Recommendation 14

We asked the Home Office why it had not submitted to competition five of the contracts relating to the new sites, worth £243 million of the £253 million it had spent through contracts. The Home Office told us that it used framework agreements for some 18 Q 159; HM Treasury, Dear Accounting Officer Letter – Parliamentary Communications, 16 January 2024 19 Qq 179, 203; C&AG’s Report, Asylum accommodation, Figure 5 and Figure 6 20 Qq 166–167; C&AG’s Report, Asylum accommodation, Figure 7 21 Qq 170–173, 177, 198, 202 12 Asylum Accommodation and UK-Rwanda partnership contracts, which would have had a competition for the initial framework. It again justified this approach because there was an “emergency” and it needed to operate as quickly as possible.22 We have previously reported how competition can help support efficiency, innovation, and quality in public services, but that while framework agreements had become the most prevalent route for government to buy goods, inappropriate use of frameworks may lead to competition being limited by having insufficient suppliers for a mini competition.23 In the case of the contract for procuring the Bibby Stockholm vessel, there was only one supplier on the framework used, which meant there was no opportunity for competition. The Home Office also outlined how it had amended some existing contracts with providers, but that these contracts included checks and balances, such as a profit cap over which the suppliers have to return a certain amount of profit, and that the profits are regularly reviewed. The Home Office suggested that setting up new contracts “would have added risk”. We asked for assurance that when these contracts come to an end there will be an opportunity that they will be properly fully competed. While the Home Office said this would be the case, it caveated that this would be “where time permits”.24