House of Commons - Administration

Select Committee on Administration Second Report

7 PROVIDING IT EQUIPMENT TO MEMBERS

The 2005 roll-out of equipment

88. New ICT equipment was provided to all Members following the general election in 2005: first to newly elected Members, and then to serving Members to replace their existing equipment. The roll-out took considerably longer—approximately a year longer—than originally planned, partly because of the complexities involved in transferring data, applications and settings from the old to the new machines and partly because of difficulties in obtaining orders and agreeing delivery schedules with individual Members. All Members who had placed their orders before the 2006 summer recess had equipment delivered by the end of the recess.

89. The roll-out was a complex exercise, as different Members asked for different quantities of standard equipment, set up in different ways, to be installed in various locations all over the country. We commented on the roll-out, particularly the service provided to Members newly elected in 2005, in our Report on Post-Election Services.[52]

90. PICT has conducted a 'lessons learned' exercise on the project. One of its main conclusions is that PICT "underestimated the complexities of installation", in particular the amount of "customised and locally loaded software" on existing equipment in Members' offices. As a result, "the project was initially under-resourced".[53] In addition, delays were caused because a supplier was not chosen until February 2005: this despite the fact that the election date had been predicted long in advance.

91. New Members understandably want to receive working equipment as soon as possible after a general election. Re-elected Members who already have computer equipment are a less urgent priority, but they too have not always been happy with the length of the upgrade process.[54]

92. In several cases there seems to have been a considerable delay between the equipment being supplied and it being installed.[55] While in some cases installation difficulties may have been because Members or their staff failed to provide sufficiently detailed survey information in advance,[56] delays were also apparently caused because computers were not ordered or built until after the election, installation was only organised once the equipment had already arrived at its destination, and in some cases appointments were not kept.[57]

Future roll-outs

93. A roll-out of equipment on this scale is never going to be a simple exercise. But there are steps which could make the process smoother in future. To ensure that the equipment being supplied continues to meet business need, the service definition should be reviewed regularly and updated incrementally. Major upgrades, for example to a new operating system, would need to be considered and rolled out separately.

94. Decoupling the roll-out of new equipment as much as possible from the general election cycle would allow the upgrade process for Members to take place in a more measured and regular way. However, there would be some difficulties with timing the supply of equipment differently. As we noted in 2005,

in practice this would mean either recovering second-hand equipment from former Members to pass on to new Members, or holding a significant quantity of excess stock ready for an unpredictable number of new Members at extra cost to the taxpayer.[

95. These problems could be mitigated if lead times for the supply of new equipment could be significantly shortened. There is no reason why the process of choosing a supplier should not begin well in advance of the anticipated date of a general election, as PICT has acknowledged to us in the past.[59] Having contractual structures in place to supply ICT equipment to Members at short notice is sensible contingency planning. In our opinion, the concern that has been expressed to us in the past that "officials should not be seen to be anticipating" a general election is misplaced.[60] If it has not already begun, we recommend that work should commence at once on ensuring that there are no contractual obstacles to the speedy roll-out of ICT equipment to new Members after the next general election, whenever it may take place.

96. Other planning issues should also be decoupled from the roll-out, as PICT has recognised by suggesting:

a dedicated engineering team trained to understand Members' requirements (which would need to be part of or closely linked to the regionally based support units recommended at paragraph 67),
an agreed (and contractually enforceable) service level on which we and the Advisory Panel on Members' Allowances should be consulted,[61] and
a more closely managed deployment schedule.

We agree to all of the above proposals and recommend that they should be implemented as soon as possible.

97. Mechanisms are also needed to encourage efficient delivery under any future contract. Such a contract must provide for penalties if agreed delivery dates are missed. Another possibility might be to offer a choice of standard equipment from a pool of suppliers to offer variety and provide a competitive market to raise standards. However, there is a risk that the increased variety would also make support more complex and the network more fragile. We recommend that PICT should investigate cases in which other public sector organisations have procured ICT equipment from a pool of suppliers rather than from a single supplier, should seek information on whether this procurement method was successful, and should return to us with a recommendation as to whether it might be applied in the parliamentary environment.

Quality and cost

98. Although Members and their staff seem in most cases to have been satisfied with the quality of the computers provided once they were successfully installed, we have received a large number of complaints about the quality of the printers supplied and the cost of the related consumables.[62] We have already made relevant recommendations at paragraphs 65 and 97 above.

99. Members are also concerned about the cost of the equipment, given that it is published as an expense that they have personally incurred, although they have no control over the price. It has been suggested that the cost of the centrally provided equipment is high compared with that available for purchase elsewhere:

This contrasts with PICT's assertion that the existing contract provides "good quality equipment at highly competitive prices".[64] What Members may fail to appreciate is that the price of centrally provided equipment includes a substantial element for licensing, and for four years of maintenance and support. This is far more extensive than that normally included in the price of equipment available from other sources.

100. A concern which has been raised with us is that equipment that was considered value for money at the outset of a contract may soon cease to be so.[65] However, under the existing contract, prices are reviewed each time that there is an equipment upgrade—approximately three times a year. Prices are then fixed until the next upgrade, which could indeed be disadvantageous over time as market prices fall. PICT, however, takes steps to ensure that prices are competitive when set; according to PICT, they are consistently better than those available through the Office of Government Commerce e-catalogue. PICT also receives monthly benchmark information on prices which is checked against the prices of machines of equivalent specification offered by other manufacturers.

52 First Report from the Committee, Session 2005-06, HC 777, paras 14-15 Back

53 Ev 6, paras 43-44 Back

54 Ev 17 (Ms Sally Keeble MP), Ev 19 (Robert Key MP), Ev 20 (Mrs Jacqui Lait MP) Back

55 Ev 24, para 10 (Mr Andrew Turner MP); Ev 37, paras 9-11 (Alexander Woodman, Office of Stephen Williams MP) Back

56 Ev 6, para 44 Back

57 Ev 27, (Michele de Angeli, Office of Mr Richard Benyon MP) Back

58 HC 777 (2005-06), para 15 Back

59 HC 1027, Session 2005-06, para 3 Back

60 HC 777 (2005-06),Ev 24, para 17 Back

61 See paragraph 38. Back

62 Ev 12 (Mr James Arbuthnot MP), Ev 14 (Rosie Cooper MP), Ev 15 (Mr Andrew Dismore MP), Ev 20 (Ian Kirkbride, on behalf of Miss Julie Kirkbride MP), Ev 21(Peter Luff MP), Ev 22 (Mrs Madeleine Moon MP), Ev 23 (Ms Gisela Stuart MP), Ev 25-26 (Miss Ann Widdecombe MP), Ev 28 (Shirley Buckley, Office of Mr Michael Meacher MP), Ev 29 (Phil Cole, Office of Caroline Flint MP), Ev 31 (Jane Gordon-Cumming, Office of Mr Quentin Davies MP; Lena Huskinson, Office of Jim Knight MP), Ev 33 (Heather Millican, Office of Patrick Mercer MP; Rory Palmer, Office of Sir Peter Soulsby MP; Hazel Priest, Office of Jim Knight MP), Ev 35 (Paul Scully, Office of Mr Andrew Pelling MP), Ev 36 (Roger Thistle, Office of Tom Brake MP; Sarah Vero, Office of Dr Ian Gibson MP; Charlotte Wallis, Office of Mr Kenneth Clarke MP) Back

63 Ev 40, para 12 (Parliamentary Resources Unit) Back