3.17 The Authority aims to reduce the financial risk to the public purse associated with major projects and reduce the risk of not achieving value for money. Examples can include identifying more efficient ways to deliver a project (delivering it cheaper, quicker, or at higher quality) or recommending that a project is terminated where it is unlikely to deliver the intended outcome.
3.18 The Authority prioritises its resources by focusing assurance activity on a number of high-risk projects. It estimates that around 20 per cent of projects in the government major projects portfolio will take up around 75 per cent of staff time, with a more light touch applied to the remainder. For these lower-risk projects, departments must rely more on their own assurance.
3.19 The Authority is not best placed to use its resources optimally as it does not know the impact of its assurance on project outcomes. In our 2010 report, we recommended that government implemented a method to assess and report the impact of assurance on the portfolio, for time, cost and quality. This recommendation has not been implemented, although the Authority is now considering how it can track the benefits that result from its recommendations. Without data to show the types of impacts, for example change in cost profiles, which typically result from certain interventions in certain categories of projects, it runs additional risk of carrying out work that does not deliver the highest possible return to the taxpayer.