Thoughts on the new UK Green Paper on Public Procurement

 A few passing thoughts on the new Green paper (which I will try to add to as it sinks in).

The Paper is here.

First, the ability to limit contracts below threshold to SMEs is a consequence of being outside the EU procurement directive, and reflects the fact that the WTO GPA (World Trade Organisation Government Procurement Agreement) only applies above the relevant threshold.  (note that thresholds will remain).

Is this a good idea?  Well it depends on whether it is used.  Central Government already has a target of 1/3 spend with SMEs, (a target that is fudged, but that is another issue) and this should help.  I suspect that it will be of use for Local Authorities who strongly prefer to spend their money locally, and it will help to overcome the advantage the "big players" have by using strong bid writing teams.  I do suspect though that the SMEs will end up being the bigger firms (near the 250 person limit) rather than micro-businesses (fewer than 10 employees).

• Allowing buyers to include wider social benefits of the supplier, such as economic, social and environmental factors, when assessing who to award a contract to, while also still considering value for money

Again, I suspect Local Authorities will love this and look for it to be a charter to award contracts to local business - regardless of other constraints.  Could be good, could lead to local buying leading to poor value for money.

• Giving buyers the power to properly take account of a bidder’s past performance, allowing them to exclude suppliers who have failed to deliver in the past

This builds on the existing discretionary exclusion, and could be a good "whip" to complement the "Carrots" of further contracts.  We do need to address the way that the make money is to win the contract, regardless of whether you do a good or poor job.  It creates an incentive to invest in bid writing not delivery.

• A new unit to oversee public procurement with powers to improve commercial skills of public sector contractors

OK, UK Government - you know where I am.  Happy and willing to run help improve commercial skills.  It is my job.  Give me a call.  

Flippancy aside this has long been an unmet need, and the new regulations will make it urgent.

• A single digital platform for registering contracts, improving transparency and making life significantly simpler for business

This makes sense and I could not understand the previous desire to have 2 platforms.  Though I do wonder how it will fit in with the developed procurement powers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who all have their own platforms and rules.

We propose enshrining in law, the principles of public procurement: value for money, the public good, transparency, integrity, efficiency, fair treatment of suppliers and non-discrimination.

This is actually more principles than we have at the moment, but I don't see anything to object to here with the possible exception of the "public good" - who determines that?  How do we measure it objectively?

 We propose establishing a single digital platform for supplier registration that ensures they only have to submit their data once to qualify for any public sector procurement.

This is a good idea, and was the basis of the ESPD (European Single Procurement Document) that the government previously and ostentatiously refused to apply in England (preferring to stick to the Selection Questionnaire SQ) though Scotland and Wales used it.

We propose legislating for a new Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS+)

Colour me not convinced.

Carillion - public sector contracts

I am sure that there are going to be a lot of "hot takes" on Carillion going into administration.  It is too early for me to go into it in detail, but a couple of key points to think about.

1. Procurement has to look at Risk as well as price and cost - a consolidation of suppliers may lead to efficiencies but can also increase risk
2. Bigger is not necessarily safer than smaller.  Think also of Connaught and the hard work Serco have had to do to turn themselves round from a big operating loss.
3. Apart from banks no UK business is too big to fail.
4. Contract management is key for the public sector.  It ensures contractors cannot make up for underbidding by changes and variations
5. Buyers need to be very careful about possible underbidding (by SMEs and charities as well as big contractors) - companies need to make enough profit to ensure they survive when things go wrong.  And at some point they will.
6. Split supply may be safer, but less efficient
7. Privately owned companies are not perfect.  I know that is obvious, but it is not what we sometimes hear when we talk about private companies delivering public services.
8. Public sector contracts normally prevent suppliers from assigning contracts to third parties without the buyer's permission.  We hear the government as been ensuring that Carillion contracts can be easily passed on to a new contractor of our choice.  That is good news.
9. I would not expect many of Carillion's contracts to be re-tendered in the near future.  Short term continuity will take precedence over the need for competition.
10. This will look bad on the UK, as overseas contracts will also be thrown into disarray including work on the Qatar world cup which like all such projects is on a tight timetable.
11.Finally, spare a thought for the sub-contractors and suppliers.  They are likely not to be paid anything for a long time, and then be offered pennies on the pound.  It is likely some will go bust.  It is not their fault, nor (most) of Carillion's staff and I hope they manage to get through.

This is another major shock to Britain's construction industry (after the collusion prosecutions, and Connaught).  I hope it can bounce back quickly

Tesco - late payment scandal

So Tesco have been rapped on the knuckles for late payment - see BBC here.

Almost a year ago I was writing about this here. 

Let's be clear - this was a deliberate breaking of agreed contracts by a large customer taking advantage of smaller suppliers.  Tesco are claiming they are undertaking "reorganising, refocusing and retraining our teams".  This is disengenous.  They knew exactly what they were doing, and they did it as a deliberate policy.  If they are serious about the apologies they need to sack the managers responsible immediately - all the way up to the board.  Don't pretend they have already gone, or did not know what was going on.  Fraud is a hard word but what else do you call signing contracts you have no intention of honouring?

People could have (and may have) lost jobs and businesses so that Tesco managers could claim inflated profits and cashflow, and falsely claim bonuses.  Those bonuses must be recovered, and the victim businesses compensated.

In the end the accouting scandal of which this is part might cost Tesco £500m in fines.  Was it worth it?

Eliminating PQQs - the consquences

I know I keep wittering on about this, but I believe that the elimination of PQQs will have the opposite result to that intended - increased participation by SMEs in public contracts.  Philip Prince of Constructionline takes a similar view in Supply Management Magazine.


http://www.supplymanagement.com/blog/2015/06/new-public-contracts-regulations-risk-increasing-the-burden-on-buyers-and-sme-suppliers

SMEs and UK Public Procurement

SME's are constantly told that the government wants to increase the amount of business that it is doing with them.  This is an important issue, one very dear to my heart, and as Peter Smith of Spend Matters points out the government is not telling the truth about their failure to deliver on this.

Peter links to the latest report which is extremely misleading about some of the key points, and skips over what I think is actually vitally important news about payment terms, and some potentially good news about a revamp of the currently lame Contracts Finder.

Before I rant about the data, let me get to the good news story: from 25th February 2015 everyone in the supply chain to central government must comply with 30 day payment terms.  We can compare this to the Tesco/Sainsbury problems and see how vital this is for SMEs

The government has consistently remembered the importance of this issue, but not delivered - as signified by the changing language.  25% business central government business with SMEs has moved from a commitment to a target to an aim to an ambition and I think it is currently an aspiration.
The concept has suffered from an internal government clash between Mr. Eric Pickles' concept of piling things high (at sub-central level) to get economies of scale, and Mr Maude's more nuanced approach.  But the upshot is that once again support from SMEs has not delivered. 

I used to deliver programmes for BusinessLink operators, so I am probably biased but when these were cut SMEs lost an avenue for support (there are many valid discussions about whether it was the right support to the right businesses, but still).  Directing more procurement to them would have helped them during an incredibly difficult time for many SMEs.

SMEs have been facing a terrible situations with banks not wanting to lend, reduction in public spending programmes (suitable for SMEs), reduction in overall business spending, withdrawal of BusinessLink (ok, maybe not such a loss for many), increased competition (from the many new one man bands and SMEs set up during this time) and exploitation from big customers paying late (if at all).  The good think about Public Procurement is that it does pay, and relatively promptly. 

I think it is great to encourage these business- some of which will grow, and others of which will die with the ones in the middle providing a living for many people.  There are real problems in targeting government contracts to be appropriate for SMEs, and the government should not shy away from discussing that but it should also be honest.

The headline on the report says 25% business with SMEs.  The text says £11.4bn and 10.3% directly (with 15.8% indirectly).  Let us be clear - indirect does not count.  If I buy a sandwich, and the shop owner buys some cheese with the money to make my sandwich, I did not buy some cheese.  I did not say not stipulate where the shop owner bought the cheese, or how much he paid or when he paid, or who he bought it from.  I bought a sandwich. 

If we are going to include the supply chain the number should be a lot higher than 25%, because the shop owner might employ a cleaner - should that count as my spend because I bought a sandwich?  The 25% figure is a nonsense even before you get to the fact that the indirect spend is based on information provided by big suppliers without any actual evidence.  It is only been given so that the Cabinet Office can claim to have met a target (sorry an aspiration) ahead of the election - in doing so it degrades trust in public pronouncements.

In the breakdown there are good news stories: BIS is 34% direct, DCLG is 24%, DFID is 30%.  Why not trumpet those successes and explain why the DWP is only 4%?  And how you mean to address the overall spend?

Remember though that central government procurement at about £100bn is only half the total with the other half spend by sub-central bodies who may be better at engaging with SMEs.

And the last point, which I again I need to declare an interest on, is Contracts Finder.  The revamp is very necessary, as on the old version the search engine did not work on the front page which is a pretty serious flaw (it works on the new version).  More importantly awareness of it was low - one courses rarely did more than half of the delegates know about it before I told them.  It cannot bring in SMEs if they do not know about it.  In the press release Lord Young says that it is unique "in terms of scale and ambition" - well the old Supply2gov (run by BIP Solutions, who [full disclosure] I do work for) had pretty much the same function, the same ambition, a larger scale, and much higher brand recognition.  (Note BIP Solutions now run Competefor which does a similar job on a smaller scale).

OK, what I've been ranting - what do I want?  Honest data about the situation, a renewed commitment to increasing direct SME spend from 10% to 25% (or even 20%) over the next parliament, and a plan for doing so outlining the problems for particular departments and the potential costs (reduced economies of scale) and benefits (innovation, flexibility etc.).  Not too much to ask I hope.

BTW, a year ago I discussed this with a senior Labour politician and they seemed to have no more recognition of this than the current government, so this is not a politically focused rant (and Mr. Pickles and Mr Maude are members of the same party).

Bullying in the supply chain: Tesco

Following on from Sainsbury, the media is now focussing on Tesco and late payment.  The BBC had a very relevant interview with a small supplier from October 2014 to illustrate this week's story - Moo Chocolate.  Their point was that after contract Tesco decided to pay them late (or in their words to extend payment terms), and that the £6k involved was small change to Tesco but their monthly wage bill and late payment would have meant closure.

The interest on £6000 for an extra month is maybe £60 (based on 10%pa, which is probably too high as interest paid, and too low as interest charged).  I know that the cumulative sum of all these £60 is going to be a big number, but let's think about this in more detail. 

Firstly, if the buyer thought there was another £60 to be taken out of the price why didn't they go for it at the initial contract? If not, what do they think the consequences are going to be?

So, secondly, from working with ASDA Walmart years ago I believe that products are only going to be put on a supermarket shelf if they can make more money from the product than from whatever is on the shelf at the moment.  How much more?  Well I don't know.  But maybe 10% more is realistic.  Note that that is 10% more profit, not 10% more on the price.  In the case of small niche products like this chocolate bar the price is likely to be higher than Cadbury's anyway, but the profit margin will depend on a wide range of factors (raw materials, marketing, order costs, economies of scale in manufacturing, supplier power, contribution to supermarket promotions etc.).  So if the small supplier closes because of trying to get £60 extra out of the deal, you lose £60 in extra margin.  (yes, it will be replaced but if it could be replaced by something with a higher margin it already would have been).  That seems quite a risky way of doing things, unless you are absolutely certain that you can get the money out of the supplier - in which case see point 1.

And of course Tesco are now tarred with the same brush as Sainsbury, and in fact more publicly - which does not help their public relations and may have subtle longer term damage to the brand.

Was the £60 worth it?  Are the other £60s (from other suppliers) worth it?

I (oddly) hope that it is part of a considered strategy.  But I fear it was just opportunistic.

By the way, I was helping ASDA Walmart with bringing in these smaller suppliers.  The team there was well aware that small suppliers needed support before they were handed over to the "beasts" in category management who are as tough as they need to be.  And I don't underestimate how tough you need to be to do those jobs (I don't think I could) but you also have to be careful not to cross the line into being tough all the time when it is actually damaging to your long term interests

UK government procurement review

The National Audit Office has issued a new review of UK Government Procurement - see here.  (Thanks to Peter Smith and Spend Matters for pointing it out).

I've not read it is detail but a couple of quick points - the number of government procurement posts is down 17% (from 3900 to 3200).  That suggests a wages bill cutting approach to cost savings, though the number of CIPS qualified staff is up (which indicates a more professional approach).

The report states that there is £45bn of central government procurement each year, only £3bn of which goes through central contracts (about 7%).  From those they have saved £426m, or about 1% of total spend but a remarkable 14% of spend through those contracts.  Obviously not all central spend can go through central contracts, but the opportunity for savings is clearly significant.  Assuming those ratios could be maintained if we got say 20% of procurement under central contracts we could save £1bn.  Which is worth having.

Spend with SME is estimated at 10% in 2011/2, with a target of 25% by 2015.  I might be accused of negativity, but that is not going to happen.  The benefits arising from SMEs is real but diffuse and difficult to measure.  If it is difficult to get government departments to sign up to something that would save £1bn, then how much harder is it to get them to sign up to a programme of using SMEs?

The tension between centralisation and encouring SMEs is set to continue.

Book Review: Intervention - The Battle for Better Business

As the economic continues to bump along the bottom in the UK, there is a continual focus on the ways to increase entrepreneurship and stimulate the economy.  Many of the people who have found themselves outside of regular employment are setting up in business for themselves, creating a new wave of business start-ups.  There is considerable academic (and far from academic) debate about how best to support entrepreneurs, whether we should, and if we do what types of entrepreneur to support.  Should support be focussed on so called “high growth” prospects, which have the capacity to grow rapidly from a few founders to companies employing hundreds?  Should we instead focus support on the large established companies that employ significant numbers of people?  Or are those businesses types of business able to support themselves, and should we focus on the small one man band new entrants to the commercial world?

These arguments are not new, and I have just finished reading a book that covers some of this ground.  Intervention – the battle for Better business (by Elliot Forte) covers the history of the BusinessLink business support group in the UK since its introduction by Michael Heseltine to the effect abandonment of the model under the current coalition government.

In the name of full disclosure I should point out I was both a client of and supplier to a variety of Business Link organisations, and so benefited greatly from their activities during the past 15 or so years.

The book is written by a Business Link insider who obviously valued their activities, and sees it as a shame that they have been closed down to be replaced by a website containing basic business information.  He is hardly uncritical of the way the organisation(s) operated, and in particular the way they had to adapt to constantly changing political priorities.  (one Business Link Operator I worked with closely changed its name, remit and organisation every 2 years for a decade – which was hardly beneficial for productivity).

I tend to agree with his conclusions that Business Links were particularly beneficial for the smaller operators.  There is an argument put forward that most of the information needed to setup and run a successful small business is available on the web – but many people setting up for themselves are practical people who benefit from a conversation rather than trawling through web pages.  For the same reason the excellent books provided by banks to new starts tend to sit on the shelves.  I think these micro start-ups are the ones who benefit from business advisors – but they are exactly the people who do not have the money (or self awareness) to employ one.  The larger and potentially more successful businesses can buy in their own support rather than using a government subsidised service.

Perhaps the biggest problem is the 10 to 50 man business that would benefit from external business advice, but is sceptical of consultants and will not employ them.  Here the Business Links provided a good introduction at subsidised prices, often free.

The book highlights the relatively low cost of Business Links and the large number of businesses that they touched – however lightly.   The current Business Link website largely duplicates and consolidates  information available in other places.  The government is focussing resources on companies with potential for rapid growth through the Regional Growth Fund, which is equivalent to the running costs of Business Links for a decade.  So we are placing quite a large bet on companies meeting their potential.

My concern is that we have a new community of small scale entrepreneurs starting in business during the depths of a recession.  Those that come through this will be the foundations of Britain’s next entrepreneurial community – but many will fail when their redundancy money or savings runs out.  A little bit of government funded support could increase the percentage making it through, and give a stronger business community in the future.  I too think the Business Links were a useful, if far from perfect, contributor to business success in the UK.

The UK Public Procurement Opportunity

About a year ago the government came up with some large numbers about the potential savings for councils by improved procurement.  The number was widely publicised as over £400 off each council tax bill, about £10bn which is about 20% of UK local authority spend.

These claims have been investigated by Private Eye, and are skewered by Ben Goldacre in his Bad Science blog and column on the Guardian (last year), and by the Local Government Chronicle here yesterday.

The initial piece of research by Opera Solutions was based on just 3 categories at 3 councils, and really is nothing more than a promotional piece pointing out that savings can be possible.  The 20% headline figure was derived from mobile phone rates (and the other 2 categories were only 10% savings).

Now we are probably going to get the political process here saying some combination of;
- the research was valid (no it's not)
- it was only presented as indicative (no it wasn't)
- it is a long time ago and things have moved on (well yes and no).
- this is political point scoring (well, yes but on both sides)
- let's forget about it.

It is not the only set of government promoted data that is under scrutiny  - see Peter Smith of Spend Matters, on the role of SMEs in supplying government.

My point in dragging these things up from other blogs is that this is important.  There are clearly savings to be made in local authority procurement, but they are unlikely to be as easy to realise as is being suggested.  Likewise there are benefits from engaging SMEs in public sector procurement processes, but they take time to delivery value. 

The first victim of the political process (from either side) is truth, in the form of accurate data.  But without accurate data we cannot make good procurement decisions and set appropriate strategies.  I hope (probably in vain) that all sides will recognise the need for good, clear, accurate data about public procurment.  It will take time and money to gather, but it should pay back the costs many times over in savings.  Just not £10 bn worth.  Probably.  I don't know.  I'd have to look at the data.

£6n government spend with SMEs - follow up in Yorkshire Post

There was a follow up article in the Yorkshire Post on Sunday building on what was said at the Public Procurement Briefing held in London on 9th March 2012.  It used a few more comments from my interview with the YP, and can be seen here.http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/business/business-news/6bn-of-government-business-going-to-smes-says-cabinet-1-4331965

Public Procurement Briefing, 9th March 2012

I was not invited (and no reason why i should have been), but I pretty much support one of the views being presentated at the event by Mark Thompson.

http://www.methods.co.uk/dr-mark-thompsons-speech-at-10-downing-street-cabinet-office-procurement-briefing-9-march-2012-2/

I do hope that this is the beginning of a real focus on smes in public procurement.  The government continues to say good things, but in their progress report while they report real progress they use weasel words about involving smes in the supply chain to government.  It is not really something they should claim as their success, and could at worst be seen as passing the buck to their suppliers.  To be watched with care.

SMEs still miss out on Public Sector Contracts

Today's Yorkshire Post (Thursday 8th March 2012) contains an article about SMEs and public procurement with extensive quotes from me.   My summary is that the government is talking a good game but more needs to be done to make sure it actually delivers the engagement with SMES that will benefit our economy.

The article is here

Government becomes an office landlord

The government has just announced a scheme where empty office space in public sector properties will be leased to small businesses.   The aim is to encourage entrepreneurship, and strengthen the small business sector whilst helping to generate income from public properties that will otherwise sit idle.  These are laudable aims, but I have strong reservations about the scheme in practice.

Firstly, the government is setting itself up in competition to private sector commercial landlords.  I don’t know about in London, but in much of the country there is no shortage of commercial space available at low rents and flexible about the size and duration of the lease.  It may be a big problem in London, but it is not in Leeds where the scheme was launched, or Bradford where I am based.  In fact there is a problem of too much space chasing too few tenants.  The government offering their surplus space, whilst a reasonable commercial proposition, is likely to end up undercutting the commercial offer (by offering better facilities, infrastructure. decor etc. for the same price) which in the end may lead to a lessening of total space available and in the short term may drive some commercial spaces out of business.

Enough sympathy for the landlords (sorry Ben and Helen, who provide my office space).  The bigger worry to me is that the government is sending a message that start-up businesses need formal office space.  Some do – but they can probably look after themselves.  Obviously manufacturing tends to need dedicated premises, which is one reason it is so hard to start successfully.  Service industries, including retail these days, often do not need their own office until they are large enough to pay for them at commercial rates.  New businesses are often better setting up from the kitchen table or garage until the cash flow is strong enough.  I was based at home for nearly 10 years.  People starting off in business are sometimes seduced by the glamour of setting up, when what they need is to strip out anything that does not generate cash.  A website is a much better investment than an atrium.

Feel free to disagree.

Good news/bad news - Procure4London

The local authorities in London are banding together to procure collectively.  This should achieve the twin aims of reducing costs, and making it easier for smes to bid for business (though not necessarily to win business).  The site went live on 9th September 2011 - see here.

Why do I say good news/bad news?  Well partly the point  I made about about whether this will help smes.
But secondly, it will be another portal.  Opportunities are already supposed to being shared through ContractFinder, and many London opportunities (not just Olympic opportunities) are going through Competefor.  The original intention was to have Competefor as a legacy of the Olympic Games.  That probably died with Glasgow 2014 decided not to use it, but it seems a shame not to use it for this opportunity.  There may be issues I do not understand but it seems from here like a duplication of effort - and cost.

One step forward, one step back...

Basics of Business - Networking

Networking is one of the elements of business that is sometimes taken for granted, but is actually still a source of discussion.  While salespeople, consultants and other snake oil sellers see networking as essential, there are still plenty of people in business who don’t see it as essential.

The arguments against networking are several – that it is time away from the office that should be spent on productive work, that it is expensive, that staff use is as an opportunity to promote themselves rather than the company, that it is entertainment rather than work, that there is no guaranteed benefit, and that it is full of salesmen rather than customers.

 All of these can have some validity  - but if you think that by stopping your staff from networking they will not meet other potential employers, then you are underestimating the work of recruitment consultants.  You are also missing out on a lot of potentially valuable information. 
A couple of anecdotal incidents from the past week or so.  A colleague I met at a networking lunch has just rung me up from the Middle East to tell me about a London based company looking for some training providers. 

Secondly, last week I was at an event where a colleague found out the top management of  a major competitor had resigned en masse to set up their own company.  This is not the sort of information  that  comes out quickly through formal channels, and it means that there are opportunities to take advantage of the distraction of the competition – at a least for a while.  And yes, a potential job vacancy to be considered too.  Without networking it is likely that much of the window of opportunity would have passed by unknown.

If you are going to use networking in your organisation, and I suggest that you should, you should consider a few key points;

-          Set a target number of days for networking – say 2 per month.

             -          Consider what you want out of it - sales leads, market info, ideas, contacts, a new job

-          Ensure information is shared back home - a quick note is enough

-          Practice your Elevator speech - if you have a chance to make a good impression be ready

-          Think about what organisations you want to link into - customers, competitors, suppliers, academia, media

-          Follow up on contacts made – and categorise them with bring forward actions

-          Share – be reciprocal.  People want you to give as well as take

-          Be prepared to cut events that are too full of the wrong sort of people

-          Recognise that events with the right sort of people are limited

-          Recognise that it is a numbers game – there is no guaranteed win on any one event

-          Recognise that it is a long term game - sometimes things take years to lead to business

-          Don’t limit it to your sales people – technical people need networks too

-          Practice networking skills if you are not a natural

-          Don’t be afraid to ask questions such as “who do you use for…?”

-          Be aware of any IP that you want to protect (e.g. who you use for…”

-          Make sure networkers are aware of the need to avoid any activities that could be considered collusion or market fixing (e.g. discussing prices).

-          If you are not getting what you want, then consider other networks rather than stopping networking altogether

-          LinkedIn is great – but it is not an alternative to physical networking.

Changing EU Procurement rules

The government has signalled its displeasure at its inability to award the ThamesLink train contract to Canadian company Bombardier Transportation in order to support the train manufacturing facilities in Derby.  Instead the contract has gone to German company Siemens, who will in return create 300 jobs in Hebben, South Tyneside.  In total some 3000 or so jobs are at risk in Derby, and a campaign to overturn the decision has seen well supported marches, and angry questionning of government minister - see here.

I have pontificated about the decision in other places on the blog, but in principle the decision is right (if unfortunate).  The government really has no choice because of EU procurement legislation, which it has hinted it would like to change - no easy task.  Luckily there is a review of the rules in process (kicking off in earnest next year) and the UK government would like to know our views and gain our support in changing the current legislative framework.

There is a paper about it here.  Some of the proposals seem a little anodyne, but that is understandable - you don't want to go into a difficult negotiation with all guns blazing.   The specific changes suggested include;
- higher limits, quicker processes, measures to exempt 3rd sector organisations from some of the legislation, and to increase (in reality create) opportunities to negotiate with suppliers.

If you have an interest in public procurement in the UK, and Europe, and strongly suggest you have a look and let the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude, know what you think, and what you would like to see changed.  This is an opportunity, and we should all take it.  Rather than complain about what the rules are without doing anything about it, let's engage and see if we can get any improvements. 

But don't hold your breath - the chances are the process will be slow, and the changes incremental.

UK Government Spending

My friends at BIP Solutions have just sent round an e-mail highlighting their Tracker Spend Analysis service.
The most interesting part of the e-mail is too look at how much money the government has spent so far this year - see quotoation below

With a total spend so far from January 2011 of £146,003,754,510.17 – it is anyone’s game!

So who has spent what?

Central Government £99,389,430,852.30 Local Government £15,682,819,570.67 Emergency Services £78,629,500.56 Non-Departmental Public Bodies £3,114,832,048.07 NHS £27,738,042,538.57

So year to date we are at £146billion, (or £146 000 billion if you are in the US), and on track for round about £200bn by the end of 2011.  That is a lot of money.  But is only about £2.5k (at the moment) for each person in the UK.  Note that the NHS spends almost twice as much as all the councils put together, and that Quangos (while spending a hefty £3bn) are really only a couple of percent of the total - getting rid of them will not make a big difference.

So, if you are a small business interested in supplying the UK public sector, remember there is a lot of opportunities to target - even if the total spend is due to come down in future.

And if you are not then it is worth trying to understand where the money is going.