Value for money

On a three year deal they will get seriously screwed on cost, unless they go for a your mess for less deal with no improvement,be cheaper to extend the incumbent.

If the shoe FiTS.

Looks to me like the companies that were doing the work have ran out of time, and they now have to face that the government's changed, and they're bribing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H lobbying, the wrong party.

My MP said that the government was committed to delivering projects that work after I said they would rather IT projects fail (after an election,) so long as they employ lots of collateral people on the side who remain in a job until after that election, instead of making three really competent people millionaires and delivering the project in months.

I'd therefore love to go for this, but just know that no matter how many of my very competent colleagues I got on board, we wouldn't have sufficiently good diversity policy, maternity policy, employ local people policy, renewables policy, and we'd then be forced to employ loads of single mothers, old people, care in the community types, and women with degrees in ecologically friendly gender studies to write a policy paper on "why the patriarchy created the phrase work life balance to identify the part timer layabouts"

(Why do diversity officers get paid so much out of interest? What else can they do? Would you trust one to fix your boiler, or even clean the office?)

Who will take bets that a big company will get it, and Tory government ministers will get non executive directorships there in a decade or so?