Are you responsible for procuring items at the University? Find out what can go wrong and why following the procurement process is important.

In the last year there have been a few instances of people not following the correct procurement processes when purchasing chemicals and equipment.  

The procurement system that we use prompts the user to declare whether the item will require special considerations. For example, controlled drugs or chemical weapons precursors. Whilst there are many legitimate research uses for such regulated items, there is a legal requirement for the purchases to be recorded and potentially annual declarations made to the relevant licencing authority.

Two examples of issues in the previous year:

Incorrect purchasing of a laser

Any equipment that contains a laser must be registered by the University Laser Protection office (LPO) who then works with the end users to ensure adequate controls are in place and that relevant documentation is prepared before the laser comes onto site. The normal procurement process asks directly “Does this equipment contain a laser?” When the answer is affirmative, the LPO is notified and the process of registration can begin immediately.

In this instance the purchase was made manually so the notification did not occur. Instead, these vital steps had to take place subsequent to the laser coming onto site, which was a technical breach of the regulations.

Whilst this may seem to be of minor significance, the university having unregistered lasers on site could well have serious consequences. In the last year, the HSE has inspected a number of UK universities and research labs to check their compliance with laser safety regulations. Several instances of material breach were found resulting in enforcement action. In one instance, a university voluntarily ceased all work using lasers until they could bring themselves up to the required standard. If this was to happen at Queen Mary, it would cause huge disruption to vital research.

Incorrect purchasing of a chemical

The University works with preferred suppliers for chemicals as not only are we a member of a purchasing consortium which delivers value for money, but we have confidence in the ability of the larger suppliers to act in a responsible way. As such, when ordering from alternative suppliers, a firm justification must be offered.

An incident occurred where the procurement process was side-stepped entirely and a purchase from a chemical company in China was made by credit card. The item duly arrived in a letter by airmail but had no relevant warning labels; a breach of the Carriage of Dangerous Goods Act 2009. Had the logistics company known the exact nature of the contents, they would not have shipped it. Not only that but no safety data sheet was supplied, another legal requirement. The situation for disposal is complicated as we are obliged to provide more detailed information to our hazardous waste contractor before they will be able to remove it from site.  

Dealing with this problem created extra work for the department and specialist disposal costs are likely to exceed the actual cost of the purchase.