A third supplier has dropped out of the process to become a prime contractor for the National Identity Scheme.
Steria joins BAE Systems and Accenture — which cited political and commercial reasons — in retiring from the race to become a main supplier to the Identity and Passport Service's multi-billion pound procurement. The remaining potential contractors are CSC, EDS, Fujitsu, IBM and Thales.
Kable understands that Steria decided to end its bid after a review of the framework procurement process, but is still interested in acting as a sub-contractor.
"This is not a problem," said an Identity and Passport Service spokesperson, adding it was not unusual to see market consolidation in such a procurement. "We have had a very healthy level of interest from high-calibre suppliers, and this is precisely why we have run the competitive dialogue over the last few months, to make sure we have the right suppliers in the right roles."
"We are now set to issue invitations to tender next month and expect to award the framework contract in May to four or five prime suppliers," the spokesperson added. "Those suppliers can choose to supplement their capabilities with sub-contractors, and there could also be other contracts procured outside the framework which other firms would also be able to bid for."
However, Philippe Martin, senior analyst at Kable, said this was a further setback for the procurement. "This is very bad news," he said, as three potential contractors have now decided against taking responsibility for the scheme.
Steria's decision also further reduces the level of competition within the procurement, which was originally meant to result in six lead contractors. However, Martin added that the Identity and Passport Service could use this to speed up the process if it wished.
Talkback
The good bit is that it makes the whole thing look even more hare brained and half cocked than it did yesterday .. which in itself is a fairly stunning thing to be able say.
The bad bit though, is that if that shortlist shortens to one before they get to stage two, we will potentially pay even more for whatever they do decide to do, due to a lack of commercial competition.
Just as well all the players have 100% success and satisfaction records.
It gives us such confidence in the government's ability to get it right.
This will probably be the first project to be completed to spec, on time and under budget.
First they lost the support of the public with all those data scandals (51% of the population are against I.D cards) and now even the corporate world is turning its back on the scheme. Why does the government still persist?!
apparently they see a narrowing field as a good thing but the way these contracts work, the contractor sets the price; in which case, less competition means they can charge the government whatever they want.
Will this be justifiable in the end?
Was it even justifiable when it was still just a proposal? :-)
I'm having difficulty in understanding whether you are being sarcastic or literal, not actually knowing the track record of (most of) the remaining contractors.
.. that this is deep DEEP sarcasm ;-)
From your message do I detect a slight wavering in your belief in their statements?
We constantly are told that Government IT projects are a success even if slightly behind schedule and slightly over budget and may not actually do what the initial spec required. But they are always successful.
I just had to sign on but was told I had to be processed manually as the IT system still couldn't cope with people in my age range. The issue "had been a known problem for years but was still not sorted." I also had to show the chap how to fill the screen in as "Married" is no longer a status. So much for family values!