RE: My interpretation of the dispute24 May 2021 21:15
Absolutely outstanding discussion today evaluating this Matter, brilliant. For those visiting LSE tonight.
The contract in dispute relates to this notification detailed on Bidstats: -
https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2020/W47/739312011
28 Sep 2020 to 28 Jan 2021
Contract Award Up to £ 406m Value
So, in effect the 4th Quarter OCT/NOV/DEC of 2020 and the JAN of the 1st Quarter pf 2021.
ANYTHING else is outside of this contracted period and is NOT relevant to the contract dispute.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing BUT had Novacyt just said at the initial notification we are simply in dispute over this contract per se, the effect of a second smash raid on the share price by having to confirm extending it into Jan, could have been prevented. Anyhow, we are where we are.
On the 29th of September 2020 Company RNS they clarify the award win further: -
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/NCYT/new-uk-dhsc-contract-b8qwrk6yccpxt78.html
They clearly state the MINIMUM award under this contract is £ 150m for the first 14 weeks and then an offer of an extension of 10 weeks for a further £ 100m and the award includes supply of instruments, related kits, and support services. So, I guess the up to £ 156m difference was the supporting kits and services.
Now we later discovered that the 10-week extension was NOT requested BUT did they give ample notice under the contract? You cannot expect a supplier to keep stock aside “Just in case”.
In all, as discussed, its looking more and more likely that Not only may Novacyt have strong grounds to assert their contractual rights under the contract issued as they stated BUT also it could well result in Novacyt being able to Invoice and collect the missing amounts under the minimum contract values. We have explored a few possibilities here but by my rough calculation I still come out at around £ 27m short fall.
Other supply contract winners should learn from our experience. These award amounts are not worth the paper they are printed on. Just because it says £ 406m on the award does not mean that is what we would get. However, if they stipulate a minimum agreed value in a specific time, especially during a pandemic and prevent us from selling elsewhere they really should do the honourable thing and PAY UP and not quibble over it!!
It will be interesting to see the outcome when this matter is closed off. The longer it drifts on the more disillusioned I become by how some of our government offices are run.
GLA
Pork’s.