Lessons on the cost of musical chairs at Westminster

Tucked away, understandably, in The Sunday Times was news that "MPs squander £140m on empty office" and typical finger-pointing that "a bunch of muppets" had been involved in this procurement decision!

The story in itself is easily summarised: a lease for 15 years (up until 2029 with no break clause), costing approximately £6m per year, has been taken out on a new office block on Victoria Street, less than half a mile from the Palace of Westminster, while renovations take place at the Palace of Westminster.  The plan had been that the new office would accommodate parliamentary staff currently housed in Millbank, and MPs would move to the former parliamentary staff offices at Millbank. Yet, a year later the offices remain empty and costs of £4m are being incurred for rates and services, allegedly because of fears MPs travelling from Millbank to vote in the House of Commons  could be vulnerable to attack.

(There is no mention of what the decanting costs associated with the musical chairs would have been or why the MPs couldn't move to the new Victoria Street office as opposed to Millbank!)

Now part of the solution appears to be that Department of Health staff move to the new offices, presumably so that the MPs can move to the DoH current HQ.  I assume there has been some risk assessment that suggests the journey up Whitehall is safer that the the journey along Victoria Street.

I certainly recognise, particularly in the light of the barbaric attacks last Friday in Paris, that there is a risk to MPs safety, but is it not true that MPs always have to travel to and from the Palace of Westminster, and also that they spend a lot of time in their constituencies 'out and about', so why is this particular journey so risky and ultimately costly?

There are some interesting questions which procurement could answer, for example:

1. Why was the contract signed and long before the MPs had agreed to move?
2. Why is there no 'break clause'?
3. What was the business justification for securing the new office accommodation so early?
4. Was there a risk assessment which recognised and mitigated against MPs reluctance to move to Millbank?
5. Is the contract for the Palace of Westminster renovations already signed and does that contract anticipate a completion date of 2029, allowing for the further decant of MPs back from their temporary locations? 
6. Is it reasonable to assume that a completion date of 2029 represents good practice - it seems a very long contract for renovations?
7. What contract management arrangements and contingencies will be put in place for the required complete date?
8. Prior to signing the lease, were all the relevant stakeholders consulted, including those responsible for MPs security? 
9. If effective stakeholder consultation took place, are "the muppets" not those who said the MPs journey from Millbank carried a manageable level of risk?
10. Had the Finance Committee, some of whom now find the contract "completely outrageous", had any scrutiny of the proposals before they were committed to?

The whole thing looks like a remarkable mess, yes, but perhaps it serves as a cautionary example of why procurement needs to be involved in this type of decision, and that a full options appraisal is required and risk assessment, prior to signing a contract.

Lords caught short on strategic asset management and procurement

Yesterday I discussed Ennis' toilets. It wasn't my intention to return to the subject of WCs so quickly, however, that was before I learnt of the pressing need for the refurbishment of toilets in the Palace of Westminster. Once again two toilets are the focus and this time at a budget cost of £100k.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the toilets should be refurbished in keeping with the historic nature of the building but not necessarily now. I question is the strategy.

If I am right there is currently a discussion taking place on the wider options for renovating the Houses of Parliament. It seems very strange to treat the toilet renovation discretely and procure the renovation prior to the wider appraisal of renovation options. This decision does not appear remotely helpful for those who recognise the need for a strategic approach to investment plans and asset management.  I'm not saying it will happen, but what if £100k is spent on renovating the toilets and then, as a result of the wider renovation, they are trashed? What if the wider renovation decides a overhaul of the plumbing is required, will that be more expensive as a result of trying to avoid damage to the separately restored loos?

This renovation could have been an exemplar to the many public sector bodies who manage the UKs portfolio of historic, iconic municipal buildings, sadly, it seems that opportunity may be missed.