HC Deb 13 March 1995 vol 256 cc373-4W
Mr. Cohen

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what were regarded as the relative(a) advantages and (b) disadvantages of (i) the ED5 in-house team bid and (ii) the Sema bid for the data processing contract in his Department; and on what basis he made his decision;

(2) if he will list the senior managers within his Department who were responsible for data processing work prior to the recent privatisation; and if he will indicate what has happened to them, in career terms, since the award of the contract to Sema;

(3) if his Department has paid towards the cost of redundancies of employees working on data processing at Corby who are likely to be re-employed in similar work at the site; and if he will make a statement;

(4) if he will make a statement about how the bids from (a) the ED5 in-house team and (b) Sema for the data processing contract were evaluated; what assumptions were made about each bid including assumptions about aspects not directly contained in the bids; if the cost of the redundancies to he paid for by his Department was added to the Sema bid; and if he will make a statement;

(5) if the evaluation process for the data processing contract covered all the services that were being undertaken on this work within his Department; and what adjustments were made in considering and comparing the bids for (a) the ED5 in-house team and (b) Sema to ensure an accurate comparison;

(6) what was the period of time between the submission to this Department of best and final offers for the data processing contract and the announcement of the decision; and what factors underlay the length of time of this interval.

Mr. Howard

In the market test of the Home Office administrative information technology services division—ED5—the final competition was between Sema Group plc and an in-house team, in association with a private sector partner. Other bidders had been eliminated at earlier stages of the market test. Following detailed negotiations with Sema Group plc and the in-house team, both submitted "best and final offer" bids which were received on 9 June 1994. Both these bidders were considered technically capable of providing the required services and their bids were compared on the basis of a final evaluation which showed that the Sema bid represented better value for money offering estimated annual savings of about £4.8 million.

The evaluation was undertaken on the basis of information put forward by the bidders in submitting their best and final offers. The evaluation covered all the services in the contract; other information technology supplies and services provided to the Home Office which are outside the scope of the contract are purchased separately.

In evaluating the offers, a number of adjustments were made to both bids to ensure that the total costs to the Home Office were being compared. The replies given to the hon. Member on 13 February, Official Report, columns 491–92, explained that details of bids and related evaluation arrangements are commercially confidential but the maximum potential costs to the Home Office of the transitional and restructuring costs in the Sema Group bid were used in the evaluation.

It took 40 days to evaluate the bids, including consideration by Ministers and officials, and arrange the announcement which was made on 19 July 1994.

The reply given to the hon. Member on 23 January at column 50 explained that with some limited exceptions staff in the undertaking were transferred to the Sema group. Subsequent redundancies are a matter for Sema plc who will meet the associated costs. Those staff in the undertaking who were redeployed before the transfer were found posts in the same grade elsewhere in the Department or in other Government Departments.