Department of Health (DoH) Correspondence

Ms Christine Connelly, Chief Information Officer for Health

The Department of Health, Head Office, Richmond House, 79 Whitehall, London SW1A 2NS

7 December 2009

Dear Ms Connelly

Ref: Shortlisting of Atos Origin for IT Services Contracts

I understand from media reports that you have shortlisted Atos Origin as a potential supplier for future projects in particular "...procurement of systems for the South.... The procurement will cover 29 acute trusts, 21 community trusts and two mental health trusts, which will be offered a limited choice using the Additional Supply Capability and Capacity (ASCC) framework catalogue...".

I would like to draw your attention to the oral and written evidence submitted to the recent Parliamentary Inquiry "Decision making and appeals in the benefits system" The House of Commons, Works and Pensions Committee. I submitted a memorandum to this Inquiry and have published my experience with links to the Parliament website on my website "http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html".

I believe my case alone provides strong evidence of poor management, poor quality and systematic failure. When my case is added to the evidence submitted by the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman, judges et al, I think, at the least, you should ask Atos Healthcare to justify their actions and explain what actions they have taken to ensure that future contracts are not so blighted by legal actions. I would like you to reconsider shortlisting Atos Origin for future work.

Previously, while working for a major energy utility company, I had senior involvement in outsourcing major IT contracts and monitoring performance and quality. I take this opportunity to make a few suggestions.

We defined a standard contract that all suppliers had to use. This was revised from time to time when particular legal issues arose. I recommend using the Contract between the DWP and Atos as the starting point, review it and improve it. Initially suppliers were not happy to use our contract but our business was so important they quickly agreed.

Award initial pilot work areas to the top two (or three). Award subsequent areas to the one with the best performance and quality. This continues until the roll-out is complete. If, after rollout, the performance of an area declines another supplier can take over. You have built in business continuity, continual improvements etc. There is a slight increase in initial setup costs but these are tiny compared to year on year savings. Atos UK profit margins on their DWP business suggest a sole supplier benefits the supplier not the customer.

You should ask Atos to comment on my particular case by 24 January 2010 which is six months after my medical examination. You could ask them why not once has the two day and twenty day targets been met. You could ask them why you should rely on their assurances for the new applications.

Finally I do believe in outsourcing if and only if the performance metrics and remedial actions have been fully defined before contracts are signed. Every sole supplier outsourced contract I have been involved in has been poor for the customer and great for the monopoly supplier. Awarding contracts to multiple suppliers results in a win-win for all parties.

I look forward to hearing from you and in particular confirmation that you have considered the matters I have raised here. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Office of Christine Connelly, Director General for Informatics and Chief

Information Officer for Health, Room 537, Richmond House, 79 Whitehall, London SW1A 2NS

Tel. O20 7210 5228

10 December 2009

Dear Mr B...

Thank you for your letter to Christine Connelly dated 7 December 2009.

A considered response is being prepared and we will reply to your letter in due course.

Kind regards

Martin Newkirk

martin.newkirk@dh.gsi.gov.uk

Office of Christine Connelly, Department of Health, Richmond House, 79 Whitehall

0207 210 5692

Office of Christine Connelly, Director General for Informatics and Chief

Information Officer for Health, Room 537, Richmond House, 79 Whitehall, London SW1A 2NS

Tel. O20 7210 5228

18 December 2009

Dear Mr B...

Re: Short listing of Atos Origin For IT Services Contracts

I am responding to your letter, of 7 December, concerning Atos Origin and our framework Agreement for Additional Supply Capability and Capacity (ASCC).

The ASCC framework was established in 2008, by NHS Connecting for Health, for use by a broad range of qualifying Public Sector bodies. The procurement competition for the ASCC framework was conducted in accordance with the Public Sector Procurement Directive 2004/18/EC and the UK Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (the Regulations). A total of 99 supplier organisations were appointed to the ASCC framework, of which ATOS Origin IT Services UK Limited , is just one such organisation.

Appointment to the ASCC framework was a result of each organisation demonstrating their capacity and capability to meet the requirements for participation. On appointment each organisation signed a standard, pre-agreed set of contract terms and conditions, based on UK Government "current best practice". However, appointment neither results in the award or guarantee of award of any business to any participating organisation.

Therefore, Atos Origin have not been awarded a specific contract for business as a result of the framework procurement. They have only been "shortlisted" in so far as they have been selected to compete for services in various categories of the framework. A further competition is required in all cases before an award of any business can be made, This competition shoutd take into account all relevant information in connection with the requirement issued and any award of business would be on the basis of the most economically advantageous tender received, taking into consideration the business, technical and service merits of each tender, as well as the charges for that service.

The ASCC framework provides any qualifying Public Sector body with a procurement route, which is additional to those which were previously available to them. It is, however, the responsibility of each Public Sector body to select the most appropriate procurement route for the services they require to procure. No Public Sector body is under any mandate to use the ASCC framework in preference to any other procurement route.

I have noted your comments about the practice of procurement, however, I cannot become involved in any questions or grievances that you may have with Atos Origin's handling of your particular case. If you are dissatisfied, you should contact the relevant government department and request information as to whom and how to escalate your questions.

I trust this letter has made clearer the basis of our ASCC framework.

Yours sincerely

Christine Connelly, Director General for Informatics

Ms Christine Connelly, Chief Information Officer for Health,

The Department of Health, Head Office, Richmond House, 79 Whitehall, London SW1A 2NS

22 January 2010

Dear Ms Connelly

Ref: Shortlisting of Atos Origin for IT Services Contracts

Thank you for your letter dated 18 December 2009 which followed your letter dated 10 December 2009 which followed my letter dated 7 December 2009.

I am familiar with the ASCC Framework. Thank you for comfirming that Atos Origin IT Services UK Limited is one of the 99 supplier organisations appointed to the ASCC Framework. I accept that inclusion on this list neither results in the award or guarantee of award of any business to any participating organisation.

Previously I mentioned that I have published my experience on my website "http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatos.html". A reasonable person, if they reviewed this information and in particular the admissions by Atos Healthcare, would conclude that Atos Origin should neither be shortlisted for any business nor be included in the ASCC Framework supplier list.

Please consider the advice in January 2010 of the Atos Healthcare Medical Manager Dr Bruecker; "that the pathology of your condition is not clear from the available evidence". Note how long it has taken to get to this point. It seems clear that Atos Healthcare have admitted using unqualified healthcare professionals and have admitted being in breach of the Contract between the DWP and Atos Healthcare. I believe the Minister has instructed a review be undertaken. I believe the consequences will be that Atos Healthcare will have to pay compensation, redo a large number of assessments, repay large amounts to the DWP and may have their accounts qualified.

Even if you feel that the evidence of my case and the actions of the Minister is insufficent, I would like you to consider the following:-

• The adverse impacts of the increased costs on the DWP. Review actual costs against the budget figures Atos Origin supplied when they were awarded the contract. What credence can you give to Atos Origin projected budgets and costs on your projects?

• The number of recent cases of injured service personnel being denied benefits though what may turn out to be illegal medical assessments carried out by unqualified healthcare professionals may build into a media storm bigger than the recent Ghurka campaign. Please refer to the Yorkshire Post lead story 20 January 20010. Do you really think a close association with Atos Healthcare will improve the standing of the Department of Health?

• http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1003/1003729_900_patients_to_be_recalled_for_scans.html

  Up to 900 people are to be recalled for medical scans after a series of blunders by a private company. NHS bosses last month suspended tests being carried out by Atos Origin at centres in Manchester, Salford, Bolton, Stockport, Oldham, Wigan and Liverpool, after discovering technical and administrative problems. Now regional health bosses are set to write to the 900 patients who had ultrasound tests to investigate conditions like kidney, prostate and abdominal problems at Atos centres to offer them the chance to be re-scanned at NHS hospitals or private companies. NHS North West managers have already recalled seven people after problems were identified with Atos' magnetic resonance or MR scans.

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/4995078.stm

  Almost 80,000 sick and disabled people a year are being wrongly denied benefits, according to a BBC investigation for Radio Five Live.

• and there are so many other examples.

I find it hard to believe that a company that is being investigated because it is believed to have acted illegally, is believed to be in breach of contract and whose accounts are likely to be qualified can still be included in the ASCC Framework supplier list. Please can you provide me with information on Who is able to remove Atos Origin from the ASCC Framework supplier list?

I would like to put on record I have no desire for you to be involved in the handling of my case by Atos Healthcare. As a professional IT Consultant who has handled multi-million procurements in the past and who knows the importance of reviewing actual performance against optimistic claims of suppliers and who is concerned that my 30 years of paying tax and NI are not wasted, I have previously suggested you ask Mark Bounds to explain his actions.

Finally I would like to confirm I am happy for my correspondence to be made freely available whether through a Freedom of Information Request or otherwise. In particular should this matter be subject to Judicial Review, my correspondence and your considerations in response will make clear that your decision has been made following due diligence.

I look forward to hearing from you that Atos Origin has been removed from the ASCC Framework supplier list. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Department of Health, Chief Information Officer for Health

Dear Chief Information Officer for Health

Ref: Removal of Atos Origin from shortlists for projects with Government funding.

I wrote to Ms Christine Connelly, the then Chief Information Officer, in a letter dated 7 December 2009 pointing out the many failures over the years of Atos Orgin and subsidaries, in particular Atos Healthcare, and requested that Atos Origin be removed from shortlists for projects with Government funding. In particular I was concerned at "...procurement of systems for the South...". I attach a copy of the letter.

I have published all correspondence on my website (see http://www.whywaitforever.com/dwpatoslettersgov.html#DOH)

I received a reply which confirmed that ATOS Origin IT Services UK Limited was appointed to the ASCC framework in 2008. I replied in a letter dated 22 January 2010. I attach a copy of this letter. The delay is due to an increase in the focal fits caused by my brain tumour, my condition deteriorated and though weak I am now better able to address outstanding matters.

You are aware that Atos Healthcare pulled out, after three years of a 10 year NHS contract to run a GP surgery in East London. This was reported in the Guardian on the 12 April 2011 (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/apr/12/nhs-privatisation-future-policy).

Judge for yourself how important have been the failures of Atos to the UK economy and society; Cancer patients threatened in December 2009, De Beers sues Atos for millions in April 2009, Loss of confidential data in November 2008, Patients recalled for scans in April 2007, Clinic faces second investigation in November 2006, Errors block benefits in May 2006 et al.

Given the above please can you confirm that Atos Origin has been removed from the ASCC frameworks and that you have advised the Government that Atos Origin should be removed from all projects which receive or are likely to receive some Government funding. I suggest this ban should last until the ten year contract was due to expire i.e. until 2016.

Finally I would like you to set up an Inquiry on the actions of Ms Christine Connelly and in particular, what seems now, as her partiality towards Atos Origin. I am interested in whether there is evidence of undue influence by Atos Origin or organisations such as the Commercial Occupational Health Providers Association Ltd (COHPA) which receive significant funds from Atos Origin. Did she attend for example the COHPA black tie events? Did she attend events outside the UK funded by Atos Origin? Were these declared and available for review by other suppliers competing for contracts?

I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

To:      ...
From:    DoNotReply@dh.gsi.gov.uk
Date:    14 September 2011 15:42

Subject: Response to your Query :
         - Ref:DE00000641479 
         - Removal of Atos Origin from shortlists for projects with Government funding.

Our ref: DE00000641479

Dear Mr B...,

Thank you for your correspondence of 1 September about Atos Healthcare. I have been asked to reply.

I regret this is not within the Department of Health’s remit. After considering your email, I would recommend that you forward your correspondence to colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions where staff would be better placed to answer your queries regarding Atos Healthcare. The contact details are:

 
Department for Work and Pensions
Caxton House
Tothill Street
London 
SW1H 9DA 
 
Website: www.dwp.gov.uk
Email: ministers@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
 
I am sorry I could not be of more assistance on this occasion.  

Yours sincerely, 
  
David Segar 
Customer Service Centre 
Department of Health 
    

Date:    16 September 2011 10:17

Subject: Re: Response to your Query :
  - Ref:DE00000641479 
  - Removal of Atos Origin from shortlists for projects with Government funding.
  
Dear Mr Sager,

I would like to reword my request to matters that I believe are solely within the remit of the Department of Health.

The Department of Health must be aware that Atos Origin IT Services Ltd pulled out, after three years of a 10 year NHS contract to run a GP surgery in East London. This was reported in the Guardian on the 12 April 2011 ( see http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/apr/12/nhs-privatisation-future-policy).

Please can you confirm that the Department of Health is the Government department charged with overall responsibility for overseeing the activities of the NHS and thus oversight for this contract for running a GP surgery. If this is not the case, please inform me of the Government Department responsible for the NHS. If this is the case, as I believe it is, please inform me what actions the Department of Health are considering to take or have taken against this unreliable contractor. Please can you confirm the additional costs to the Department of Health, due to the failure of Atos Origin IT Services Ltd, have been recovered in full with interest.

Finally under the Freedom of Information Act please can you supply me the information requested above and in addition the minutes of the discussions that have taken place by the Department of Health and other bodies regarding this failure by Atos Origin IT Services Ltd (who also trade as Atos Healthcare). Please can you supply me the value of the contract, as described above, and the amounts recovered. I would prefer web addresses to the relevent documents but I am happy to receive printed copies.

My concern is that the repeated failures by Atos Origin IT Services Ltd over the years, some of which I listed in my previous emails will taint the excellent reputation of the Department of Health and in particular the NHS if future contracts are awarded to this unreliable company.

I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.

From:    DoNotReply@dh.gsi.gov.uk
Date:    30 September 2011 16:08   
Subject: Response to your Query : - Ref:DE00000645091 - FOI Foll/up 641479 
         - Removal of Atos Origin from Govt. project shortlists

Our ref: DE00000645091

Dear Mr B...,

Thank you for your FOI email of 16 September to the Department of Health. Your email has been passed to me for reply.

In particular, you submitted the following request:

The Department of Health must be aware that Atos Origin IT Services Ltd pulled out, after three years of a 10 year NHS contract to run a GP surgery in East London. This was reported in the Guardian on the 12 April 2011 (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/apr/12/nhs-privatisation-future-policy).

Please can you confirm that the Department of Health is the Government department charged with overall responsibility for overseeing the activities of the NHS and thus oversight for this contract for running a GP surgery. If this is not the case, please inform me of the Government Department responsible for the NHS. If this is the case, as I believe it is, please inform me what actions the Department of Health are considering to take or have taken against this unreliable contractor. Please can you confirm the additional costs to the Department of Health, due to the failure of Atos Origin IT Services Ltd, have been recovered in full with interest.

Finally under the Freedom of Information Act please can you supply me the information requested above and in addition the minutes of the discussions that have taken place by the Department of Health and other bodies regarding this failure by Atos Origin IT Services Ltd (who also trade as Atos Healthcare). Please can you supply me the value of the contract, as described above, and the amounts recovered. I would prefer web addresses to the relevant documents but I am happy to receive printed copies.

My concern is that the repeated failures by Atos Origin IT Services Ltd over the years, some of which I listed in my previous emails will taint the excellent reputation of the Department of Health and in particular the NHS if future contracts are awarded to this unreliable company.

Firstly, I apologise for the Department's response to your original email (ref: DE00000641479) which incorrectly referred you to the Department for Work and Pensions.

It may help to explain that the role of the Department of Health is to provide strategic leadership for public health, the NHS and social care in England.

However, the NHS is managed at a local level by local NHS bodies such as primary care trusts (PCTs), NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts. These bodies have responsibility for running local NHS services on a day-to day basis and for managing local NHS budgets. They have responsibility for local procurement, recruitment of staff and the structure of local health services. More information on the role of the Department of Health and the structure of the NHS can be found on the weblinks below:

www.dh.gov.uk/health/about-us.  
www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/nhsstructure.aspx. 

With regard to your specific requests under the FOI Act regarding Atos Healthcare, the Department does not hold this information. As explained above, the Department sets policy direction, however it does not oversee or performance manage the local NHS.

You may therefore wish to contact Tower Hamlets PCT. As public body in their own right they can be sent FOI requests directly. The relevant webpage can be found at: www.towerhamlets.nhs.uk/about-us/freedom-of-information.

I am sorry I cannot be of more assistance.

If you have any queries about this email, please contact me. Please remember to quote the reference number above, in any future communications.

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date of receipt of the response to your original letter and should be addressed to:

Head of the Freedom of Information Team 
Department of Health 
Room 317, Richmond House, 79 Whitehall, London SW1A 2NS 
   
Email: freedomofinformation@dh.gsi.gov.uk 

If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the Department. The ICO can be contacted at:

   
The Information Commissioner's Office 
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF 
  
Yours sincerely, 
  
..., Freedom of Information Team, Department of Health 
    

Date:    16 October 2011 15:00
Subject: For the attention of the Complaints Manager

Please can you forward to Mr Sager.

Ref: DE00000641479 - Removal of Atos Origin from shortlists for 
                     projects with Government funding.
  
Dear Mr Sager,

I have received a reply on 30 September 2011 which addressed the FOI aspects of my request. Unfortunately this did not deal with the substantive matter i.e. that of removal of Atos Origin from eligibility to be selected for projects with Government funding.

You may recall the letter dated 18 December 2009 from Ms Christine Connelly, Director General for Informatics in which she stated "The ASCC framework was established in 2008, by NHS Connecting for Health, for use by a broad range of qualifying Public Sector bodies.... A total of 99 supplier organisations were appointed to the ASCC framework, of which ATOS Origin IT Services UK Limited, is just one such organisation."

I believe, as the DoH appointed Atos to the ASCC framework, it is within the remit of the DoH to remove Atos from the ASCC framework. Atos are an unreliable company. Atos failed the NHS in Tower Hamlets. Atos have a history of failure in technology and in healthcare. Atos pulled out of the NHS ten year contract (awarded in 2007) in Tower Hamlet after three years. It seems reasonable that Atos are excluded from all projects which receive Government funding until at least 2017.

Please can you confirm that Atos are excluded or if not explain why the Doh continues to place trust and waste money with such an unreliable company as Atos.

From:    DoNotReply@dh.gsi.gov.uk
Date:    27 October 2011 10:16
Subject: Response to your Query: Ref:DE00000651869
         - For the attention of the Complaints Manager

Our ref: DE00000645091

Dear Mr B...,

Thank you for your further correspondence of 17 October about the removal of Atos Origin from shortlists for projects with Government funding. I have been asked to reply.

I have discussed this with Departmental officials, who have stated that the matters described in your email do not give the Department of Health the right to terminate the ASCC Framework Agreement in accordance with the terms of the same.

Yours sincerely,

David Segar, Customer Service Centre, Department of Health

Date:    28 October 2011 17:30
Subject: For the attention of the Complaints Manager

Please can you forward to Mr Sager.

Ref: DE00000641479 - Removal of Atos Origin from shortlists for 
                     projects with Government funding.
  
Dear Mr Sager,

Thank you for your email dated 27 October 2011 responding to my request that the DoH should remove Atos Origin from shortlists of projects that receive Government funding.

I apologise if I implied that existing contracts should be terminated. For existing active contracts I do suggest that those contracted to Atos should be subject to rigourous oversight and audit. These should be allowed to end as defined in each contract.

My concern is for new contracts and the renewal of existing contracts. Due diligence suggests that these should not be awarded to Atos for the reasons and for the period I have suggested in previous correspondence.

I am pleased to note that Atos failed to be asked to submit detailed proposals in the recent "GP Commissioning - the GP Payments Calculation Service (GPPCS)" project.

I believe Atos was appointed to the ASCC Framework Agreement in 2008. I believe this ends in 2012. This is the time (November 2011) for the DoH to formally write to Atos that their appointment to the ASCC Framework Agreement will not be renewed in 2012 for reasons that Atos have proved unreliable as a company.

My understanding is from the following press release from ... and others:

... announced that it is delighted to have been appointed to the Additional Supply Capability and Capacity (ASCC) Framework agreement to provide a wide range of Information products and services to the NHS.

The new ASCC framework contracts are for a four year duration. This will allow NHS organisations and other NHS funded establishments a faster and easier route to procure IT systems and services from suppliers who have demonstrated experience in the health sector. ASCC can be used to support both the National Programme for IT (NPfIT) related work and wider IT related projects.

...

I hope this has helped to clarify matters. Nobody can be in favour of signing additional contracts with such an unreliable supplier as Atos.

I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you.

Yours sincerely

From:    DoNotReply@dh.gsi.gov.uk
Date:    8 November 2011 12:53
Subject: Response to your Query: Ref:DE00000655128
         - For the attention of the Complaints Manager

Our ref: DE00000655128

Dear Mr B...,

Thank you for your further correspondence of 31 October about the removal of Atos Origin from shortlists for projects with Government funding. I have been asked to reply.

The Department can confirm that the performance of all of its contracts are monitored and managed and that the services performed under each contract conclude in accordance with the terms of the contract. All economic operators are treated equally and new contracts are, in all cases, awarded in accordance with the Public Contracts Regulations and, due to the scope of the business awarded under the contracts, are awarded to 'the most economically advantageous tender.'

The procurement for the GP Payments Calculation Service project has not yet concluded and it is not Departmental policy to comment on procurements during their conduct, or on the performance of individual tenders.

Please note that the ASCC framework was let in 2008 for a period of four years, the maximum allowable duration, and so it is due to expire in 2012. As a result, the framework will not be extended.

I hope this reply is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

David Segar, Customer Service Centre, Department of Health