The United Kingdom Government’s creation of a ‘VIP lane’ for contacts to deal with the COVID-19 crisis left Public Servants “drowning” in bids that failed to meet due diligence standards, a court has been told.
Evidence disclosed as a result of a legal action brought against the Government by the Good Law Project suggests the controversial scheme resulted in a deluge of non-credible offers to supply personal protective equipment (PPE), some of them recommended by Members of Parliament and Ministers.
The Government has repeatedly refused to reveal which companies were awarded public money after having their bids assessed through the VIP lane, citing “commercial confidentiality”.
It denies that Ministers had any role in dictating which companies received contracts, or that the scheme was used to direct public money to applicants favoured by the Government.
The Good Law Project case, however, illustrates how, in at least two instances, the political connections of companies appear to have factored into their bids for Government COVID-19 contracts being referred into the VIP lane.
One company, PestFix, was referred into the VIP lane after its chairman contacted the Department of Health saying he had recently attended the 80th birthday party of its Procurement Director’s father-in-law.
In a second instance a Public Servant commented that “the bar seemed to be lowered for this one” after attending a meeting to discuss a bid to supply PPE by Ayanda Capital, which had been promoted by an adviser to Minister for Trade, Liz Truss.
The Government has maintained that the purpose of the VIP lane was to enable Public Servants to more effectively triage a large number of unsolicited offers to supply PPE, enabling them to identify credible offers from genuine companies.
However, one email dated 14 April 2020, shown to the court as part of the Good Law Project’s legal action, suggests the VIP lane had the opposite effect.
“We are currently drowning in VIP requests and ‘high priority’ contracts that, despite all of our work and best efforts, do not either hold the correct certification or do not pass due diligence,” an unnamed Public Servant complained in the email.
London, 24 April 2021
