UK government to open £16B IT services competition after 6-month delay

UK government is set to crack open the pork barrel for up to £16 billion in contracts for a range of IT services. The buying framework was delayed by six months and the total pot of spending is now potentially 25 percent bigger than the previous proposal. In a notice published earlier this month to alert tech suppliers, Crown …

[Caver_Dave]

"...exclude suppliers on the basis of past behavior"

"Among the changes introduced in the UK's new procurement law are the ability to exclude suppliers on the basis of past behavior"

That should mean that all the usual suspects are barred then; on the basis of overrun, both in time and budget, on so many prior projects.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: "...exclude suppliers on the basis of past behavior"

That should mean that all the usual suspects are barred then

Not like that

[Aldnus]

Re: "...exclude suppliers on the basis of past behavior"

this wont open the door to small business suppliers as those types of company could not get the capital together to meet the contract requirements and liabilities should things go south.

For example a current contract 2 month extension for the MOD is approximately 1 mil but the liabilities are in excess of 12 million which is more than the original contract value. This is not a scenario but how the government plays. That and there awful payment terms means cashflow and wages are potentially at risk for small companies.

The only companies who can achieve underwriting government contract liabilities are the big players.

[elsergiovolador]

Re: "...exclude suppliers on the basis of past behavior"

True that. It's difficult to get more than £5m insurance as a small business.

[Like a badger]

Re: "...exclude suppliers on the basis of past behavior"

Unfortunately the exclusion rules appear to be solely about competition law infringements, not about performance per se. That's a massive missed opportunity, because at the moment the goals of customer and supplier are opposite. The supplier knows when a tender is clueless, or when a customer is starting down the path of chaotic post-contract changes, but does nothing because that makes them far more money. If the rules had included the opportunity to have sanctions against suppliers who are involved in overspends (for ANY reason) then there would be an incentive for suppliers not to accept half baked contract, and to resist post contract variations.

[alain williams]

How about favouring British suppliers ?

Many advantages:

• Keep money in the UK, not export it to the USA

• Build up skills and infrastructure in the UK

• Grow UK service companies, make them better able to compete overseas

• Better security - when data goes overseas who gets access to it ?

But all of this will be ignored by the muppets in power.

[Like a badger]

Re: How about favouring British suppliers ?

"Build up skills and infrastructure in the UK

Grow UK service companies, make them better able to compete overseas"

A nice idea, but that was the foundations of ICL (AKA Fujitsu UK), and also of ATOS in France. I'm all in favour of reducing the reliance upon our Unreliably Ally, but historically the national champions strategy has had far more failures than successes.

[ecofeco]

Re: How about favouring British suppliers ?

Are you saying grifting is not a special skill and not a foundational requirement to national strategic security?

Well fancy that.

[Tron]

Re: How about favouring British suppliers ?

We didn't have the IT skills/finance before Brexit, and we certainly don't have them [or dentists, GPs, agricultural labour, etc] now. And we won't in the future, no matter how much money they throw at training courses of variable merit.

This is a stupid amount of money being paid out just to do everything on computers for a few years, before they pay out another stupid amount of money to do everything on computers for another few years. And so on...

[gryphon]

Re: How about favouring British suppliers ?

Only one I can find at a quick glance that isn't either wholly or largely foreign owned is Capita.

Hmm.

Avenade, DXC, Kyndryl, CGI, Fujitsu all UK subsidiaries of foreign owned behemoths

[alain williams]

Re: How about favouring British suppliers ?

But all of this will be ignored by the muppets in power.

If I really needed an illustration: Ferguson shipyard misses out on new CalMac ferry order

[anothercynic]

Re: How about favouring British suppliers ?

Ironically, the shipyard in Turkey that got recent orders (not *these*) now *also* has delays, albeit not as bad as Ferguson's. Apparently their ferries are delayed by 8 months.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crknx1lp80mo

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Blackrock have an IT Services division?

If not, are they planning to open one soon?

[ecofeco]

Que the usual suspects

And que the usual future headlines.

[werdsmith]

Re: Que the usual suspects

Que?

I’m so sorry, he’s from Barcelona.

[Bebu sa Ware]

Re: Que the usual suspects

«Que? I’m so sorry, he’s from Barcelona.»

Is rat." He say "No, no, no. Is a special kind of hamster. Is filigree Siberian hamster. Only one in shop." He make special price: only five pound.

Doubtless O'Reilly's Global Software Services, Torquay will be a leading contender... pending removal of lawn ornament.

[collinsl]

Re: Que the usual suspects

I'd suggest Trotter's Information Technology Services myself, had great experience with them in the past.

[Bebu sa Ware]

I thought the background to the article's graphic†

was Van Gogh's The Starry Night or Starry Night over the Rhône both painted when the artist's grasp on reality was none too firm.

Would have been rather appropriate really.

_{† article's graphic although an exploding policebox in the sky might be of some concern. ;)}

[PeterM42]

Oh dear

ANOTHER £16Bn down the drain.