Covering a backside?

FrosteeMARIA

LE
Gallery Guru
Couldn't see an existing thread this would fit into. Apologies if I've missed one!

Every so often the Government Procurement bods (Crown Commercial Services) release Procurement Policy Notes - bits of guidance on how to apply the Public Procurement Regs, etc.

This one caught my eye in particular today - guidance on excluding bidders from tenders,etc. Regulation 57, where if a bidder is known to have committed a criminal offence, money laundering, bribery, tax evasion, etc. they can be automatically excluded.

In-scope Organisations may, in limited, exceptional circumstances, proceed with an award of contract even if there are grounds for mandatory exclusion. Regulations 57(6) allows such an award where there are overriding reasons relating to the public interest. As an example, if urgently needed vaccines or emergency equipment can only be purchased from such an economic operator, then the contracting authority can proceed.


Sounds to me like someone is covering another arse somewhere, pre-emptive of any conclusion to investigations on govt PPE procurement?

Thoughts?
 
Looks like a pragmatic approach to me. It’s not totally arse covering as any contract given to a contractor with a shady past would have to be monitored to ensure there wasn’t criminal activity. In effect the Government is put on notice.
 

FrosteeMARIA

LE
Gallery Guru
The rest of the document goes on about conflict of interests, in the same vein. It does seem to fit the usual pattern of the Regulations (which are at best in some cases, vague) being interpreted retrospectively by the Government as "this is how we have done it" but god help you if you try it and it ends up in a court case.....

Roll on the changes proposed by the Green Paper!
 
Looks like a pragmatic approach to me. It’s not totally arse covering as any contract given to a contractor with a shady past probably ought to be monitored to ensure there wasn’t criminal activity but you know, we were busy... national emergency.. don't you know there's a pandemic on etc.. In effect the Government is put on notice.
You're right, but I couldn't help hearing it like this.
 

Cruthin1967

Old-Salt
Couldn't see an existing thread this would fit into. Apologies if I've missed one!

Every so often the Government Procurement bods (Crown Commercial Services) release Procurement Policy Notes - bits of guidance on how to apply the Public Procurement Regs, etc.

This one caught my eye in particular today - guidance on excluding bidders from tenders,etc. Regulation 57, where if a bidder is known to have committed a criminal offence, money laundering, bribery, tax evasion, etc. they can be automatically excluded.

In-scope Organisations may, in limited, exceptional circumstances, proceed with an award of contract even if there are grounds for mandatory exclusion. Regulations 57(6) allows such an award where there are overriding reasons relating to the public interest. As an example, if urgently needed vaccines or emergency equipment can only be purchased from such an economic operator, then the contracting authority can proceed.

Sounds to me like someone is covering another arse somewhere, pre-emptive of any conclusion to investigations on govt PPE procurement?

Thoughts?
PPE procurement in 2020 was a shambles. A lot of contracts were awarded to hedge funds and intermediary companies - not health care equipment firms, as you might expect. Many of those hedge funds will have "creative tax solutions" that will involve shell companies, incorporation in exotic places, unusual clients, "friendly" relationships with local officials and general dodginess. Thus this waiver on normal due diligence checks. Grub Street are starting to smell blood on this.
 

FrosteeMARIA

LE
Gallery Guru
PPE procurement in 2020 was a shambles. A lot of contracts were awarded to hedge funds and intermediary companies - not health care equipment firms, as you might expect. Many of those hedge funds will have "creative tax solutions" that will involve shell companies, incorporation in exotic places, unusual clients, "friendly" relationships with local officials and general dodginess. Thus this waiver on normal due diligence checks. Grub Street are starting to smell blood on this.
Just what I thought, too. A great big can of worms....soon there will be worms everywhere!!!
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
PPE procurement in 2020 was a shambles. A lot of contracts were awarded to hedge funds and intermediary companies - not health care equipment firms, as you might expect. Many of those hedge funds will have "creative tax solutions" that will involve shell companies, incorporation in exotic places, unusual clients, "friendly" relationships with local officials and general dodginess. Thus this waiver on normal due diligence checks. Grub Street are starting to smell blood on this.
The only question during a national emergency is whether the service/goods paid for were provided as specified. Anything else is nothing more than a demarcation dispute and commercial jockeying.
 

FrosteeMARIA

LE
Gallery Guru
The only question during a national emergency is whether the service/goods paid for were provided as specified. Anything else is nothing more than a demarcation dispute and commercial jockeying.

There's the key - specification. I'd be very interested to see what the spec contained vs what they ended up with.

"What do we want?" .........."PPE". Errr.. care to elaborate??

(I get this all too often.)
 
Seem to recall that 99.5% of it was to the correct specification.
Based on whose official figures, and on what specification?

And does that mean that a loss of approximately £157,500,000 of tax payers' money is acceptable?
 
Last edited:
Based on whose official figures, and on what specification?

And does that mean that a loss of approximately £157,500,000 of tax payers' money is acceptable?
Yes. And it's not 'tax payers' money either.
 

llech

LE
£37 BILLION was just spunked on a failed (private venture) track and trace, it's just a shrug of shoulder and "Covid innit".
 
Looks like stable door closing, "Lessons learned" and 20/20 hindsight.
Procurement at pace, be it pandemic or UOR, will always be more problematic than business as usual.

BAU procurement has lots of tendering and other safeguards to try and protect public money, but hasty procurement and Single Tender are more liable to fraud and malpractice.

More importantly, you only get what is currently in the system, the warehouse, or what can be bodged together in short order.
The end user gets what is available, not necessarily what they want or need. It may not be fit for purpose, but it is what can be got in the short term.
 
Looks like stable door closing, "Lessons learned" and 20/20 hindsight.
Procurement at pace, be it pandemic or UOR, will always be more problematic than business as usual.

BAU procurement has lots of tendering and other safeguards to try and protect public money, but hasty procurement and Single Tender are more liable to fraud and malpractice.

More importantly, you only get what is currently in the system, the warehouse, or what can be bodged together in short order.
The end user gets what is available, not necessarily what they want or need. It may not be fit for purpose, but it is what can be got in the short term.
I accept all of that. The real issue for me is that a lot of those perpetrating the (alleged) fraud and malpractice seem to be close friends and acquaintances of those handing out the cash.
 

llech

LE
I accept all of that. The real issue for me is that a lot of those perpetrating the (alleged) fraud and malpractice seem to be close friends and acquaintances of those handing out the cash.
A party donation is an investment, if it happened in a foreign country we would be laughing at them calling them a banana republic.
 
I accept all of that. The real issue for me is that a lot of those perpetrating the (alleged) fraud and malpractice seem to be close friends and acquaintances of those handing out the cash.
In an emergency situation, you look first to the people you know, who know. A whole specification and procurement process from scratch takes time. Often a lot of time.
 

llech

LE
In an emergency situation, you look first to the people you know, who know. A whole specification and procurement process from scratch takes time. Often a lot of time.
Oh dear, here's where it falls on its arse, remember Dyson and he was valiantly trying to knock out ventilators even though they make Hoovers, well turns out the actual ventilator company was trying desperately to get hold of someone in Government, but no wait Dyson is a Brexiteer and a Tory party donor... and the PR was awesome.
 
Oh dear, here's where it falls on its arse, remember Dyson and he was valiantly trying to knock out ventilators even though they make Hoovers, well turns out the actual ventilator company was trying desperately to get hold of someone in Government, but no wait Dyson is a Brexiteer and a Tory party donor... and the PR was awesome.

He, and his people, know a thing or two about the control of the flow of gasses, filtration systems, material requirements, upscaling manufacturing resources and other such details required to ensure what needs to be done in the shortest possible time, gets done.
 
Top