The decision to negate the award of the West Coast Mainline franchise to First Group marks a seriously low point in government procurement.
And the passing of the blame onto civil servants by ministers in advance of the enquiries, and seemingly on the basis that ministers have no accountability for decisions taken in their name – or actually and more accurately by them – marks a further low in political responsibility.
Ministers and civil servants should both be accountable for their actions, especially when over £40m of public money is lost and an entire rail system is delayed.
Ministers have a duty to ensure that they have the right advice from competent officials, and to challenge and test that advice. The claim that the evaluation of the tenders failed to take inflation into account seems incredible and one wonders what will be found by the current or future enquiries.
It would seem that a potential contributory factor, but not an excuse for what happened, was that the Coalition Government changed the rules for evaluating and awarding rail franchises while cutting departmental staffing levels. And the government-wide policy of reducing the use of external consultants may also have been a contributing factor. But again, this is not an excuse.
I hope that the Transport Select Committee and the NAO will separately undertake their own enquiries as the impartiality of the current Department of Transport enquiries might seem questionable. In a case such as this, the public rightly should be satisfied that a full independent review has been undertaken and the lessons learned.
Undoubtedly there needs to be a full independent enquiry which should examine, among other matters:
- · Did the officials evaluating the tenders have the necessary skills and experience? Will the current civil service reforms address these issues?
- · Were they able to draw on any essential external advice?
- · Was the evaluation process robust and did it cover every reasonable element of the bids?
- · What were the evaluation criteria? And where these reasonable?
- · How did the evaluation address technical, risk, financial and commercial issues from a provider and government perspective?
- · How feasible is it to predict long-term commercial and market conditions and then apply such predictions to rail franchise bids and evaluations? And, consequently, is the franchise model fit for purpose?
- · Why were mistakes made?
- · What role did very senior officials play and when?
- · What role did ministers play in the decision-making process and when?
- · What were the implications of the changes to the evaluation and franchising processes introduced after the 2010 general election?
- · When was it known that the process was flawed and when did ministers know? And then what actions were taken and by whom?
- · What lessons should be learned for future rail franchise evaluations and for wider government and public sector procurements, including the possible need to improve commercial and related skills and capacity?
- · How much will this have cost after the franchise is actually awarded?
- · At any stage, was a public sector solution considered
Last week’s announcement by the Transport Secretary raises bigger questions about such an enquiry and the wider capability of public sector procurement for complex commercial projects and the balance of public and private provision of services.
There is also a need for a more fundamental set of questions to be asked about the very nature, appropriateness and public interest of continuing the current ownership and management of the UK railways. The arrangements have always seemed sub-optimal ever since the Major Government rushed them in.
Is this a public service that would be better returned to public ownership and public management? Many think that it would. There needs to be an informed debate.
This debacle raises and can stimulate wider public interest beyond the West Coast Mainline rail franchise itself.
A Government committed to more outsourcing and franchising has to be able to ensure that the public has confidence in its policies and processes, in the accountability of both officials and ministers, and in its railways!