back to article MPs question value of canning Raytheon from e-borders

MPs have questioned the value of terminating the Home Office's £500m e-borders contract with its supplier Raytheon, with questions remaining as to whether the £303m spent on its in-house successor programme will deliver. In March the Home Office finally agreed to hand over £150m to defence company Raytheon over the dispute …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Early on there was a difference in expectations in how contract would have run

    Yes, the government had an expectation (not based on experience) that the system would work. Raytheon had an expectation that they could ream out the tax payer whilst delivering nothing.

    And here's a thought for the arseholes responsible: If the £1.1bn was generally spent on people (given there's diddly squat hardware), and the average salary of all involved were £60k, then there has been EIGHTEEN FUCKING THOUSAND MAN YEARS pissed up the wall, with nothing to show for it.

    Bring back the death penalty, say I.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "maybe we should have spent more time understanding HO and how they operated. Early on there was a difference in expectations in how contract would have run."

    What, when they're only paying you a few measly hundred million for the project? Gee, they's have to pay me at least £2billion before I was prepared to go to the customer and truly understand the project, you're too much of a soft touch.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Procurement question

    Does a supplier go into a large government project thinking about the delivery of a fully working system that meets all requirements or do they go in thinking about how long it will take for the contract to be aborted and penalties claim?

    A serious but rhetorical question.

    1. david 12

      Re: Procurement question

      Does a customer go into a contract thinking "I'll just leave it all up to the contractor to decide what I want"?

      A rhetorical but serious question.

  4. Amorous Cowherder


    £1bn...they could have hired more security staff to look over mass surv data they're collecting and maybe nab more "bad guys", at least then we'd have something useful to show for all that dosh piss up the wall!

  5. annodomini2


    "However, Flint noted that given the costs of writing off the contract, the legal fees and the subsequent costs paid to Raytheon, restructuring the programme rather than terminating it may have been more in the taxpayer's interest.

    Homer said the reason the Raytheon contract was terminated rather reset was due to the costs involved of doing so, a move which risked taking the lifetime costs beyond the Treasury envelope of £1.1bn."

    Unfortunately Raytheon wasn't on one of our controlling MP's buddies list, so they scrapped it and gave it to one of their mates.

    Not our money after all.

  6. Gene Cash Silver badge

    "actually in line with the department's original estimates"

    AKA "we told ya so, then you demanded we crank the numbers"

  7. Bumpy Cat

    Lin Homer?

    How is it that someone with such a record of uselessness and incompetence moves from one cushy sinecure to another?!

    1. MT Field

      Re: Lin Homer?

      It's all in the handshake

    2. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge

      Re: Lin Homer?

      Will probably end up in the Lords in the not too distant future

    3. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge

      Re: Lin Homer?

      How is it that someone with such a record of uselessness and incompetence moves from one cushy sinecure to another?!

      That would be the modern "Homer's Odyssey"

      (For those who think that's a bit Greek, see

    4. Doctor_Wibble

      Re: Lin Homer?

      My own theory is that Lin Homer is a secretly officially designated 'professional scapegoat', or at least is seen as someone willing to take all the flak for whatever she is assigned to.

      And I have absolutely no idea if that is a compliment or an insult but I suspect I mean it as a bit of both but not in the way that involves a zombie cat in a box.

      Mr Specs cos it's teknikle theory stuff and a clever quantum z-nation crossover thingy.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    £35m it spent on legal fees

    not bad, not bad at all. Might have been less, if they hadn't outsourced the lawyers...

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    Raytheon. Crikey...

    Their name keeps coming up in relation to screwed-up major projects.

    Probably too much 'Planning', too much 'Risk Management', too much 'Performance Metrics', and not enough 'working on the damn project'. I've seen it before...

  10. theOtherJT

    If you've got 1.1bn to spend...

    Then surely the smart thing to do is spin up an entirely new company for the duration of the project? Hire a project manager, get them to hire a senior staff, get them to recruit some programmers. Do absolutely everything in-house and if it does all go sideways you can just dissolve the company and make everyone redundant without it costing 35 million in lawyers and hundreds more million in "Contract termination fees"

    Who the hell is negotiating these contracts anyway?

    1. Loud Speaker

      Re: If you've got 1.1bn to spend...

      Who the hell is negotiating these contracts anyway?

      And why have they not been set to the Tower?

  11. Mike Shepherd

    Don't worry, Mr Lamb...'s only public money!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021