Comment

Sellafield: a complex programme the public sector cannot afford to keep at arm’s length

Given the Public Accounts Committee’s damning verdict last year on the Nuclear Management Partners consortium’s work at Sellafield, it is perhaps unsurprising that change had to follow. 

Antony Oliver, Infrastructure Intelligence editor

“Time-scales have slipped, costs have escalated substantially and reprocessing targets have been missed,” the PAC said. “NMP has not provided the clear leadership, strong management and improved capabilities needed to deliver the performance required at the site.”

This week’s government decision to terminate the £9bn deal and bring the client role back under public control is a major step designed to bring about a fresh start and new order to this complex project.

"As such the PAC’s criticisms certainly give the government a very good excuse to make this change. But reading between the lines there perhaps a few other reasons for the Sellafield shake up."

And there is no question that it is a hugely complex project, requiring dedication to the management of risk and safety and extraordinary technical skills to decommission and make safe some of the most dangerous environments on the planet.

But it is also a job that has been burning money over the last few years with the budget forecast appearing to grow year by year in response to escalating project scope.

As such the PAC’s criticisms certainly give the government a very good excuse to make this change. But reading between the lines there perhaps a few other reasons for the Sellafield shake up.

For a start, the 17-year Sellafield contract was let in 2008 as one of the UK’s biggest public procurement deals. However, it came just as similarly pioneering private procurement deals by London Underground with Metronet and Tubelines to manage the London Tube started to unravel. 

By 2010 London Underground had leaned many lessons and the whole system was passed back into public hands with the private sector brought in as contractors and project managers rather than the client.

This week’s decision could be seen, therefore, as Sellafield’s Metronet moment. The point when government realised that to adequately control its cost and programme it had to be in charge. No implied criticism, simply a realisation that to protect its assets the public sector is best off at the heart of activity rather than arm’s length.

"Process and control is certainly critical to delivering a programme such as that at Sellafield safely. But the client must also balance the need to drive the programme forward."

Secondly, while there is of course a highly skilled local workforce on site delivering the Sellafield programme, it will not have gone unnoticed that the partners in this consortium drew much management expertise from the US and France. 

And while in the global economy it is normal to mobilise staff from across the world, here we have a major opportunity for a long term public client to step up and invest in nurturing and training the next generation of home-grown talent. 

Government perhaps now realises that to manage this major multibillion pound programme of the work over the next several decades it must indeed step up as a client. 

And finally, as anecdotal evidence appears to suggest, while the use of a contracted private sector client body is certainly a way to enforce safety critical management in this dangerous environment, there is also the risk that an overly risk averse culture can develop.

Process and control is certainly critical to delivering a programme such as that at Sellafield safely. But the client must also balance the need to drive the programme forward. This latest change is, for better or worse, an opportunity that will prompt cultural change.

The next 15 months will see the transition after which we will know whether or not the decision reaps the benefits claimed or hinted between the lines. 

Regardless, it is clear that there is an opportunity for Sellafield to refocus and attract the best skills available to continue work on this critical national infrastructure asset with, as the PAC explained, “the clear leadership, strong management and improved capabilities needed”. 

Antony Oliver is the editor of Infrastructure Intelligence

If you would like to contact Antony Oliver about this, or any other story, please email antony.oliver@infrastructure-intelligence.com.