Conclusions and recommendations
1. The Ministry lacked management information
on the previous use of interpreters and therefore did not have
a clear understanding of its requirements under the new system.
The Ministry did not know how much it was spending on interpreters,
or how many interpreters it required or in what languages. As
a result, the system it selected was driven by bidders' proposals
rather than its actual requirements. The Ministry should ensure
that it understands the services it needs to procure thoroughly
and its cost before commencing future procurement projects.
2. The Ministry did not conduct thorough due
diligence checks on Applied Language Solutions (ALS) before signing
the Framework Agreement. For example,
it commissioned a credit rating report, which suggested that ALS
should not be awarded a contract valued at more than £1million.
The Ministry did not act on its findings and although it consulted
with stakeholders, including interpreters, it did not take their
concerns into consideration. The Ministry should collect all available
information on a bid and bidder, and consider the full data set
at an appropriate level of seniority, before making final decisions
on future contracts.
3. Despite very poor performance, the Ministry
only penalised the supplier £2,200 and failed to penalise
it at all for the first 4 months, when performance was at its
worst. Risible levels of penalties and
low expectations of performance allow private companies to get
away with over promising and under delivering. The Ministry should
draft and implement future contracts so as to minimise transitional
problems, for example through piloting and rolling-out new systems
gradually and incentivising contractors to meet contractual requirements
from the outset; for example, through robust use of the penalties
available.
4. The Ministry estimated that it would need
access to 1,200 interpreters to meet its requirements; however,
the contract went live when the supplier had only 280 interpreters
ready to work under the terms of the contract.
The Ministry believed that many more interpreters were available
to work, in line with contractual obligations, than was actually
the case due to over-optimistic assurances from Capita-ALS and
confusion over definitions of what important terms such as 'registered'
actually meant. When implementing future contracts, the Ministry
should not rely solely on contractors' assurances that they are
ready and able to deliver the service but should conduct its own
thorough testing and have a detailed transition plan to ensure
that the service will be delivered before going live.
5. The Ministry was unable to confirm that
all interpreters working under the contract had the required qualifications,
experience and enhanced CRB checks. Capita
was unable to assess and mark all interpreters as required by
the Framework Agreement and could not be certain that all interpreters
had the required experience. The Ministry did not have sufficiently
robust processes in place to ensure that Capita-ALS had checked
and recorded qualifications, evidence of experience and enhanced
CRB checks. The Ministry should ensure that Capita-ALS now has
procedures in place to guarantee that only interpreters with the
correct skills, experience and character work under the contract,
including agreeing and putting in place an alternative to the
assessment regime. It should test the effectiveness of these procedures
through a programme of audits and spot checks on individual interpreters.
6. Capita-ALS is still unable to provide sufficient
numbers of interpreters to meet all of the Ministry's language
requirements. By October 2012, the Ministry
was still using the contingency plans to source some interpreters.
The Ministry is responsible for all aspects of the efficient administration
of the courts and must work with Capita-ALS to develop a more
creative approach to recruiting interpreters across all required
languages and geographical locations.
7. The Ministry was unable to provide information
on the additional costs to the department of the delaying of trials
because of the failure to provide interpreters. There has been
an extra cost both to the courts and to prisons caused by the
postponement of judicial proceedings. In the future, the Ministry
must undertake comprehensive cost and benefit analysis of its
new policies.
| 
