ITPRO

Printed from www.itpro.co.uk

Register to receive our regular email newsletter at http://www.itpro.co.uk/reg/register.

The newsletter contains links to our latest IT news, product reviews, features and how-to guides, plus special offers and competitions.

Skip to navigation

    Government IT slammed for tech ‘cartel’ reliance

The PASC report claims SMEs are being blocked out of Government contracts.

By Tom Brewster, 28 Jul 2011 at 11:32

Gov IT

The Government has been accused of blocking out small IT providers in favour of using a core group of tech giants, costing taxpayers unnecessary sums of money.

In some cases, the the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) found departments had spent an average of £3,500 on a desktop PC.

The PASC report on Government and IT, called ‘A Recipe For Rip-Offs,’ said there were a variety of ways in which smaller providers had been prevented from gaining contracts.

It found there was an “over-reliance on a small number of large suppliers,” whilst small and medium-sized (SME) IT contractors, which “tend to be less risk adverse and more innovative,” were virtually excluded.

Martin Rice, chief executive (CEO) of Erudine, an IT SME, described the situation as a "cartel."

“The Government has said that it is overly reliant on an ‘oligopoly’ of suppliers; some witnesses went further and described the situation as a 'cartel,’” said Bernard Jenkin, chair of PASC.

“Whatever we call the situation it has led to an inexcusable situation that sees Governments waste an obscene amount of public money."

The report said there was a lack of IT skills in Government and an over-reliance on contracting, which had led to the “recipe for rip-offs.”

If you want big savings… if you want to get into the billions, you have to go to the big companies with big balance sheets and big ideas.

Intellect, the IT industry trade body, agreed with the suggestion that smaller providers were blocked out, although contested the use of the term ‘cartel.’

“Government's current go-to-market approach presents significant barriers to new entrants to the market, especially in terms of the change-averse culture in government and the preference given to suppliers with UK government experience,” Intellect said.

PASC called on Government to urgently carry out an independent, external investigation “to determine whether there is substance to these serious allegations of anti-competitive behaviour and collusion.”

“The Government should also provide a trusted and independent escalation route to enable SMEs confidentially to raise allegations of malpractice,” the report read.

Detailing the ways SMEs were being blocked, PASC claimed lengthy, complex procurement processes favoured bigger companies.

"Procurements that go through the most rigorous process take an average of 77 weeks to complete in the UK. This length means that many small businesses cannot commit staff to work on a bid for the duration of the procurement process," the report read.

Andrew Corbett, director of the UK IT Association (UKITA), said there was a “cartel” of the 'Big 19' top outsourcing IT companies.

“They are huge and highly capable which is why they get to be awarded the contracts. The projects always over-run hugely and nobody seems to be responsible for it,” Corbett told IT Pro.

Earlier this year, HP managing director Nick Wilson said it was hugely unlikely the Government would be able to stick to its £100 million recommended limit on IT projects. The Coalition would need to invest in big initiatives with major companies if it was to make significant savings, Wilson said.

“If you want big savings… if you want to get into the billions, you have to go to the big companies with big balance sheets and big ideas,” he added.

Mistreatment of SMEs?

PACS said it had received numerous reports from SMEs about poor treatment by both Government departments and large vendors who sub-contracted work to them.

“The other thing the 'big boys' routinely do is to not pay the invoices smaller companies that work for them on time,” said Corbett.

“The smaller company has done the work, they have agreed to pay on 60 days but when the smaller company chases after 90 days they are effectively told ‘we will pay you when we want - and if you take any action against us, you will never get another piece of work from us again.’

“Often they are actually waiting to see if the smaller company goes bust and so they can avoid paying altogether.”

Email to a friend

Print this page

< Previous   Public Sector : News Next >

5 comments

You need to Login or Register to comment.

Madness

The comment

“They are huge and highly capable which is why they get to be awarded the contracts. The projects always over-run hugely and nobody seems to be responsible for it,” Corbett told IT Pro.

...

“If you want big savings… if you want to get into the billions, you have to go to the big companies with big balance sheets and big ideas,” he added.


About the only truth here is that they are huge.

If the projects always overrun and nobody seems to be responsible, then clearly they are not highly capable. In reality many of the projects are never fit for purpose and are shelved. These organisations and the procurement process are totally dysfunctional.

The only way big companies with big balance sheets save you money, is to charge you 4 billion, and then discount to 3 billion, for a solution to a problem that could be solved to 100 million, more quickly and more reliably.

UK government IT spending is obscene.

By Henry_3_Dogg on Friday Jul 29

7 people out of 7 found this comment useful.

Did you find it useful?

Not the whole story

As always, this story fails to highlight the following:

The cost per PC will usually include the backend infrastructure, networking and support services needed to run them

2. Government departments deal with sensitive data which commercial products are not able to protect sufficiently.

Therefore additional work has to be undertaken to ensure that data is protected appropriately - this all costs money.

By GadgetRob on Friday Jul 29

1 people out of 3 found this comment useful.

Did you find it useful?

come on gadget Ron!!

You are to some extent talking cods-wallop even with all the support added in it is never going to get anywhere remotely near 5% of the initial mark up usually circa 600% of srpi after purchasing equipment at lowest base rates. You all have to get in the real world with the pricing of your contracts far far too many bullsh** guesstimates are being accepted by naive government officers who think they are in the know unfortunately. Very poor show really by the big boys.

By Richard_Turpin on Friday Jul 29

2 people out of 2 found this comment useful.

Did you find it useful?

The Big 19?

This is a really contentious area it seems. People I've spoken too in the SME space are pretty angry with the Government about being blocked out. Yet does Wilson have a point about big savings needing big projects? Why can't SMEs provide those services? It seems nonsensical that they wouldn't be able to, in my view at least. I've also heard complaints about the big boys failing to pay smaller contracted firms on time, although don't have any cases to hand. Is this something you guys have heard? Tom Brewster - Senior Staff Writer.

By TomSBrewster on Friday Jul 29

0 people out of 0 found this comment useful.

Did you find it useful?

Public Sector

The public administration committee’s recommendation that departments across Whitehall use more small and medium-sized IT suppliers is not new but is one that appears to be taking time for the government to implement (and subsequently reap the rewards from). This would clearly provide increased competition, bring down prices and provide greater flexibility for government departments based upon a customer intimacy approach taken by smaller IT suppliers.

It is clearly disgraceful that some government departments were paying as much as “10 times the commercial rate for equipment and up to £3,500 for a single desktop PC.” However, in our experience at Bull, the issue with large IT suppliers selling into the public sector is as much about inflexible delivery models as it is about inflated prices. A large tier 1 player will generally sell on the basis of operational efficiency.

This works from the provider’s point-of-view. Customers, however, typically get ‘put into a box’ and have to follow the process through step by step with limited flexibility to adapt or change. If changes are required, they will either be seen as ‘out of scope’ and therefore passed over, or a change control cost will be incurred for modifications.

There is an alternative approach available which has the potential to deliver greater value to the end customer. This approach is focused on customer intimacy and gives the customer a much more strategic relationship with the provider - to enable more flexibility and ensure that the outcomes defined at the beginning of the project are delivered through to the end of the contract.

The best way to deliver such a model will typically be through a consortium of smaller players, which gives the prime contractor a trusted network of partners and allows the consortium to use partners with particular skill sets to meet specific customer requirements. This multi-sourcing approach would deliver best of breed benefits, enhanced flexibility and is surely ‘tailor made’ to meet the current challenges faced by Government.

This approach also fits well with the Government’s current focus on encouraging engagement with smaller businesses that often have more agile offerings and are more flexible in relationship management.

Andrew Carr, sales and marketing director, Bull UK and Ireland

By Andrew_Carr on Monday Aug 1

0 people out of 0 found this comment useful.

Did you find it useful?

    You may also like...

 Sponsored Links

advertisement

    You may also like...

advertisement

    Register for IT PRO

You'll get exclusive member benefits including free whitepapers, downloads, Webinars and weekly newsletters full of the latest IT PRO news, reviews, insight and expertise.

Sponsored Links
Advertisement