24
Accepted
The IPA pointed to the Lower Thames Crossing as a recent example of where it...
Conclusion
The IPA pointed to the Lower Thames Crossing as a recent example of where it has made meaningful impact on a programme’s delivery. It stated that the programme had an ambitious schedule and was larger than any other scheme that Highways England had taken on before. The IPA refused to give support to the outline business case, advising that its delivery schedule was unachievable and that it needed to revisit its cost, as well as strengthen its governance model. The IPA said that Highways England revisited its plans for the programme and subsequently addressed all the key elements that the IPA had highlighted.48 42 Committee of Public Accounts, Delivering major projects, Thirty-first Report of Session 2015–16, HC 710, March 2016, Conclusions and recommendations, para 2 43 Q 4 44 Committee of Public Accounts, Delivering major projects, Thirty-first Report of Session 2015–16, HC 710, March 2016, Conclusions and recommendations, para 2 45 Qq 5, 10 46 Q 10 47 Letter from Infrastructure and Projects Authority to Committee dated 6 January 2021 48 Q 16 14 Lessons from major projects and programmes
Government Response Summary
The government agrees and is strengthening the IPA's role by ensuring all eligible projects are on the GMPP, requiring IPA support for project advancement, simplifying RAG ratings, and confirming that projects ranked 'red' will not proceed until risks are managed. The IPA will also update the Committee on progress for Red/Amber projects within six months.
Government Response
Accepted
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
3.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: August 2021 3.2 In 2020, the IPA worked across government to ensure that every project that meets the eligibility criteria is included in the GMPP, which has led to an increase in the size of the portfolio. The IPA encourages departments to notify it of prospective major projects as soon as possible in the policy formulation process. In doing so, the IPA has improved its ability to provide the right support and scrutiny of projects and embed deliverability principles early, including through the recently published Principles for Project Success and the Project Initiation Routemap. 3.3 The IPA recently separated its support and assurance functions to ensure evaluations of projects are consistently robust and impartial. From 2021, the GMPP RAG rating system will be simplified from five categories (Red, Red/Amber, Amber, Amber/Green, Green) to three (Red, Amber and Green). The focus of IPA assessment will shift from ‘overall delivery confidence’ to the singular question of whether a project is ready to progress through the next HM Treasury Approval Point. The IPA’s support will now be required for advancement, rather than being merely advisory. Projects ranked red will not be permitted to proceed until issues are managed to an acceptable level of risk. Projects ranked amber will proceed with conditions, including a duty to report back at an agreed date. Projects ranked green will proceed without conditions, subject to usual quarterly data returns and monitoring. 3.4 As of September 2019, 43 projects were assigned Red or Amber/Red. The reasons for this varied by project. The IPA will write to the Committee within six months to update it on the actions taken and progress made on these projects.
Source
Committee
Public Accounts Committee
Report
Thirty-Ninth Report - Lessons from major projects and programmes
29 Jan 2021
HC 694
Addressee Bodies
HM Treasury
Timeline
Recommendation age
5.5 yrs
Report published
29 Jan 2021