Stationery Procurement · Data Sheet
Stationery Procurement Financial Results
The formal tender result separated from diagnostic and working-model outcomes, with the corrections that moved the figure set out in full.
How to read these results
The evidence contains several iterations of the savings model. Earlier working figures were revised as quantities, product matches and category boundaries were corrected.
This document therefore separates the formal tender result from diagnostic and working-model outcomes, rather than presenting the final number as though it had been the number all along.
Results by status
Four measures, four different claims
Scroll table sideways →
| Measure | Public result | Status | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Formal Phase 2 tender result | 15.94% lower basket cost | Validated / quoted | Official tender comparison across six locations. Supplier agreements were still being formalised. |
| Phase 2 location range | 9.54% to 23.82% | Validated / modelled | Different purchasing mixes produced materially different location-level outcomes. |
| Latest Phase 1 stationery-only view | Approximately 11% | Identified / modelled | Based on the corrected stationery baseline, before the Phase 2 tender comparison. |
| Combined denominator including storage | Approximately 4% | Context only | Shows how non-stationery storage charges diluted the apparent percentage when left inside the broader denominator. |
| Adjacent records / storage supplier discount | 15% on qualifying lines | Negotiated / conditional | Applied only to specified stock and storage lines. Not treated as a stationery result. |
| Realised post-implementation saving | Not evidenced | Not claimed | The source records do not include sufficient post-award purchasing data to establish realised cash savings. |
Scope and sourcing
What the tender was actually built on
Scroll table sideways →
| Fact | Count | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Locations analysed | 6 | Distributed spend was reconstructed rather than treated as one homogeneous basket. |
| Phase 2 tender lines | 68 | Defined product-and-quantity lines created a common comparison basis. |
| Suppliers quoting | 4 | Competition was established before any shortlist. |
| Suppliers progressed | 3 | Better rates and commercial terms were requested from the strongest quoted options. |
| Preferred suppliers in the best-price map | 4 | The analysis supported a multi-supplier model rather than assuming one vendor was cheapest across every line. |
| Repayment entries flagged | 48 | Flagged for reconciliation because the source records did not explain their cause. |
| Duplicate invoice patterns | Present | Exceptions identified for review. The evidence did not establish wrongdoing. |
Why the percentages changed during the work
Seven corrections, each of which moved the number
- Quantities were corrected where branch data and working schedules differed materially.
- Products with missing revised prices or savings were identified, rather than silently treated as valid comparisons.
- Pack sizes and substitute products were tested for equivalence before a lower unit price counted as a saving.
- A large once-off purchase of records-storage items was removed from the recurring stationery baseline.
- Storage fees embedded in branch spend were separated from stationery, so the category saving was not distorted.
- Annual and monthly values were reconciled where a working schedule had mixed the two bases.
- Supplier escalation assumptions were built into forward comparisons, instead of assuming quoted rates would stay flat.
Interpretation
The strongest public financial statement the evidence supports is not that a fixed percentage was saved. It is that a structured Phase 2 tender produced a documented 15.94% lower-priced basket across the analysed locations.
The broader work shows where procurement value actually came from: data correction, product standardisation, supplier competition and commercial-term control — not from price negotiation alone.