3 ms·

"Capita admitted it had "underestimated the complexity" of the project." Classic :D

by myspy 8y ago

lbriner 8y ago
Read that as, 'Capita didn't care too much to manage requirements and sanitize them but instead realised that they would get some sweet dough by stringing it out' They should have capped the price up-front.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  This, I don't get about government procurement. Why not set a fixed price; with reductions for overruns. Sure, with small companies they could go broke, but Capita has been given half of the UK at this point.
  - brazzy 8y ago
    > Why not set a fixed price; with reductions for overruns. Because then the only companies willing to take on the project would be those that have no idea what they're doing (and will burn the money with nothing usable to show for it), and those who will insist on detailed requirements beforehand that cannot change. And the latter is not something the government is able to provide.
  - lordnacho 8y ago
    If you set a fixed price you might get nothing. Half finished bridges and railways, that kind of thing. This is of course why you end up paying 113M for something that should cost a tiny dragon of that. You're held to ransom by the contractor. The thing to do might have been to recruit (!) some in house devs.
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      Well you get a half finished bridge and your money back, or as much money as the company has assets and then you have one less company trying to rip us off. Probably, you need a clause on C-suite assets being secured against the project. "But no one will do that" I expect is the response. Must be some honest companies prepared to do a job for 100 times the cost?
      - lmm 8y ago
        > Well you get a half finished bridge and your money back, or as much money as the company has assets and then you have one less company trying to rip us off. Setting up a new company costs a lot less than you make on a project like this. > Must be some honest companies prepared to do a job for 100 times the cost? Sure. But government procurement is often required to go with the low bidder (because of anti-favouritism rules) even when they obviously can't deliver.
    - setquk 8y ago
      Your last point is spot on. NHS did it with Spine 2.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    TBTF: successfully bankrupting Capita is entirely possible (see Carillion), but then the government has to take control of all the projects in the ensuing bankruptcy. The people who really lose out there are the third-tier contractors and ordinary staff. The whole "PFI" model is unsustainable doctrinaire garbage and should be binned.
pbhjpbhj 8y ago
What the hell - how? They're not launching a moon mission, it's a website. Unless it's the next Facebook I'm not sure how they can imagine it could possibly be worth that much. But perhaps there's something I'm missing having only made website of the order of 100,000 times cheaper than that.
zimpenfish 8y ago
And the best part is that you can use this line over and over again: e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/12/capita-failure-over-cervical-screening-letters-more-extensive-than-thought https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/12/capita-fail... And an older summary: http://davespartblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/why-it-gets-called-crapita_21.html http://davespartblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/why-it-gets-called... (See also Private Eye passim)
weego 8y ago
As a former Capita person who has worked with a few clients in the public space, they absolutely didn't underestimate anything. They wrote a contract full of wiggle room and loopholes that they could then feign ignorance over yet allowed them to constantly exaggerate and charge for the most minor of "misunderstandings" in implementation.

"Capita admitted it had "underestimated the complexity" of the project." Classic :D

by myspy 8y ago

"Capita admitted it had "underestimated the complexity" of the project." Classic :D

Read that as, 'Capita didn't care too much to manage requirements and sanitize them but instead realised that they would get some sweet dough by stringing it out' They should have capped the price up-front.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
This, I don't get about government procurement. Why not set a fixed price; with reductions for overruns. Sure, with small companies they could go broke, but Capita has been given half of the UK at this point.
- brazzy 8y ago
  > Why not set a fixed price; with reductions for overruns. Because then the only companies willing to take on the project would be those that have no idea what they're doing (and will burn the money with nothing usable to show for it), and those who will insist on detailed requirements beforehand that cannot change. And the latter is not something the government is able to provide.
- lordnacho 8y ago
  If you set a fixed price you might get nothing. Half finished bridges and railways, that kind of thing. This is of course why you end up paying 113M for something that should cost a tiny dragon of that. You're held to ransom by the contractor. The thing to do might have been to recruit (!) some in house devs.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    Well you get a half finished bridge and your money back, or as much money as the company has assets and then you have one less company trying to rip us off. Probably, you need a clause on C-suite assets being secured against the project. "But no one will do that" I expect is the response. Must be some honest companies prepared to do a job for 100 times the cost?
    - lmm 8y ago
      > Well you get a half finished bridge and your money back, or as much money as the company has assets and then you have one less company trying to rip us off. Setting up a new company costs a lot less than you make on a project like this. > Must be some honest companies prepared to do a job for 100 times the cost? Sure. But government procurement is often required to go with the low bidder (because of anti-favouritism rules) even when they obviously can't deliver.
  - setquk 8y ago
    Your last point is spot on. NHS did it with Spine 2.
- pjc50 8y ago
  TBTF: successfully bankrupting Capita is entirely possible (see Carillion), but then the government has to take control of all the projects in the ensuing bankruptcy. The people who really lose out there are the third-tier contractors and ordinary staff. The whole "PFI" model is unsustainable doctrinaire garbage and should be binned.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

What the hell - how? They're not launching a moon mission, it's a website. Unless it's the next Facebook I'm not sure how they can imagine it could possibly be worth that much. But perhaps there's something I'm missing having only made website of the order of 100,000 times cheaper than that.

zimpenfish 8y ago

And the best part is that you can use this line over and over again: e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/12/capita-failure-over-cervical-screening-letters-more-extensive-than-thought https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/12/capita-fail... And an older summary: http://davespartblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/why-it-gets-called-crapita_21.html http://davespartblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/why-it-gets-called... (See also Private Eye passim)

weego 8y ago

As a former Capita person who has worked with a few clients in the public space, they absolutely didn't underestimate anything. They wrote a contract full of wiggle room and loopholes that they could then feign ignorance over yet allowed them to constantly exaggerate and charge for the most minor of "misunderstandings" in implementation.