Yet more revelations over Government spending on PPE & masks.

This bastard profligate government have been lining the pockets of their friends and cronies at 'our' expense !!!


Why was £108m of public money paid to Crisp Websites Limited?
by EveryDoctor and Good Law Project

Public services
Lawyers: Good Law Project
United Kingdom


EveryDoctor works for a future where every patient and every doctor is safe. Good Law Project is a not for profit that uses strategic litigation for a better world.
20
days to go
£416,245
pledged of £400,000 stretch target from 15,613 pledges
This case is raising funds for its stretch target. Your pledge will be collected within the next 24-48 hours (and it only takes two minutes to pledge!)



Latest: Feb. 23, 2021

We will keep fighting
We are pleased to be able to tell you that the Court has granted a cost-capping order in this judicial review.


After Government said it would cost an unbelievable £1million pounds to defen…

How on earth did a company - Crisp Websites Limited - with last reported net assets of £18,047 win a contract worth £108m - and why was there apparently no bidding process?

The bare facts are quite remarkable. Here is the filing history of Crisp Websites Limited showing at 30 November 2019 it had net assets of £18,047. Here is the Official Journal publication of the 12 month £108m contract it entered into with Matt Hancock's department. That publication states there was only one bidder for that contract.

From these bare facts, a quite remarkable series of questions arise.

1. Was this contract ever advertised? If so, where? No one we have spoken to is aware of any advertisement.

2. If it was not advertised, how was Crisp Websites Limited chosen? Who was the decision maker? How did the name of this tiny company come to be placed before the decision maker?

3. Why was Crisp Websites Limited chosen? You can only award a contract without advertising where “there is only one supplier … with capacity to complete on the scale required”. How could Government possibly think Crisp Websites Limited was that company?

4. Why did Government wait until April until to procure PPE? You can only award a contract without advertising where there is unforeseeable “extreme urgency”? How could the need for PPE have been unforeseeable in April when the EU knew that there was an urgent need for procurement in February?

5. Why has Government ignored its own guidance requiring publication of the contract within 20 days? It is now more than two months on and the contract has still not been published.

6. How was a company with net assets of £18,000 put in a position where it could cashflow a contract to purchase £108m of PPE?

7. Why did Government use the "extreme urgency" procedure to buy PPE for March 2021? The contract, entered into in April 2020, ran for 12 months.

Dominic Cummings has written - see to take one example this - of his dislike of EU procurement rules which guarantee transparency and see to ensure value for money.

But if this is his brave new world we're not sure we like it.

There are still reports of inadequate PPE - even before we contemplate the possibility of a subsequent wave or waves to the pandemic. Only with good procurement practice, can we safeguard the lives of the public and healthcare workers.