UPDATED Wandsworth’s IT manager is pushing through a £3.66 million computer deal using a national process he helps oversee, while blocking the council from considering alternatives.
The contract covers more than 4,000 laptops along with desktops and monitors for Wandsworth and Richmond Councils and is due to be awarded later this year. Under the councils’ shared staffing arrangement, Wandsworth would shoulder £2.27m of the cost, buying about 2,632 laptops, 81 desktops and 558 monitors for its staff.
The recommendation to use an auction run through the Crown Commercial Service (CCS) to buy the equipment is in a Procurement Board paper co-authored by Mark Chambers, Corporate IT Support Manager.
That paper, uncovered by Putney.news, briefly notes that Chambers also sits on the national “e-auction board” which happens to decide the CCS auction’s structure and requirements. That detail was however redacted in the copy sent to us.
There is a clear conflict of interest here and the council should have tasked a different officer with writing the procurement paper. Wandsworth Council disputes that, arguing that Chambers filled in a Declaration of Interest form and “no conflicts were identified”.
But that’s not the only concern: in the report, Chambers and his co-author went further than simply recommending the EA25 process. They advised that no other procurement options should be considered, dismissing a re-tender as “unnecessary consuming in both time and resources” and “unlikely to improve on the price.”
That advice effectively placed a thumb on the scales, steering Wandsworth into the very auction that its recommender was already helping to run.
This conflicted approach has already backfired: the paper was sent for a decision back in April but has now been pushed back seven times, appearing in every Forward Plan for the past four months. When we asked why, the council informed us that “the Crown Commercial Service are responsible for the timetable and the delayed start to this new Framework.”
In other words, the decision to buy the council’s IT equipment for the next five years has been delayed until the process recommended by its IT manager, that he also helps oversee, is finalised.
Exact behaviour watchdogs warn against
While there is no suggestion of wrongdoing, this is exactly the kind of lock-in and behaviour that independent watchdogs, including the National Audit Office [pdf] and the Cabinet Office’s Sourcing Playbook, have repeatedly warned against.
Both stress that councils should regularly re-tender large contracts to test the market, encourage competition and protect taxpayers. In this case, Wandsworth Council has used the same supplier and the same process twice before, stretching back to 2016.
By ruling out alternatives and even echoing CCS’s own claims about 40% price savings as a reason to go with this process – claims that have themselves been questioned [pdf] by the NAO – Wandsworth has locked itself into a single path and so failed to even consider whether this is the best deal for millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.
Wandsworth has now been left waiting more than four months for CCS to catch up. The question is whether the council would have waited this long for any other supplier, or whether the lack of alternatives is because the officer who co-authored the paper also sits on the CCS auction board, and argued no other routes should be considered.
There are alternatives to CCS that are well-established, including KCS Procurement Services, YPO, ESPO and NHS SBS.
Why best practice says re-compete
Government watchdogs have repeatedly warned councils not to fall into this trap:
- Cabinet Office Sourcing Playbook (2023): warns of incumbency advantages and says public bodies should adopt models that promote competition over time, so suppliers know they must keep earning the business.
- NAO “Competition in public procurement” (2023): stresses the need for real choice, flexibility and market knowledge to secure value — and warns of “drift away from open competition.”
- Public Accounts Committee (Dec 2023): recommended stronger guidance on when to use frameworks, and how to ensure they don’t dampen competition — i.e. don’t default without appraisal.
Yet Wandsworth has done exactly that: ruling out a retender, waiting on CCS for months, and relying on the marketing lines of the very framework its IT chief helps to run.
How CCS eAuctions work
Crown Commercial Service (CCS) is a government agency that runs national procurement frameworks for common goods like IT.
For big buys, CCS organises an “eAuction” where suppliers compete in a live reverse auction to push prices down.
Each auction is shaped by an “auction board” made up of officials from councils and other public bodies who set the requirements and decide what lots (laptops, monitors, etc) go in.
CCS then runs the auction and announces the winners. Councils are expected to adopt the results.
The NAO has warned that CCS’s dual role — both policy-setter and framework manager — blurs accountability. With Chambers also sitting on the auction board while recommending Wandsworth’s participation, that dual role is now duplicated at local level.
Same suppliers, business as usual
Wandsworth has already been through two previous CCS rounds — EA16 and EA21 — which awarded contracts to the same firms: XMA (laptops and peripherals) and SCC (monitors).
If EA25 repeats that pattern, it will mean almost 15 years of continuous reliance on the same suppliers. The fallback plan in Wandsworth’s own risk register states that if EA25 fails, the council would simply revert to the existing providers.
Meanwhile, the paper makes only a token reference to social value – possible donations of kit or staff volunteering hours – and ignores the greener option of buying refurbished devices under Lot 7 of the same CCS framework.
No consideration of this cheaper and greener option is provided in the procurement paper.
NAO warnings on CCS
Governance: NAO cautioned that CCS’s dual role as framework manager and policy-setter blurred accountability. Wandsworth’s IT boss now mirrors that dual role — helping run the EA25 auction while writing the paper recommending his council join it.
2017 Report [pdf]: CCS “was rushed into existence without a clear plan” and often extended frameworks after expiry, creating a risk of lock-in and poor value.
2024 Report [pdf]: While CCS had improved, “framework quality still varies and transparency remains limited.”
Other frameworks Wandsworth could use
- KCS Procurement Services (Kent County Council) Long-established national framework provider, widely used by councils and schools for IT hardware and peripherals.
- YPO (Yorkshire Purchasing Organisation) Publicly owned consortium offering national deals on IT equipment, often focused on education and local government.
- ESPO (Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation) Leicestershire-based buying group with frameworks for laptops, desktops and sustainable IT supplies.
- NHS SBS (Shared Business Services) Runs technology frameworks that councils can sometimes access, with strong emphasis on compliance and service support.
These alternatives can offer competitive pricing, greener or refurbished options, and more flexibility than the CCS “one-size-fits-all” approach.
Wider context
The EA25 auction is due to conclude in October with awards in November, alongside other London boroughs including Camden, Lambeth, Haringey and Islington.
It comes as Wandsworth faces mounting financial pressure. In July, Putney.news revealed a £40 million overspend in 2024–25, much of it on external staff and off-framework contracts.
And in June, the council was criticised for spending £50,000 on iPads and software to photograph mould in housing inspections – raising questions over why millions are being found for new tech while tenants still battle sewage leaks, damp and unsafe electrics in their homes.
For critics, the looming laptop deal is another example of a council treating procurement as business-as-usual even when the official responsible is also inside the room running the very process.
UPDATE (28 August): Wandsworth Council, in response to this article, said it does not accept there is a conflict of interest. A spokesperson stressed that Mark Chambers is the council’s Corporate IT Support Manager, not the head of IT, and that the procurement report was co-authored with the IT Contracts Manager. They said a Declaration of Interest was completed and no conflicts identified, and added that contingencies are in place during the CCS delay. The council maintains that using the CCS eAuction process represents best value for money and is consistent with national guidance. We have updated the article in response.
1 comment