HS2 Works "Not Synchronised"

[LNW-GW Joint]

Mark Wild, the new CEO of HS2 Ltd, has made some pointed remarks to the Public Accounts Committee of the Commons in a hearing today.
Among them is a claim that HS2 started up the construction too early, and awarded contracts that left much risk with HS2 rather than the contractors.
He said that the project was "out of synchronism" and needed a new baseline programme.
That suggests the whole line might not be ready on the current dates (2029-33).

HS2 boss blames failure to control costs on rush to start work

Mark Wild says ‘fundamental reset’ needed, as Department for Transport admits it has no final cost estimate

www.theguardian.com

Speaking at a House of Commons public accounts committee hearing, Wild said HS2 had “systemic and enduring problems”, including contracts that passed the risk on to HS2 Ltd rather than the supply chain, and was still working to plans from 2019 rather than “an assured baseline that can be properly measured against”.
Wild said: “Construction started way too early. The rush to start before mature design consents was really, in retrospect, a mistake.” He added that HS2’s “activities are all out of synchronism – we must form a new baseline programme”.

In other submissions to the committee, it appears that space for more platforms than the six currently specified might be created in the new Euston project, to allow for future growth.
The full PAC hearing can be found on the parliament web site:

https://committees.parliament.uk/event/22392/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Unbelievable ( actually - come to think of it, totally believable)

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Mark Wild, the new CEO of HS2 Ltd, has made some pointed remarks to the Public Accounts Committee of the Commons in a hearing today.
Among them is a claim that HS2 started up the construction too early, and awarded contracts that left much risk with HS2 rather than the contractors.
He said that the project was "out of synchronism" and needed a new baseline programme.
That suggests the whole line might not be ready on the current dates (2029-33).

HS2 boss blames failure to control costs on rush to start work

Mark Wild says ‘fundamental reset’ needed, as Department for Transport admits it has no final cost estimate

www.theguardian.com

In other submissions to the committee, it appears that space for more platforms than the six currently specified might be created in the new Euston project, to allow for future growth.
The full PAC hearing can be found on the parliament web site:

https://committees.parliament.uk/event/22392/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/

Really a bad look on UK construction and the rail industry its not as if HS2 isn't stuffed full of consultants along with DfTs own oversight consultants to have kept tabs on this.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Really a bad look on UK construction and the rail industry its not as if HS2 isn't stuffed full of consultants along with DfTs own oversight consultants to have kept tabs on this.

Exactly. Just makes me sad and angry. As I said in the post above - unbelievable.

 

[Meerkat]

Do these consultants ever get held accountable ?

 

[Macwomble]

Do these consultants ever get held accountable ?

Nope.....only fat wallets.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Unbelievable ( actually - come to think of it, totally believable)

Agree it's absolutely on script.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Dec 2024 ==

Do these consultants ever get held accountable ?

No that is a sad fact. Generally a lot of consultants simply create work for themselves in their recommendations too. Not all! I've met some very good ones who really want to help and not make money. But enough are bad to be noticeable.

 

[Xavi]

Wild is conveniently avoiding the truth here. Stakeholder requirements reflected in the original scope were unrealistic, so contractors did their job and priced the risk. Treasury didn’t like the target numbers and would only sign off with the budget figures that suited its needs (forecasts). Works could therefore only commence with cost reimbursable contracts.

 

[stuu]

Do these consultants ever get held accountable ?

No. Because what they do is tell the client the facts and the client either pays attention or doesn't. In this case I can assure you 100% they didn't listen, and no, I'm not going to tell you how I know that, because I have a job

 

[Harpo]

“….post the Carillion failure the supply sector is extremely nervous about construction risk, but at the same time the client has been shuffling risk at the supply sector……You take the risk of the ground condition; You take the risk of all manner of things. If you are a contractor, you cannot take that risk. You have to insure it. If you insure it, you have to produce absolutely bombproof designs. In my book, that is called over-engineering. There is plenty of evidence on HS2 of over-engineering, as there is on the other projects going on in this country at the moment, such as the electrification projects and things like that.”

(Professor Andrew McNaughton a former Technical Director of HS2, at the House Of Commons Transport Committee, 8/11/23.)

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/13783/pdf/

 

[twpsaesneg]

No. Because what they do is tell the client the facts and the client either pays attention or doesn't. In this case I can assure you 100% they didn't listen, and no, I'm not going to tell you how I know that, because I have a job

This - 100%

If your client chooses not to listen to what you are telling them there's nothing you can do!

A recent example of this was the Second Sight computer investigation into the Post Office's Horizon system - the consultants didn't say what the PO wanted to hear so they ignored them.

 

[Yew]

awarded contracts that left much risk with HS2 rather than the contractors.

The risk doesn't disappear if you change the contract, the contract just gets more expensive, as the outsourcing company will cost that into their contract.

 

[Grimsby town]

No that is a sad fact. Generally a lot of consultants simply create work for themselves in their recommendations too. Not all! I've met some very good ones who really want to help and not make money. But enough are bad to be noticeable.

If you've gone into transport consultancy for the money then you're an idiot. You can make far more in other careers. Specialist transport consultancies have far lower charge out rates than the big four consultancies and transport consultancy is a very competitive so there aren't massive profits being made due to the need to bid low to win work.

 

[The Planner]

If you've gone into transport consultancy for the money then you're an idiot. You can make far more in other careers. Specialist transport consultancies have far lower charge out rates than the big four consultancies and transport consultancy is a very competitive so there aren't massive profits being made due to the need to bid low to win work.

Even the big boys don't charge horrendous amounts for the same reason.

 

[Harpo]

transport consultancy is a very competitive so there aren't massive profits being made due to the need to bid low to win work

Crikey! A bit of railway industry procurement that actually gets good competitive rates?

 

[Simon11]

Even the big boys don't charge horrendous amounts for the same reason.

Sorry, not really true. To support a project such as HS2/ GBR, in the mid-tier grade, a big firm will be charging nearly 1,500 a day for consultant services and more for senior Directors. Thanks to Government not being able to make a decision or changing their minds, most of the work went straight into the bin! What was really poor was that there was no proper accounting for the hours charged for the work and it was a free for all in terms of reporting hours (but of course they were being honest!).

Plus, while transport consultancy are much lower in terms of day rate, once a consultancy has got their foot in their door with a contract such as HS2; The key way to make money is to get as many consultants involved as possible across the whole project and get them to work on the project for as long and as many hours as possible. Thus when HS2 gets delayed, consultancies make more money and if the work is poor quality, HS2 get more desperate so they get more consultants to help HS2!

 

[Xavi]

To support GBR, in the mid-tier grade, a big firm was charging nearly 1,500 a day for consultant services and more for senior Directors

That's not an unreasonable price at all for the most senior people.

 

[YorkshireBear]

If you've gone into transport consultancy for the money then you're an idiot. You can make far more in other careers. Specialist transport consultancies have far lower charge out rates than the big four consultancies and transport consultancy is a very competitive so there aren't massive profits being made due to the need to bid low to win work.

Talking more about company culture than individuals here, appreciate I didn't make that clear.

I do agree with all the other points about clients not listening as well!

 

[Simon11]

That's not an unreasonable price at all for the most senior people.

Assuming 40 weeks worked at 35 hours a week, that is £300k per year for a mid-grade consultant who may have 10 years experience in the industry.

 

[The Planner]

Sorry, not really true. To support a project such as HS2/ GBR, in the mid-tier grade, a big firm will be charging nearly 1,500 a day for consultant services and more for senior Directors. Thanks to Government not being able to make a decision or changing their minds, most of the work went straight into the bin! What was really poor was that there was no proper accounting for the hours charged for the work and it was a free for all in terms of reporting hours (but of course they were being honest!).

Plus, while transport consultancy are much lower in terms of day rate, once a consultancy has got their foot in their door with a contract such as HS2; The key way to make money is to get as many consultants involved as possible across the whole project and get them to work on the project for as long and as many hours as possible. Thus when HS2 gets delayed, consultancies make more money and if the work is poor quality, HS2 get more desperate so they get more consultants to help HS2!

I can tell you now that timetable/ops planning etc is nowhere near 1500 a day.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Exactly. Just makes me sad and angry. As I said in the post above - unbelievable.

Have to say watching the permanent secretary performance at the committee its a wonder they are still in the job its pathetic. Of course Wild will want to kitchen sink the situation hes inherited but reckons he will need at least 12mths more like 15 to get a grip of things and come back to the committee with certainty on cost and schedule. Utterly unbelievable and people ignore at their peril how damaging this is to the rail industry credibility on big projects.

 

[HSTEd]

Well I don't think this is particularly surprising.

They do certainly seem to have let a lot of contracts very early (see the rolling stock!).

A cynic might suggest that they were desperate to make the project harder to cancel by commiting as much money as possible as soon as possible.

 

[higthomas]

Assuming 40 weeks worked at 35 hours a week, that is £300k per year for a mid-grade consultant who may have 10 years experience in the industry.

The consultant themselves won't be getting that salary though once days spent not on client projects, admin staff costs, employers NI, pension, company profits, rent, and other general costs are taken into account.

 

[43066]

Assuming 40 weeks worked at 35 hours a week, that is £300k per year for a mid-grade consultant who may have 10 years experience in the industry.

That doesn’t seem unreasonable, when their time is going to be charged out at several hundred pounds per hour.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Dec 2024 ==

The consultant themselves won't be getting that salary though once days spent not on client projects, admin staff costs, employers NI, pension, company profits, rent, and other general costs are taken into account.

Exactly.

 

[AndrewP]

No. Because what they do is tell the client the facts and the client either pays attention or doesn't. In this case I can assure you 100% they didn't listen, and no, I'm not going to tell you how I know that, because I have a job

Agreed - there are good and bad consultants but all consultants are limited by what their client contracts them to do and you can't go beyond this .

Consultants must also be managed so if they don't do what they should then they face the consequences

 

[CyrusWuff]

Unbelievable ( actually - come to think of it, totally believable)

Though it's to be hoped that Mark manages to turn HS2 around in the same way he turned the Crossrail project around during his tenure as CEO there. (Okay, I know it wasn't solely him, but you get the idea.)

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Though it's to be hoped that Mark manages to turn HS2 around in the same way he turned the Crossrail project around during his tenure as CEO there. (Okay, I know it wasn't solely him, but you get the idea.)

That certainly would be good and my high hope.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The main thing is that the DfT/Treasury clearly trusts him, unlike the previous management.

 

[Meerkat]

If the consultants are telling the truth where is the truth to fantasy gap? Is there a lack of professional knowledge on the government side, with decisions on whether to ignore the consultants being taken by career CS or politicians? Otherwise it is in HS2 as the client creating a fantasy for the DfT/politicians.
Where should the challenge be - some kind of audit that the truth is flowing from reality to decision making?

 

[Xavi]

There is plenty of evidence on HS2 of over-engineering

Because of the terms of the contracts drafted by external lawyers. Conveniently omitted by Wild.

Assuming 40 weeks worked at 35 hours a week, that is £300k per year for a mid-grade consultant who may have 10 years experience in the industry.

Where do you get mid-grade and 10 years from? £1500/day will typically be a salary of £130-160k which are the more senior delivery team members and directors in a traditional consultancy.

Management consultancies charge the more excessive rates which is ridiculous since their services are purely advice with no means of holding them to account.