Transparency data
CO Government Major Project Portfolio data, September 2019 (csv)
Updated 9 July 2020
Download CSV 32.3 KB
| GMPP ID Number | CO_0020_1718-Q4 | CO_0018_1617-Q3 | CO_0019_1617-Q4 | CO_0014_1516-Q2 | CO_0015_1516-Q2 | CO_0023_1920-Q1 | CO_0022_1819-Q4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project Name | Commercial Capability Expansion Programme | Common Technology Services | Government as a Platform | Government Hubs Programme | GOV UK Verify | Transforming CCS | Transforming Government Security |
| Department | CO | CO | CO | CO | CO | CO | CO |
| Description / Aims | Improve commercial capability across central government and the wider public bodies sector by expanding capability building interventions applied to commercial specialists (at Grade 6 and above) into new target populations. | Enabling Government to transform the way Civil Servants work by supporting departments during the adoption of modern, flexible and secure technology that will increase their efficiency and deliver value for money. | Development of common platforms for use by digital services across government to avoid duplication of effort. | The Government Hubs Programme will consolidate and modernise the government's office estate, creating an office network that supports smarter working and great places to work. | A new way to prove who you are online and for public service providers to be assured you are who you say you are | The Transforming CCS programme will encompass both digital delivery and organisational transformation to deliver the transformation vision that will transition CCS into a digitally enabled organisation that puts the customer at the heart of everything it does. | Improve security outcomes by raising minimum standards, provide clarity for security across HMG, provide governance and security leadership to enable a better understanding and management of the threats and risks to government and its assets. |
| IPA Delivery Confidence Assessment (A Delivery Confidence Assessment of the project at a fixed point in time, using a five-point scale, Red – Amber/Red – Amber – Amber/Green – Green; definitions in the IPA Annual Report on Major Projects) | Amber/Red | Amber/Green | Amber/Green | Amber | Red | Amber | Amber/Green |
| Departmental commentary on actions planned or taken on the IPA RAG rating. | The IPA Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) was Amber/Red, which has not changed since last year’s Q2 1819 Amber/Red, due primarily to the following factors; - Our programme reported Amber RAG status for the majority of 2018/19 - however, it went back down to Amber/Red in Q1 2019/20. This was mainly due to the stakeholder engagement challenges presented by Brexit - both within central government departments and Wider Government Bodies. Departments had limited ability to engage in capability building intervention due to having other Brexit pressing priorities - Uncertainty around long term funding within Contract Management space was another key risk which impacted our DCA during this period - Our DCA improved to Amber in Q3 19/20 - the G7 Commercial Leads project successfully closed on 30/11/19 with a Green RAG status and the programme was now working towards revised targets for Wider Government Bodies project, approved at the June 2019 Programme Board, in light of better customer insight. The programme's RAG status moved to Amber/Green as of March 2020 Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber/Red IPA DCA, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - The main external factors impacting our programme DCA were Brexit and funding issues within Contract Management space, both of which were outside of programme's control Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber/Red IPA DCA, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - The engagement strategy for the Wider Government Bodies project was refreshed to help improve engagement with Wider Government Bodies. This included issuing a letter from our Senior Responsible Owner to encourage support from Permanent Secretaries and the piloting of Contract Management Foundation training to Wider Government Bodies as an incentive to take up other commercial capability services. - A paper to revise some of our programme targets (particularly in relation to Wider Government Bodies), in light of a better understanding of organisational pressures and requirements, was tested with our key stakeholders through our governance and endorsed through our change control process. The revised targets were approved at June 2019 Programme Board - At a programme level we structured ourselves in a more customer focused manner by better utilising our account managers across the whole programme to improve engagement - with a particular focus within Contract Management space. | The IPA Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) was Amber/Green, which has improved since last year’s Q2 1819 Amber, due primarily to the following factors; - Good progress was made on the key success criteria in this period. Particularly strong was the increased adoption and usage of GovWifi during this period. This resulted in an improvement of the RAG based on adoption progress and decreased risk Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber/Green IPA DCA, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - Covid-19 had an impact from March 2020. Usage and adoption of GovWifi shrank markedly due to Civil Servants largely working from home - Covid-19 had an impact from March 2020. Some staff were off sick with Covid-19 and others had to care for others with Covid-19. By March 2020 end, it was too early to ascertain the impact of Covid-19 fully, so that the status is still Amber/Green Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber/Green IPA DCA, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - Greater team efficiency and process improvements resulted in some increases in productivity - Building more effective pipelines of adopting services has resulted in increased adoption and programme benefits. | The IPA Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) was Amber/Green, which has improved since last year’s Q2 1819 Amber, due primarily to the following factors; - GDS continued to make good progress against the objectives of the programme. Adoption of GDS GaaP services remained above target, and a solid pipeline of future services to onboard was fulfilled, and continues to be refreshed. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber/Green IPA DCA, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - Covid-19 had an impact from March 2020. Some staff were off sick with Covid-19 and others had to care for others with Covid-19. By March 2020 end, it was too early to ascertain the impact of Covid-19 fully, so that the status is still Amber/Green - EU Exit work has had some impact, with recruitment being slower (due to EU Exit priorities elsewhere) into the GaaP teams. EU Exit work in other departments may also have also been a factor in some GaaP service adoptions being delayed Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber/Green IPA DCA, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - Greater team efficiency and process improvements resulted in some increases in productivity - Building more effective pipelines of adopting services has resulted in increased adoption and programme benefits. | The IPA Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) was Amber, which has not changed since last year’s Q2 1819 Amber, due primarily to the following factors; - The Government Hubs Programme remains at the concept stage as there is no approved Programme Business Case (PBC). Due to Spending Review 2019 being cancelled by the newly formed Government, GPA were unable to present the PBC to HMT & CO for approval to secure the mandate and funding for the programme - The Gov Hubs programme has continued to develop the programme level artefacts including the PBC, draft mandate and in the meantime secured funding via a HMT Reserve Claim to progress three live projects Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber IPA DCA, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - The cancellation of SR19 has limited the freedom the Gov Hubs programme can operate within, however the submission and part approval of a HMT Reserve Claim has secured funding for FY 2021 on those critical time sensitive projects - Financially the programme, like Capital Projects as a Directorate, is yet to establish itself and how it is able to fund the full GPA support capability. This is having an impact on the smooth planning & resourcing of projects at this stage Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber IPA DCA, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - Since Q2 1920, progress on Birmingham 2 and Peterborough projects has been steady and roughly to schedule and budget. Croydon 2 secured HMT approval for an Agreement for Lease (AfL) in late March 20, providing the SRO with confidence that the programme is operating albeit at initial operating capability capacity - The Capital Projects PMO are gaining in capability and confidence and new or improved processes are being brought forward to support project & programme delivery. In the nascent period of establishing the Hubs programme, some new policy is being written as projects break new ground and this will be helpful for those projects that follow. | The IPA Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) was Red, which has not changed since last year’s Q2 1819 Red, due primarily to the following factors; - GDS has made significant progress against the programme's objectives: following the appointment of a new SRO in March 2019; by reinvigorating its Board; and through more detailed internal planning and cross-government cooperation - GDS has continued to run securely the Verify system, on which 22 online government services rely, and has increased substantially its number of user Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Red IPA DCA, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - Quarter four witnessed a very significant increase in demand for Verify services, driven by the COVID-19 pandemic; for instance, around 300,000 new Verify identities were created in the second half of March 2020, compared to an average of about 35,000 per week pre-COVID Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Red IPA DCA, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - In quarter four, GDS worked rapidly with its identity providers and with government services to respond successfully to the unprecedented increase in demand for Verify; this included scaling up capacity, rolling out new functionality, and improving the user journey. | The IPA Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) was Amber, due primarily to the following factors; - There had been a period of mobilisation following the business case approval in April and the Programme was in the early stages of it's delivery lifecycle. - The programme would be delivering critical new infrastructure to support ambitious growth plans for CCS. Formalised governance was established but further planning was needed across the programme to improve delivery confidence Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber IPA DCA, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - The DCA currently remains AMBER due to the scope of transformation required for CCS - The COVID-19 risk may impact future DCA ratings. Whilst the Programme is still a priority for CCS, resource and time for engagement with CCS Staff will need to be prioritised onto the COVID-19 response which will result in some of the Transform strategy work being slowed or paused Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber IPA DCA, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - Additional project and digital delivery resources have been employed including contracting with a delivery partner to create a multidisciplinary team alongside business and digital stakeholders across all parts of CCS. - Key decisions have been made regarding the digital delivery approach for the critical components of the new digital solution which resulted in additional clarity about the complexity and schedule for delivery. | The IPA Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) was Amber/Green, due primarily to the following factors; - No change to the Amber/Green delivery confidence rating given in Q2. The Programme was in a good place due to recent, positive action to reset the strategic direction and the Programme was on track to deliver. The IPA ratified this delivery confidence in September. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber/Green IPA DCA, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - There were no external factors (better or worse) to impact the delivery of the TGS Programme Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) Amber/Green IPA DCA, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 IPA DCA; - There were no internal factors (better or worse) to impact the delivery of the TGS Programme |
| Project - Start Date (Latest Approved Start Date) | 01/04/2017 | 01/04/2016 | 31/12/2015 | 01/05/2015 | 01/04/2012 | 01/04/2019 | 01/10/2016 |
| Project - End Date (Latest Approved End Date) | 31/03/2020 | 31/03/2020 | 31/03/2020 | 31/03/2036 | 31/03/2020 | 31/03/2022 | 01/04/2020 |
| Departmental narrative on schedule, including any deviation from planned schedule (if necessary) | The scheduled baseline project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 31/03/20 has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 date of 31/03/20, due primarily to the following factors; - In March 2018 the Civil Service Board endorsed proposals to increase the scope of the Contract Management element of the programme from the top 500 contract managers (managing gold contracts) to all contract managers (managing gold, silver or bronze contracts). The end date was originally 31/3/2020 - but was revised to 31/03/2022 following this scope increase. - Following the Civil Service Board on 13/11/19, it has been agreed (subject to departments having the ability to require this, otherwise reliant on 'best practice / comply or explain') that Wider Government Bodies with over £100m annual 3rd party spend must ensure: - all new commercial appointees at Grade 7 and above to be accredited from April 2020; and - all their commercial staff at Grade 7 and above are accredited by March 2022 - The Wider Government Bodies project team are now working towards achieving these new targets within revised timelines. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 31/03/2020, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - Departments experienced challenges in identifying their full target Contract Management populations and as a result, the progress made in the Contract Management space has been slower than originally anticipated. Brexit has impacted departments in their ability to put the identified individuals through learning and assessment - having to prioritise Brexit related work. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 31/03/2020, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - Endorsement of new targets for Wider Government Bodies project: i) for all new commercial appointees at Grade 7 and above to be accredited from April 2020; and ii) all their commercial staff at Grade 7 and above are accredited by March 2022. - Endorsement of a recommendation that Accounting Officers should maintain a register of 'gold' and 'silver' contracts within their Department - including a named individual accredited contract owner. | The scheduled baseline project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 31/03/20, has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 date of 31/03/20, due primarily to the following factors; - At both FY Q2s, the project was largely on track to complete the programme's benefits, and be in a position to inform both GDS's strategic direction and future Business Cases for CTS and related services. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 31/03/20, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - See factors in the above response to 'Departmental Narrative 1 - Actions planned or taken on the IPA RAG rating'. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 31/03/20, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - As per the above responses, Covid-19 has directly and indirectly impacted the project. | The scheduled baseline project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 31/03/20, has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 date of 31/03/20, due primarily to the following factors; - At both FY Q2s, the project was largely on track to complete the programme's benefits, and be in a position to inform both GDS's strategic direction and future Business Cases for GaaP and related services Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 31/03/20, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - Covid-19 has directly and indirectly impacted the project. | The scheduled baseline project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 31/03/36, has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 date of 31/03/36, due primarily to the following factors; - In the absence of an approved PBC and Mandate, work continues on the individual projects with no impact on the overall programme timeline. - The end date will not be reviewed until the latest iteration of the PBC is completed and approved. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 31/03/36, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - No change. | The scheduled baseline project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 31/03/20, has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 date of 31/03/20, due primarily to the following factors; - The end date has changed. Given the increase in COVID-driven demand and government services' short-term dependency on Verify, the Chief Secretary to HM Treasury agreed to extend Verify operations up to the end of September 2021. This was confirmed in a written ministerial statement on 29 April 2020 (see https://www.parliament. uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2020-04-29/HCWS217/). | The scheduled project end date at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is 31/03/22, due primarily to the following factors; - The end date is derived from the approved business case underpinned by a live delivery plan and the project end date remains the same. - The planning and recruitment for digital delivery had taken longer than planned but development was underway on the prioritised tactical solutions and design work had commenced on the new scalable digital solution. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 31/03/22, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - The end date remains as stated in the approved business case, with investment funding being secured for FY20/21 Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 31/03/22, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - The project end date remains the same. - On-going investment has been endorsed by the CCS Board for 20/21 to continue to enhance project delivery capability to support successful delivery - Release schedules for the 3 main components of the digital solution have now been defined and agreed, with the first release due Q3 2020. | The scheduled project end date at Q2 19-20 (30th September 2019) is 01/04/20, due primarily to the following factors; - A transition year (Phase 2) was agreed at the Government Security Steering Board, and the programme extended by a further year, with additional £8m funding from the National Cyber Security Programme (NCSP) assigned, which was confirmed in January 2020. Phase One of the Programme ended on 31 March 2020. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 01/04/20, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - There were no external factors (better or worse) to impact the delivery of the TGS Programme Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) baseline project end date of 01/04/20, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline project end date; - There were no internal factors (better or worse) to impact the delivery of the TGS Programme |
| Financial Year Baseline (£m) (including Non-Government Costs) | £2.30 | £4.96 | £17.00 | £19.08 | £3.00 | £8.23 | £12.50 |
| Financial Year Forecast (£m) (including Non-Government Costs) | £3.13 | £1.30 | £12.00 | £19.08 | £17.90 | £7.85 | £12.50 |
| Financial Year Variance (%) | 36% | -74% | -29% | 0% | 497% | -5% | 0% |
| TOTAL Baseline Whole Life Costs (£m) (including Non-Government Costs) | £11.70 | £44.19 | £90.00 | £564.10 | £206.10 | £28.34 | £31.04 |
| Departmental narrative on budget/forecast variance for 2018/19 (if variance is more than 5%) | The 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) of 36%, is due primarily to the following factors; - The 0.83m in year variance simply reflects the slight increase in this years budget. The original budget plan for the 19/20 excluded overheads such as estate costs but these were included as part of the actual 2019/20 budget bid. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance of 36%, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance; - Increase of the Government Commercial Function Communications budget - enabling to bring together members of the function, sharing best practice and ability to build on the ethos of a cross-government function - The increased budget also included delivery of Government Commercial Function Blueprints within central government departments - allowing HM Treasury, Permanent Secretaries and the Government Commercial Organisation to have a visibility of departments 3 year commercial plans Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance of 36%, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 19/20 in-year variance; - The Grade 7 Commercial Leads programme was delayed in 2018/19 and the green light for the project to go ahead was only given in 2019/20 by HM Treasury. This impacted the 2019/20 original forecast budget. | The 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) of -74%, is due primarily to the following factors; - Fewer new CTS products and services have been developed over the life of the programme than were envisaged in the original baseline so whole life costs are lower Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance of -74%, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance; - This variance has stayed largely unchanged Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance of -74%, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 19/20 in-year variance; - The variance figure has stayed broadly static in this period. Recruitment times, attrition rates, and an active effort to replace contractors with permanent staff have provided minor variation | The 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) of -29%, is due primarily to the following factors; - Fewer new GaaP products have been developed over the life of the programme than were envisaged in the original baseline so whole life costs are lower Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance of -29%, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original Q2 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance; - This variance has stayed largely unchanged Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance of -29%, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 19/20 in-year variance; - The variance figure has stayed broadly the same in this period - Recruitment times, attrition rates, and an active effort to replace contractors with permanent staff have provided minor variation. | Budget variance less than 5% | The 19/20 in-year baseline / forecast variance at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) of 47%, is due primarily to the following factors; - The in-year variance is largely due to: the cost of identity creation not becoming cost neutral to GDS; and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which led many more people than predicted to create and use Verify accounts to access government services online. | Budget variance less than 5% | Budget variance less than 5% |
| Departmental Narrative on Budgeted Whole Life Costs | The baseline Whole Life Cost at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is £11.70 m, has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 (£m) baseline Whole Life Cost of £11.70 m, due primarily to the following factors; - The baseline for the whole life cost remained the same. This is primarily due to: i) introduction of stronger internal controls and processes in 2018/19 to account for all projects accurately and manage budgets closely; ii) recruitment of finance team between January - May 2018, strengthening our finance structure to provide the necessary support to the Capability Programme; iii) effective management of financial risks in line with the principles outlined in Orange Book - 'Management of Risks, Principles and Concepts Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £11.70 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original baseline Q2 Whole Life Cost; - There is no variance to the original baseline Whole Life Cost. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £11.70 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline Whole Life Cost; - There is no variance to the original baseline Whole Life Cost. | The baseline Whole Life Cost at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is £44.19 m, has increased by £0.23 m since last year's Q2 1819 (£m) baseline Whole Life Cost of £43.96 m, due primarily to the following factors; - The baseline should not have risen, but has no material impact given the size of the underspend (see above for underspend and baseline reasoning) Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £44.19 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original baseline Q2 Whole Life Cost; - The baseline should not have risen, but has no material impact given the size of the underspend (see above for underspend and baseline reasoning) Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £44.19 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline Whole Life Cost; - The baseline should not have risen, but has no material impact given the size of the underspend (see above for underspend and baseline reasoning) | The baseline Whole Life Cost at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is £90.00 m, has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 (£m) baseline Whole Life Cost of £90.00 m, due primarily to the following factors; - The baseline is unchanged as no relevant factors (new Business Case etc.) have occurred in this time period. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £90.00 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline Whole Life Cost; - The baseline is unchanged as no relevant factors (new Business Case etc.) have occurred in this time period (and the question is N/A) | The baseline Whole Life Cost at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is £564.10 m, has not changed since last year's Q2 1819 (£m) baseline Whole Life Cost of £564.10 m, due primarily to the following factors; - No new business case Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £564.10 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original baseline Q2 Whole Life Cost; - Further work on the impact of inflation will need to be modelled Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £564.10 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline Whole Life Cost; - No new business case | The baseline Whole Life Cost at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is £206.10 m, has decreased by £3.50 m since last year's Q2 1819 (£m) baseline Whole Life Cost of £209.60 m, due primarily to the following factors; - The whole life cost is consistent with the previously-approved baseline and, understandably, is being reviewed following the Chief Secretary's decision to extend Verify operations up to September 2021. | The baseline Whole Life Cost at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is £28.34 m, due primarily to the following factors; - Whole life costs show the 3 year programme costs. This is without optimism bias. The initial two year cost of the programme had been included within the CCS Business Plan and Budget 2019/20 to 2020/21 - Design and delivery approach decisions were being reviewed and further planning was underway to confirm the prioritisation for delivery in 20/21 Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £28.34 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original baseline Q2 Whole Life Cost; - As a Trading Fund the CCS Board has approved the FY20/21 budget and validated that programme costs are within the boundaries of affordability - Investment prioritization at CCS Portfolio level is under review to mitigate any impacts of the COVID-19 risk on CCS growth objectives Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £28.34 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline Whole Life Cost; - The forecasted costs were reduced in Q3 19/20 as delivery timescales within the year became clear and some elements of delivery were refined and re-prioritised for delivery in 20/21 - FY20/21 budget and business case have been reviewed and approved in Q4 19/20 in-line with latest delivery plans | The baseline Whole Life Cost at Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) is £31.04 m, due primarily to the following factors; - For 2019/20 the programme has recorded an overspend of 1%. This is this a direct consequence of the reallocation of funds from the Central Teams funding to support the CoE pilot delivery. We have also met regularly with the National Cyber Security Programme (NCSP), our funding source, keeping them fully informed. Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £31.04 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following non-project operating environment activities have impacted the original baseline Q2 Whole Life Cost; - There were no external factors (better or worse) to impact the delivery of the TGS Programme Since the Q2 1920 (30th September 2019) £31.04 m baseline Whole Life Cost, the following primary project actions have impacted the original Q2 baseline Whole Life Cost; - There were no internal factors (better or worse) to impact the delivery of the TGS Programme |
| Annual Report Category | Government Transformation and Service Delivery | Government Transformation and Service Delivery | ICT | Government Transformation and Service Delivery | ICT | Government Transformation and Service Delivery | Government Transformation and Service Delivery |
| The IPA Annual Report publishes the whole life cycle costs on projects, based on figures from their Business Cases, whilst the National Infrastructure and Construction Pipeline (NICP) focuses primarily on the upfront capital investment on a project. Where both documents refer to the same projects, this distinction will be the principal reason for any differences in the data sets published. Other government publications may use different methodologies to derive cost figures | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set | Not set |