From a highly respected clinical procurement lead in two large acute trusts - on the masks the Government bought from Ayanda. https://twitter.com/ClareNash20/status/1293266721625825283

Loathsome though Andrew Mills' / Tim Horlick's conduct may be, it is quite clear to me that Government is at fault for this vast waste of public funds, however you cut it...

Either (1) Government did specify inadequate ear-loop masks which it now says it can’t use – in which case the waste of public funds is clearly on it...

Or (2) Government in fact specified (adequate) head-loop masks, Ayanda delivered (inadequate) ear-loop masks which the NHS can't use but, for yet to be identified reasons, Government has not rejected them.

In which case the Government is clearly at fault.

For what it's worth, I did some analysis of the Ayanda contract and it seems to me that @ClareNash20 is right not merely as a matter of procurement practice but also as a matter of contract law.

The Ayanda Contract is dated 29 April 2020 and here is what it specifies.

And here's what the Contract says about the quality of the masks.

You can't just download BS EN 149:2001+A1:2009. It costs £214, which we paid. Here's what the relevant paragraph says.

And (of course) ear loops are not adjustable or self-adjusting. And are not a head harness. So you'd think it fails, right?

What does Government itself say about that standard? Here is V3 of the Government’s specification – effective 5 May 2020 (after the contract was entered into) (and which can be found on this page https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/technical-specifications-for-personal-protective-equipment-ppe).

And it says only that masks “should have” 2 elastic straps that go around the head and neck.

But if you look on the wayback machine for the same page on 17 April (so in force when the contract came into being) https://web.archive.org/web/20200417115231/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/technical-specifications-for-personal-protective-equipment-ppe. You get a different spec.

And ear looped masks clearly don’t comply because of the “must” word.

And if we look at Ayanda’s letter…

... amidst all the verbiage – much of which I can’t check – you can see that they focus on the standard at the time of *delivery* rather than the standard at the time the contract was entered into.

So, what does all this mean, standing back? I think...

1. Ayanda has delivered non-compliant masks

2. Which Government (there is no suggestion to the contrary) has nevertheless paid around £160m for

3. And which Government shows no signs of having rejected.

The real question is, why has Government not rejected them and recovered that huge sum of public money? Why is it leaving that £160m to be shared between the tax haven owned Ayanda Capital, the politically connected Andrew Mills' Prospermill Limited - and perhaps a third party.

That's a question that, having regard to new information, I express a view on in @billykenber's Times story tomorrow morning.

And, there is more to come even after tomorrow.