icowden
Squire
So, the NHS Procurement Department (or whatever it is actually called) was bypassed? I would have thought that one of the many CEOs (or whatever they are called) would have (publicly) voiced opposition to this, given the obvious financial risks. I would have thought the Party in Opposition would have raised it as a potential problem?
I don't think that the emergency procurement process was made visible to the Opposition, it being done under emergency regulations. It did not require legislation to be able to do it. The equipment procurement was not done via NHS Procurement as it should have been. As for NHS CEOs, again they had no say in the matter. They had a lot to worry about such as getting hold of ventillators and keeping staff safe.
While government had the necessary legal framework in place to award contracts directly, it had to balance the need to procure large volumes of goods and services quickly, with the increased commercial and propriety risks associated with emergency procurement. We looked in detail at a sample of contracts selected on a risk basis. Although we found sufficient documentation for a number of procurements in our sample, we also found specific examples where there is insufficient documentation on key decisions, or how risks such as perceived or actual conflicts of interest have been identified or managed. In addition, a number of contracts were awarded retrospectively, or have not been published in a timely manner.
So the contracts are only as good as the person responsible for drawing them up. It is very likely that the contracts have flaws.