2The Government’s Management of Major Projects
6.Individual Government Departments remain accountable for the initiation and delivery of their own projects. However, in this, they are increasingly subject to oversight from the centre of government. This is particularly through the IPA which has responsibility for assuring departments’ projects and reviewing and assisting with progress. It was established in 2016 following the merger of two other agencies, the Major Projects Authority (MPA) and Infrastructure UK (IUK). IUK was an agency of HM Treasury set up to support major infrastructure projects involving public capital. The MPA was a Cabinet Office agency that provided assurance and challenge to projects in the GMPP. The IPA also plays a role in developing capability through its leadership of the cross-government Project Leadership Function.3
|
GMPP4 |
No. Projects |
Cost (Whole Life) |
Monetised Benefits |
|
Transformation and Service Delivery |
41 |
£83bn |
£330bn |
|
ICT |
29 |
£10bn |
£24bn |
|
Infrastructure and Construction |
31 |
£196bn |
£298bn |
|
Military Capability |
32 |
£134bn |
£5bn |
|
Total |
133 projects |
£423bn |
£657bn |
7.There are currently 133 projects in the GMPP. The number of projects in the GMPP has fallen from 143 in 2017, continuing the fall from the historic high of 199 in 2014, as the projects enter the GMPP at a slower rate than they exit it. The value of projects in the GMPP has also fallen from 2017. However, it has not fallen at the same rate as the number of projects, suggesting proportionately more costly projects. Analysis by the Institute for Government (IfG) attributes this to increased cost estimates for existing projects rather than the value of new projects. In particular, the IfG note increases in the estimated whole-life costs of the High Speed Rail programme (£13.1bn) and the construction of the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant (£12.9bn). However, previous years have seen higher total cost increases for existing projects.5
8.Projects in the GMPP are given Delivery Confidence Assessments (DCAs), colour ratings based on the perceived likelihood of their completion:
- within the timescales;
- within the cost envelope;
- to the quality requirements including the delivery of benefits, both financial and non-financial; and
- all as laid down in the most recent formally approved mandating document (e.g. Project Information Document (PID) or Business Case).6
9.A RAG (“Red, Amber, Green”) or “Traffic Light” rating system is applied, with projects given one of five ratings ranging from Green (where completion of the project on time and cost seem likely) to Red (where completion of the project appears unachievable). Projects classified either Red or Amber/Red have been increasing both in number and as a proportion of the GMPP. The number of projects classified Green has also fallen from over 40% of the projects when the GMPP was established in 2013 to fewer than 20%.7 The IPA suggest that this is the result of projects successfully leaving the GMPP: the number of projects in the GMPP has fallen, with those projects remaining likely to be higher risk (larger and longer-running projects tend to be classified as riskier).8
10.When the IPA was established through the merger of the IUK and the MPA, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) expressed concern that the MPA’s assurance role could be compromised in a merger with IUK, a delivery body the work of which the MPA had been charged with evaluating.9 We found no evidence to suggest that this has been the case. Should our successor Committee return to this area, an aspect it could usefully consider in more detail is the way in which the IPA interacts with the individual Government departments.
4 IPA Annual Report 2017–18 p.4; C&AG Projects Leaving the Government Major Projects Portfolio Session 2017–19, HC 1620, p.6
5 G. Freeguard et al Whitehall Monitor 2018 Institute for Government 2018
7 G. Freeguard et al Whitehall Monitor 2018 Institute for Government 2018
8 IPA Annual Report 2017–18 p.12
9 Committee of Public Accounts Delivering Major Projects in Government Session 2015–16 HC 710, p.5
Published: 5 November 2019