Read that as, 'Capita didn't care too much to manage requirements and sanitize them but instead realised that they would get some sweet dough by stringing it out'
> Why not set a fixed price; with reductions for overruns.
Because then the only companies willing to take on the project would be those that have no idea what they're doing (and will burn the money with nothing usable to show for it), and those who will insist on detailed requirements beforehand that cannot change. And the latter is not something the government is able to provide.
Well you get a half finished bridge and your money back, or as much money as the company has assets and then you have one less company trying to rip us off. Probably, you need a clause on C-suite assets being secured against the project.
"But no one will do that" I expect is the response. Must be some honest companies prepared to do a job for 100 times the cost?
> Well you get a half finished bridge and your money back, or as much money as the company has assets and then you have one less company trying to rip us off.
Setting up a new company costs a lot less than you make on a project like this.
> Must be some honest companies prepared to do a job for 100 times the cost?
Sure. But government procurement is often required to go with the low bidder (because of anti-favouritism rules) even when they obviously can't deliver.
TBTF: successfully bankrupting Capita is entirely possible (see Carillion), but then the government has to take control of all the projects in the ensuing bankruptcy. The people who really lose out there are the third-tier contractors and ordinary staff.
The whole "PFI" model is unsustainable doctrinaire garbage and should be binned.
They should have capped the price up-front.