the luxury of both hindsight and not having to be concerned with the practicalities of "normal" running and the choices that need to be made.
If you have to rush through procurement in a situation like we had, people will have to cut corners and you will pay over the odds. To be in any other position is going to cost in other ways...
Murph7355 said:
Absolutely.
When the st storms were kicking off in the media about PPE, quite a few of us predicted this would be the next thing.
The next will be a government trying to quietly dispose of out of date PPE that was never used at great cost financially and to the environment.
And nightingale hospitals. Let's build loads of bed capacity. Who's going to staff it? Erm....When the s
t storms were kicking off in the media about PPE, quite a few of us predicted this would be the next thing.The next will be a government trying to quietly dispose of out of date PPE that was never used at great cost financially and to the environment.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff