The Cabinet Office told us that granting clusters discretion over delivery decisions was intended to give them some autonomy over how the strategy was implemented. The Cabinet Office and the senior responsible owner of the Synergy cluster explained that for the departments in the Synergy cluster, which have already outsourced their back-office operations for ten years, it can be assumed that continued outsourcing would be most practical and therefore continue to represent value for money.33 The Cabinet Office acknowledged that assessments informing value for money decisions like the merits of outsourcing are taken at the cluster level rather than at the level of the strategy.34 The department later provided the Committee with the factors these assessments had considered, but not a quantified value-for-money case favouring outsourcing as compared to insourcing.35 The senior responsible owner of the Synergy cluster recognised the concerns surrounding Capita’s administration of pensions, but believes that Capita’s 29 Letter from the Cabinet Office to PAC dated 3 June 2026, pp. 2-3 30 C&AG’s Report, Figures 3 and 4 31 C&AG’s Report, paras 1.5-1.6, 2.3-2.4 32 SHS0004, Written evidence submitted by the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) 33 Qq 85, 91, 93; Letter from the Cabinet Office to PAC dated 3 June 2026 34 Q 94 35 Letter from the Cabinet Office to PAC dated 3 June 2026 12 award for shared services was a different scenario and the product of a twelve-month procurement process.36 However, we also note recent reports suggesting that Capita’s winning bid may have been 40% under the government’s ‘should-cost’ model.37 The Cabinet Office’s mandate and governance