What derailed the Transport Department

 
Sir Richard Branson Sir Richard Branson's Virgin fought the Department's decision to award the franchise to First Group

In awarding a contract to run a public service, such as a railway, there is a balance to be struck between making the contract long enough to encourage serious investment and not so long that the forecasts built into bids for the contract become highly speculative.

What the Department for Transport appears to have got chronically wrong in the case of the West Coast Main Line franchise is its assessment of the risk that attaches to projections by bidders of revenues in the latter years of the 15-year franchise.

To put it in terms that we can all understand, if I expect to earn a pound from my work tomorrow, that pound is much more likely to materialise than a pound that I might expect to earn in 2025 (if anyone will still employ me then).

By extension, when First Group and Virgin made their bids to run the line that connects London with Manchester and Glasgow, it would have been reasonable to expect the Department for Transport to put a much greater weight on revenues the companies expect to generate in the first five to ten years than in the latter five years.

However the Department seems to have understated the long-term risks when awarding the contract to First Group.

Or to put it another way, the Department made unrealistic assumptions about the growth of passenger numbers and inflation towards the back end of the franchise period - which had the effect of making First Group's bid seem significantly more attractive, because First Group was massively more optimistic about how passengers and revenues could grow after 2021 than was Virgin.

This error seems to have occurred both when Virgin was eliminated from the bidding contest, and when First Group's bid was reassessed against the Department's own forecasting model for future revenues.

The basic point is that although there are powerful arguments for awarding longer term contracts, so that the successful bidder has an incentive to spend serious money on the best kit, a healthy scepticism needs to be attached to forecasts of the health of the economy and of the relevant public service over a time period as long as three parliaments.

Without such healthy scepticism, the government would tend to demand too little in the way of guaranteed money for taxpayers from bidders who are particularly optimistic about long-term prospects.

UPDATE 16:20 BST

Rarely if ever in the history of private provision of public services has there been such a bungle by Whitehall in the awarding of a highly valuable and important contract.

There appear to have been two giant errors by the Department for Transport in the way it adjudicated on who should receive the 15 year contract to run the West Coast Main Line.

First it unfairly discriminated against the incumbent, Virgin, by attaching far too great a probability to the projections by the rival bidder First Group that its revenues in the later years of the contract would be much bigger than Virgin's.

This mistake was compounded in the department's own internal forecasting model, which also attached too little risk to the possibility that passenger numbers and inflation would be significantly different from what First Group was projecting after 2021.

As a result, the government demanded too little guaranteed money for taxpayers from First Group.

But perhaps all this can be forgiven as an unfortunate technical error. What is perhaps more shocking is that Virgin has been complaining about the flaws in the bidding process for months, and yet the government pressed on with awarding the contract to First Group.

It was only after Virgin demanded a judicial review - after it sued - that the department was forced to acknowledge that it had made an egregious error.

Junior heads may now roll - in that three department officials have been suspended. But some would say that it is incumbent on the permanent secretary, Philip Rutnam, and the previous transport secretary, Justine Greening - reshuffled out only last month - to explain how they came so close to awarding a contract worth around £5bn on such a flawed basis.

 
Robert Peston Article written by Robert Peston Robert Peston Economics editor

The agony and ecstasy of UK recovery

The prospect of an interest rate rise before the general election has receded sharply, says the Bank of England's chief economist - who warns growth may be low and disappointing over the very long term.

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 343.

    @342.ComradeOgilvy
    "How does gov run down private companies?"

    Dunno - the evidence actually seems quite sketchy.
    Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railways_Act_1921

    Beeching's supposed "destruction" or annihilation of the railway system is rather unbecoming for an engineer although Quentin Letts describes him merely as a "beancounter" ("Fifty People Who Buggered Up Britain").

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 342.

    340.DA

    How does gov run down private companies?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 341.

    48.pimpmast3r
    3rd October 2012 - 15:59
    @42 there is no competition though so your wrong on that. one company is going to get to run the west coast main line for 15 years and no one else can get a look in. so there can be no competition for better service or innovation as you are going on about.
    =
    I can fly to Leeds, Drive to Leeds, get a Taxi to Leeds, a bus to Leeds, or go by Canal.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 340.

    Rail problems stem back to Government running private railways into the ground during the wars, then using that excuse to Nationalise them. When I was at Railtrack the old pre war company areas were still recognisable, they should have been put back in place track & stock as private companies. Although I remember a Union official horrified when I suggested Unions ran them as Co-ops!

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 339.

    @336.ChrisinReading
    "Looks like it's time to privatise the civil service. We need people with real business acumen making these important financial decisions."

    Not really, we just need someone - anyone - who is trustworthy, honest and loyal to the best interests of the country and taxpayer.

    Civil Service is near-as-dammit privatised anyway.

 

Comments 5 of 343

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.