This rushed timescale meant that the Department undertook limited stakeholder engagement and restricted its options for procuring an administrator.64 The Department also did not pilot the scheme to test its feasibility.65 These issues led to many of the problems described in Part One including the lack of understanding installer needs, the complexity of the scheme and the performance of the administrator. The Department pressed on with its unrealistic timetable despite warning signs during implementation.66 Both the Department’s own assessment, and that of the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, showed that the Scheme was high risk.67 In addition, the Department’s Projects and Investment Committee rejected the Scheme’s Full Business Case two days prior to the Scheme launch date as it did not believe the full £1.5 billion would be spent and was not able to confirm the scheme administrator’s IT solution would function, as it had yet to be fully developed and tested.68