The Crown Commercial Service (CCS) is facing criticism for its handling of non-UK-based cloud service providers interested in participating in the UK government’s G-Cloud procurement framework.
The deadline for supplier applications for the 14th iteration of the cloud purchasing agreement passed on May 7, 2024, and CCS planned for the framework to start in the autumn of that year. However, some overseas tech suppliers encountered difficulties when preparing their applications for G-Cloud 14, despite CCS stating in its own guidance that suppliers did not need to be UK-based to participate in the framework.
In the lead-up to the application deadline, CCS invited potential suppliers to use its Clarification Questions portal to raise any concerns about the application process. Computer Weekly obtained a copy of the questions raised by several non-UK-based suppliers, who expressed frustration over not having a non-UK VAT number, which was a mandatory field in the application form.
CCS responded to these concerns, confirming that a UK-based VAT number was not required and non-UK suppliers could use their own non-UK VAT number instead. However, after the application deadline passed, it appears that some overseas applicants were contacted by CCS and informed that they would not be able to participate in the framework unless they had a UK VAT number. This change was subsequently confirmed in a mailout sent by CCS to prospective suppliers.
Nicky Stewart, former ICT chief at the UK government’s Cabinet Office, expressed confusion over this change in policy, noting that some overseas applicants may not expect to supply goods or services to the UK before the G-Cloud framework becomes live in October. She questioned the implications of this change for these suppliers.
This is just one of several issues that have plagued the procurement process for G-Cloud 14, leading to criticism of CCS. The government procurement arm was previously accused of making it difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises to participate in the framework by raising the required insurance amount, although this requirement was subsequently revised. Complaints were also lodged about poorly worded and confusing data protection documents related to the purchasing agreement, but CCS pledged to address these concerns by publishing a revised version shortly before the application window closed.