Sluffy wrote:The point I clearly made above was that MP's DIDN'T have influence over the procedure - did you not read what I put or could you not understand it???
Well you literally just admitted there was influence over the procedure. Having spent months calling me an idiot for suggesting the opposite.
Sluffy wrote:That is the extent of the 'influence' any MP had over anyone getting a contract.
'That' being his local's landlord emerging on the list of suppliers and subsequently winning a contract to deliver test kits during a health crisis.
And you have not shown the criteria for being on the high priority channel you Silly or annoying person
, the documentation doesn't exist. Here's what a Professor of governance and integrity (Liz David Barrett, University of Sussex) said about it:
“The criterion [for being referred into the high-priority channel] seems extremely wide and discretionary, it’s not clear to me why MPs or peers should have any special expertise on whether a company is qualified to provide PPE.”
So it’s unclear to a Professor of governance and integrity, but retired bloke from the internet has explained it three times. Wonder who’s got it right?
Jesus Christ you are hard work.
My line 'That is the extent of the 'influence' any MP had over anyone getting a contract' if you read all that I had wrote simply meant that all an MP could do was to refer them to the governments website - which was available to anyone - nothing more!
I even highlighted it in bold for you to see ffs!
Sluffy wrote:Bourne said his initial hope was that his packaging firm might be able to retool to provide personal protective equipment (PPE). Hancock messaged back, according to Bourne, directing him to a Department of Health and Social Care website, where he formally submitted details of the work his firm could do. Bourne’s lawyers said there was no further follow-up with Hancock.
I was saying / giving you an understanding (or trying to) that the only influence an MP had was exactly the same influence as you, I or Uncle Tom Cobley had - namely non, other than to point someone in the direction of the governments website!!!
And the landlord DIDN'T win a governent PPE contract either!
If you read the link I supplied you will find he never had a government PPE contract - his company was a SUB-CONTRACTOR to other companies that had had won contracts!!!
"In August, he switched distributor, and is now supplying the same tubes via Alpha Laboratories, which also had a pre-existing contract with DHSC
. In a statement, Alpha Laboratories said: “Although we were aware Alex Bourne had met Mr Hancock, this was irrelevant to our discussions as we were sourcing from Hinpack a price-competitive product for the NHS supply chain which fitted within our product range.
And have I not repeatedly shown you the criteria?
Well let me show it you for the fourth time then.
Stage 1 Set up the system -
22. In order to address the crisis in supply of PPE, the UK Government utilised three main buying routes
. The first comprised existing suppliers, working through SCCL. The second involved using a strengthened team of staff in the UK Embassy in Beijing to identify potential sources of supply on the ground. The third, comprised new suppliers who did not currently work through SCCL
24. Accordingly, in order to address the challenge of surging demand for PPE within the NHS, it was decided to set up a new organisation to focus solely on procuring PPE supplies for the public sector: this was known as the “PPE Cell”
, and comprised a dedicated cross-governmental team of officials from DHSC, the MoD, Cabinet Office and NHS England. This prevented undue pressure on NHS Supply Chain’s existing administrative capability, allowing it to continue to meet the need for other consumables in the healthcare system more generally and deal with existing PPE suppliers. The new task force decided to adopt an innovative “open-source” approach to procurement
, calling for help from across the UK business community to help ensure critical supplies were maintained, with a view to buying the items urgently needed whencesoever it was necessary and appropriate to do so.
Stage 2 How anyone can make contact with the PPE contract awarding office
27. This Open Contracting approach was reinforced by the launch of the “Coronavirus Support from Business” Scheme on 27 March 2020.This initiative encouraged businesses supplying a range of products and services, including PPE, to register on a new online portal, to indicate how they might assist the government’s response to the pandemic, and the scheme was widely advertised at the time.
28. Suppliers who registered with offers of PPE were asked to complete a form indicating (inter alia) the products they were offering and details of price, quantity and technical certifications (including evidence thereof). They also had to give details of their business for the purposes of vetting. Many of the suppliers who registered were new to the PPE market but some did have previous valuable experience of international supply-chain management and importing goods. As already indicated, the UK Government was particularly interested in potential suppliers who had existing strong relationships on the ground in the East Asia with companies which either manufactured PPE or were re-purposing to do so, or had good local knowledge and contacts which might assist in identifying such manufacturers.
Stage 3 - Validate the potential offers
30. Rather than focusing on the identity of the potential supplier, the validity of the offer was the key focus
, thereby allowing smaller suppliers with strong contacts in PPE supply to offer the support the Government urgently needed. Equally, past experience in PPE supply was not considered a prerequisite, as other businesses (of whatever size) might also be able to leverage their manufacturing contacts to engage with foreign enterprises converting existing facilities to PPE production. While it was of course possible for DHSC to continue liaising with existing large-scale suppliers during this period (and indeed it did so, through SCCL), the nature of the changed market conditions required the development of alternative sources of supply and it was appropriate not to impose unnecessary hurdles in the way of securing that objective.
Stage 4 - Establish priority
31. In this way over 24,000 offers of support were received from some 16,000 potential suppliers. The information they provided was initially assessed and verified by a cross-governmental team. Once this initial approval had been granted, offers were then passed to buying teams (some 500 staff seconded from a range of departments), who prioritised these offers on the basis, among other matters, of how urgently the particular product was needed, the quantity on offer, value for money (using existing price benchmarks), certainty of supply and lead times.
Where appropriate, further financial checks were conducted prior to contracts being concluded.
Ok, with me so far???
Once all that was done there was a 'sifting' criteria (for want of a better word) whereby anyone within the 'system' could select what they consider met the criteria above -
The cross-government PPE team established a high-priority lane...
"Leads came into to a dedicated mailbox. There were no written rules that determined what went into this box
. The existence and nature of the mailbox was publicised across the PPE procurement programme
and to relevant private offices across government and Parliament".
...to assess and process potential PPE leads referred by government officials, ministers’ offices, MPs and Lords, senior NHS staff and other health professionals. The team considered that leads referred by these sources were more credible or needed to be treated with more urgency.
It is worth noting that the NAO said this in their report on PPE procurement -
" The Cabinet Office asked the Government Internal Audit Agency to review six PPE contracts that have attracted media attention. The review found that while there was evidence for most controls being applied there were some gaps in the documentation"
Not perfect admittedly but if these were the six major cases the government was concerned over from the shit being stirred up by Maugham, then not bad either!
As for the Professor of governance and integrity, I agree with what she says, I'm certain most if not all MP's or peers have any special expertise on whether a company is qualified to provide PPE.
However that wasn't the criteria why they were some of those who had access to the high priority line it was more to do with -
"As already indicated, the UK Government was particularly interested in potential suppliers who had existing strong relationships on the ground in the East Asia with companies which either manufactured PPE or were re-purposing to do so, or had good local knowledge and contacts which might assist in identifying such manufacturers". (Note 28 above).
In the unlikely event that some MP used the 'high priority lane' on behalf of his 'mate' (rather than the legitamate business in their constituency who had genuine potential to provide the urgently needed PPE within the required timeframes) the referal would still have had to pass the 'validity'and 'priority' checks and would have been either rejected at this stage OR would have passed IRRESPECTIVE of whether an MP put them forward or not.
The NAO report states that 90% of 500 'high priority lane' referals FAILED the tests! https://www.nao.org.uk/press-release/investigation-into-government-procurement-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
There is yet to be found any evidence by anyone of cronyism.
You would think there would be a whistleblower or two by now if there had been wouldn't you?
Well I would.