You will recall the £160m of unusable Ayanda facemasks ( https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1291244082145177600).

There are also huge questions about the £32m contract for isolation suits – also known as “coveralls” – the Government entered into with Crisp Websites Limited trading as Pestfix. THREAD

(Rather like Pestfix) I am not a specialist in PPE procurement. What follows – where it addresses matters that require specialised knowledge of PPE – is the result of conversations with those I understand to be genuine experts. /1

First a little background.

Originally Government said it had entered into a contract for £108m with Pestfix for gloves, masks and coveralls/isolation suits – but on 17 June admitted that had been a mistake and that it had entered into a £32m contract just for suits. /2

It also told us that a number of further contracts had been entered into with Pestfix and “full details… will be published in the coming weeks, in keeping with our client’s duties of transparency.” /3

That was more than ten weeks ago – and the law gives them a maximum of 30 days to publish those contracts (see below).

So why the extraordinary delay? /4

That question is brought into still sharper focus by two facts.

The first is that we now know that Government entered into ELEVEN PPE contracts with pest control specialist, Pestfix. /5

The second is that we know that Pestfix has missold as suitable for higher risk uses (FFP3) masks in fact only suitable for lower risk uses (FFP1).

Pestfix told the BBC that it sold those masks only to “commercial and private clients.” /6

However, we have evidence that Pestfix sold masks – we know not what kind – to the NHS and to care homes. Did they sell faulty masks to care homes? Did Government buy faulty masks?

Might this explain why Government is unlawfully refusing to publish the other contracts? /7

What about the isolation suits?

We have published the bundle with the Pestfix contract https://goodlawproject.org/news/the-ppe-fiasco/. It gives this “specification” for the isolation suits - which links to this document: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ymuj1mk06p142tq/Pestfix%20Specification.PDF?dl=0 /8

Does that specification give cause for concern about what Government spent £32m on?

We believe so, for three reasons. /9

First, before PPE can be used it must be certified by a “notified body”. The pandemic led to a relaxation of that rule for certification - but the PPE still needed to be demonstrated to be compliant (see eg https://www.hsmsearch.com/BSIF-COVID-19-product-conformance). /10

What the Government specified Pestfix supply for £32m required no certification at all (the screenshot is from the specification document). It’s not much of an exaggeration to say DHSC did not really know what it was getting for its £32m spent with an £18,000 company. /11

Second, the test reports which Government specified before spending £32m with an £18,000 company were from a lab called Shanghai Ximo Testing. Here’s what the British Safety Industry Federation say about that lab. /12

Third, what appears to have been tested was one isolation suit – model L160: not much if you are buying £32m worth.

And it appears only to have been tested to standard EN14126/2003. Here’s what the British Safety Industry Federation say about testing to that standard. /13

(The BSIF reference to medical devices seems to be a red-herring – see page 2 of https://www.bsigroup.com/LocalFiles/en-GB/Blogs/BSI-technical-guide-medical-protective-clothing-en-uk.pdf and the specification reference to EN14126/2003 which shows the coveralls were plainly intended to be PPE.) /14

What has Government told the court about the present status of the isolation suits?

Well, as of 29 July 2020 Government said they were in storage, and had not yet been tested. /15

But a fortnight later, on 12 August, a response to a FOI request said that “tests are being undertaken on the isolation suits” but that to release the results of quality checks of Pestfix products “would prejudice future commercial relations with suppliers.”

Hmmm. /16

Final point, Govt publishes what it calls experimental data on PPE distributed for use in England ( https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ppe-deliveries-england-10-august-to-16-august-2020/experimental-statistics-personal-protective-equipment-distributed-for-use-by-health-and-social-care-services-in-england-10-august-to-16-august-2020) which shows we have so far used 417,000 coveralls.

You may wonder why we bought 2 million from Pestfix to “fulfil a particular critical demand.” /17

You might also wonder why Govt spent a further £239.6m buying (assuming they paid the same price as they paid Pestfix) about 15m more coveralls from “Unispace Global Health” (a legal entity we cannot identify https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/92a59e2d-aefc-4df6-b1a5-c15fb7f2b051?origin=SearchResults&p=1 which has received other huge contracts). /18

Indeed, data analysis carried out for us by Tussell, a data provider on government contracts and spend, suggests we have spent more than £426m buying (at £16 per suit) almost 27m coveralls - all whilst bypassing the normal tendering rules. /19

Standing back: an unlawful failure by Govt to publish details of contracts with a supplier who admits to supplying duff masks. A hard to understand decision to spend almost half a billion on a massive oversupply of isolation suits many to an apparently bizarrely low standard. /20

Perhaps there are good explanations for these questions. But we can't work them out.

If you would like to support the litigation we are bringing alongside @Debbie_abrahams, @CarolineLucas and @LaylaMoran you can do so here. https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/fight-for-transparency/ /ENDS