Something fascinates me
I find utterly mesmerizing that they couldn't be arsed to properly plan the cost of the initial project, but they know that continuing would have cost 97 million more than settling.
How did they know that it wouldn't have cost 397 million more ?
Because given the regular cost bloat of government contracts, ANY project is going to overrun in the tens of millions, if not hundreds.
So could someone please explain how the UK Government, who couldn't get a budget right if their life depended on it, can foresee an exact cost figure compared to a settlement ?
Stupid question, I know. They just picked a reasonable one backed by whoever is the friend of the day.
Carry on !
Biting the hand that feeds IT
