Laptop refresh against a fixed deadline
A UK further-education college must replace 600 staff laptops before 31 March, when its device warranty and software-compliance programme expires. The budget is £420,000 excluding VAT. Today is 6 February. The incumbent supplier's framework lot expired on 31 January and the replacement framework is not due until June. The IT director asks procurement to direct-award to the incumbent at £690 per unit because 'they already hold our build images and we are out of time'. The incumbent has 150 units in stock and quotes eight weeks for the balance. A second reseller can supply 450 units by mid-March at £665, but the college would need to apply its imaging. Finance standing orders require competitive quotes above £50,000 and permit single-source only for demonstrable urgency not caused by poor planning. The college has no contingency devices, and the IT director says any delay will halt online exams.
1. Assess whether a single-source award to the incumbent is defensible, and set out what procurement should do next.
Read the worked answer
Assessment. Single-source is hard to defend. The 'urgency' is largely foreseeable: the framework expiry date was known, and the 31 March deadline has not changed. Under the standing orders, single-source needs urgency not caused by poor planning; a 6 February decision with an eight-week lead time also cannot deliver 600 units by 31 March, so the claimed urgency does not actually solve the problem. That weakens both the compliance case and the value-for-money case.
Next steps. Procurement should not simply refuse; it should escalate with options and a written record. Confirm the real deadline with the exams team; calculate the maximum number of devices that can be delivered and imaged by 31 March; ask the incumbent for a firm split delivery schedule and stock evidence; test the alternative reseller's 450-unit offer and imaging requirement; obtain at least two written quotations using a short, proportionate RFQ. If a single-source is still used for a small emergency batch, the justification should be time-limited, approved by finance and recorded, with a transparency note. The £15,000 price difference (600 × £25) is a useful benchmark but not the only issue; warranty, build quality and support matter.
2. Recommend a compliant route to market that meets as much of the 31 March deadline as possible, and identify the main risks.
Read the worked answer
Recommended route. Split the requirement. Direct-award or rapidly RFQ the incumbent's 150 stock units for the highest-priority users, provided the value and approval route are documented; run a five-working-day RFQ with the incumbent, the alternative reseller and one or two further resellers for the remaining 450, evaluated on delivery date, unit price, imaging capability and warranty. Award on most economically advantageous tender, not price alone. If the alternative can genuinely deliver 450 by mid-March, the college could meet 600 by late March only if imaging is completed quickly; otherwise phase rollout and use loan devices.
Risks and mitigations. Risks: paying a premium for speed; supplier failure or partial delivery; imaging delays and software non-compliance; challenge from unsuccessful bidders if single-source lacks records; budget pressure if prices rise. Mitigations: firm delivery schedules with service credits, staged acceptance testing, parallel imaging, weekly contract management, and a contingency list of loan devices. Record the derogation and publish a contract award notice where required. Review the framework expiry planning failure so it does not recur.