Public Sector Contracting

[rl4engc]

Cheers for the replies so far Chaps. Seems I may be on to something.. I did a tiny bit more searching and found various councils have policies on "Re-Employment" but it's mainly about giving the green light to get a former employee, who's an expert in summat, in for a short contract. I thought this was maybe just nepotism and thus wrong but not illegal.

FWIW involves contracts going back to ~2008, circa £150k a year, I have LtdCo name, Director Name and he was a " Programme Manager" in his field at council up to that point. Seems to be constantly employed as a consultancy but little evidence of it being for a fixed amount of time/package of work. I have access to the contract text, it does mention no substitutions allowed unless agreed by both parties which I'm guessing puts it in IR35.

Will pick this up after the bank holiday, but any pointers on how I can get a load of fat cat councillors into trouble will be much appreciated. Am familiar with FOI requests etc.

Mods feel free to move to another forum if this is too heavy for /gen/

[SueEllen]

Having no substitutes allowed does not put it squarely within IR35 you need to see the full contract.

Personally bringing attention to the nepotism in the media would do more harm. Simply because that angle is the easiest for people to understand especially if you know the daily rate.

[NickFitz]

I don't think a clause saying that a substitute must be acceptable to the parties would be an IR35 indicator. It's obvious that providing a substitute who had no knowledge or experience relevant to the role couldn't work. Even HMRC don't try to argue that expecting the substitute to be able to do the job, and therefore requiring that the substitute be acceptable on such grounds, isn't reasonable.

If the contract specified clearly unreasonable criteria for acceptability such as being the nephew of the Chief Executive, that would be a different matter.

Leaving that to one side: as has been pointed out above, Private Eye's Rotten Boroughs column loves this kind of thing

[Sean Key]

Corruption

I think your hypothetical scenario outlines a hypothetically corrupt situation. As an earlier person said, try engaging your local paper and Rotten Boroughs in Private Eye on this. Personally I wouldn't bother with an FOI request.

Why this scenario suggests corruption;
- lack of competition, usually to keep renewing a contract with a single supplier a series of waivers would have to be signed exempting the order placing / contract renewal from competition, as a deterrent to repeatedly giving work to your mates, and earning back-handers off of it, it would be useful to know the justifications behind those waivers, if they were signed, in your scenario, and by whom were they signed.
- Councils are meant to publish all their expenditure online now, have they done this? Is this contract listed? If its a Ltd. Co. what does a company search throw up? who are the shareholders? Is the money going round in a circle back to stakeholders in the council somehow?
- As per other posters, IR35, for an executive officer, should be applied (e.g. Finance Director), I've always wondered if Programme Manager would fall into this or not, I guess it would depend on the influence of the programme versus the size of the council budget
- If, in your scenario, there is a programme, what has it been procuring and how have those tenders been run, and who benefits?

[Yampy]

I'm contracting with a local council in Scotland through an agency. The procurement rules are fairly rigid. When procuring something the value of the procurement must cover the term of the contract. Up to £10k you need 3 quotes. £10-50k you do an ITQ, Invitation to Quote with a recommended minimum of 5 suppliers and do a weighted scoring exercise to evaluate which supplier comes out best value. Over £50k and it's a full blown tender exercise.

The scenario described by the OP sounds like a cosy arrangement but as someone mentioned earlier it's probably being put through an existing supplier on a framework

[AtW]

I'm contracting with a local council in Scotland through an agency. The procurement rules are fairly rigid. When procuring something the value of the procurement must cover the term of the contract. Up to £10k you need 3 quotes. £10-50k you do an ITQ, Invitation to Quote with a recommended minimum of 5 suppliers and do a weighted scoring exercise to evaluate which supplier comes out best value. Over £50k and it's a full blown tender exercise.

No ****ing wonder Govt spending is out of control.

[original PM]

I'm contracting with a local council in Scotland through an agency. The procurement rules are fairly rigid. When procuring something the value of the procurement must cover the term of the contract. Up to £10k you need 3 quotes. £10-50k you do an ITQ, Invitation to Quote with a recommended minimum of 5 suppliers and do a weighted scoring exercise to evaluate which supplier comes out best value. Over £50k and it's a full blown tender exercise.

The scenario described by the OP sounds like a cosy arrangement but as someone mentioned earlier it's probably being put through an existing supplier on a framework

No ****ing wonder Govt spending is out of control.

Yes it's just a shame we cannot trust these people to not act like spoiled ten year old and so we have to put in ridiculous expensive rules to stop them lining their and their mates pockets with tax payers money.

But then when you look at how trustworthy our politicians aren't you can see why.

Monkey see, monkey do.

[bobspud]

No ****ing wonder Govt spending is out of control.

I hate to tell you this :

It's not out of control... They are spending like this on purpose.

They have to do this because its the price of not ending up with our country looking like China, Africa or dare I say Russia where its common to see the mates of the power in charge suddenly rich beyond all compare...

Despite what is said to the press money never seems to be a problem compared to additional work or complexity.

[bobspud]

Yes it's just a shame we cannot trust these people to not act like spoiled ten year old and so we have to put in ridiculous expensive rules to stop them lining their and their mates pockets with tax payers money.

But then when you look at how trustworthy our politicians aren't you can see why.

Monkey see, monkey do.

It's not just that its corrupt. There is a human nature to reuse what you know. How many times have you hit a new project and thought wow this is not good Im getting X from Y to come here and get involved.

So procurement rules are there to stop that as much as money theft.