Image copyright pyrite
Getty Images
The UK has agreed to a lawsuit over how to choose an IT contract for coronavirus testing at its lighthouse laboratories.
The BBC understands that the settlement will cost the government 2 million.
The British company Diagnostics AIA claimed that it lost to European rival Eugentech despite seeing some positive coronavirus cases missing its rival.
He sued the government over the decision, claiming the selection process was “unfair and illegal”.
Lighthouse Labs is a network of UK-wide specialized coronavirus laboratories run by the government and run by private companies. When the labs were set up, the companies were preparing to analyze the test results.
The dispute was to go to court. This meant that at the time, when it came under severe criticism, there would be a public examination of the accuracy and speed of the testing system.
But the government has decided to settle the case and Diagnostics AI will pay compensation and most of its legal fees.
However, despite agreeing to pay, the government has denied that the claim made by Diagnostics AI is “inaccurate”.
A spokesman for the Department of Health and Social Care said: “The tests are reliable and effective, the laboratories that have conducted them have been reviewed and evaluated by experts and the percentage of false negatives or positives is very low.”
“This was a commercial dispute over the software agreement where many factors were taken into account before receiving the award, which is still subject to the final agreement in terms of cost.”
Since the contract is more than m 1m, the BBC understands that the settlement, including legal costs, could be around m 2m.
Controversy over the decision of the contract
Swabs are taken from people at test sites or at home tests and treated with a chemical process that produces graphs. Software is used to determine if the graph shows whether the sample was positive or negative for coronavirus.
Image copyright pyrite
WPA Pool
Software is used to analyze swaps to determine if a sample is positive or negative for a coronavirus.
Diagnostics AIA claims that the trial run analysis of Eugentech’s 2,000,000 samples was flawed. In some cases, he claimed that Eugentech had received negative coronavirus results, while the results were indeed positive or inconclusive.
“Eventually they decided to go with the system and pay 50 out of 800 positives [results], So around one in 15 or more, one in 16 – should be certain – is positive, “Aaron Cohen, chief executive of Diagnostics AI, told the BBC.
“Obviously when he translates hundreds of thousands of samples a day, that potentially thousands of missing treasures come out every day. So that was really worrying for us.”
EugeneTek in turn claimed that no patient was affected as it is a trial run.
“We provide crucial covid interpretation services to help Lighthouse Labs manage the vast amount of data they create. These claims are false and misleading,” Steven Verhoeven, Eugentech’s chief executive, told the BBC.
“None of these samples refer to actual results given to patients or the public and it is not wrong to indicate the impact on public health. Live tests were not supported by our software at the time the implementation process was underway. Tested as illustrated by Independent, we have every confidence in our software and the services we provide. “
‘Commercial Dispute’
Diagnostics A.I. also on two government-owned and funded non-profit companies. – That was claimed by the UK Biocentre and Medicines Delivery Catapult (MDC), which ran the process of deciding which company to use.
Court papers show that between March 31 and April 14, Diagnostics A.I. Frequently requested for services and frequently requested information on how their bids would be evaluated.
Diagnostics AI says it has never received the information it seeks. This is denied by the UK biocentre, which says both providers were given the same information.
Image copyright pyrite
Light photo
Local authorities are allowed to purchase services without engaging in a competitive process if there is a risk to life
In early April, when both bids were being considered, the U.K. Was facing what Boris Jones called a “moment of national crisis.”
In such immediate circumstances, the law provides for the government to purchase services without any competitive process if certain conditions are met.
However, it is understood that both Diagnostics AI and Eugentech were recommended by UK Biocentre, and so it was decided to evaluate both offers fur.
Diagnostics AI says the process was inappropriate and flawed, but UK Biocentre insisted it was appropriate for both bidders.
A UK Biocentre spokesman said: “The allegations are baseless; this was a commercial controversy. The software in question is being used extensively in lighthouse laboratories, some NHS laboratories and abroad.
“External quality assurance confirms that polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing in lighthouse laboratories, of which automated diagnostic software is a part of software, is performing well.”
A spokesman for the MDC also told the BBC: “The full results of the evaluation have identified Eugentech as a safe and quality provider, able to deliver high volumes, and instead have a comprehensive support system. It has performed brilliantly in the past. Analysis of the test results. This lawsuit was purely a commercial dispute. “
The BBC understands that the claims made by Diagnostics AI were investigated, but concluded that concerns about the security of Eugentech’s software were unsupported.
However Mr. Cohen disagrees: “The government pays a lot of money. And they are paying this, you know, at least to some extent to ignore it, to avoid these issues being broadcast in court, and to discuss. On the accuracy of the test.”
