The Government’s Major Projects Portfolio currently has 133
projects with a value of £423 billion. This includes high profile
infrastructure projects such as Crossrail, HS2 and Hinkley Point
but also major Government ICT projects, projects to transform
public services, and major defence procurement programmes. In
addition, individual departments manage numerous capital projects
outside the Major Projects Portfolio.
The management of such projects has been criticised, with lack
of accountability, poor early planning and limited Government
capability amongst the concerns flagged by the National Audit
Office.
The Public Administration Committee is holding an inquiry into how
well such projects are managed by Government. It will consider
whether criticisms are justified, what steps have been taken to
address them, and where more needs to be done.
The Committee welcomes written submissions on this matter
by 9 November 2018. These should
address some or all of the following questions, giving concrete
examples wherever possible:
• How can major public
projects be managed to command more respect and public
confidence?
• How well equipped is the
Civil Service to commission, manage and deliver major projects?
• How are decisions to
commission and deliver major projects taken? What planning takes
place and at what stage? How is the requirement for the project
assessed?
• How should the Civil
Service and government departments initiate and manage major
projects? What represents best practice and how well is best
practice understood?
• Who is, and who should be,
held accountable for the conduct of major projects and for their
outcomes, and who should be held accountable?
• How should departments
establish the best governance of major projects? What is the
optimum structure? How departments should divide and allocate
responsibilities, and how should boards and chief executives held
accountable for governance of their operations, without
restricting their requirement to exercise their own discretion?
• How should departments
assess the strength of leadership of a major project? What skills
and experience do they need to apply to this question?
• What should be the
expectation of remuneration levels, churn of top executives, and
conflicts of interest between commissioning authorities,
contracted companies and potential contractors, consultants and
civil servants leaving their department for the private sector?
How should the government oversee these issues?
• What role does competition
play in the market for contractors for major projects? When is
competition beneficial and when is it more of a distraction from
issues which need to be addressed?
• What are the strengths and
weaknesses in the usual process by which contracts are awarded
and managed? What are the lessons to be drawn from particular
examples of success or failure?
• How are timescales for
delivery decided?
• How adequate are the
processes for monitoring the progress of projects over their
lifetime?
• How are risks assessed? How
are they mitigated and what are the lessons to learn from
examples of success and failure of risk management?
• What are the best financial
models to adopt for financing and managing the delivery of major
projects?
• What are the most prevalent
reasons for major projects overrunning or exceeding their budget?
• What lessons can be learned
from examples of projects in other countries or under the control
of devolved or local government?
• What is the role of the
Infrastructure and Projects Authority and how well does it
perform this role?
FURTHER INFORMATION:
Committee Membership is as follows: Sir
(Chair) (Harwich and North
Essex) (Conservative); (Inverclyde)
(SNP); Mr (Newport West)
(Labour);
(Yeovil) (Conservative); Rt Hon (Chesham and
Amersham) (Conservative); (Luton North)
(Independent); (Ealing Central and
Acton) (Labour); Rt Hon (Clwyd West)
(Conservative); (Ipswich)
(Labour); (Morecambe and
Lunesdale) (Conservative); (Hampstead
and Kilburn) (Labour).