3.9 The contractors' proposed testing solution involved vehicles being examined at four main stages, with the requirement for DVTA examiners to carry out manual inspections at the final stage (see Appendix 3). Because of the innovative nature of the proposed vehicle testing solution, DVTA had pressed the contractors, during negotiations, to demonstrate that its concept could deliver the required outputs. The contractors agreed to equip and operate a pilot test centre with the equipment for a six-month development period, following contract signature, in order to establish whether or not the equipment could achieve the level of productivity required. In the event that its feasibility was not demonstrated adequately, the contract terms allowed either party to withdraw, before full-scale implementation.
3.10 Testing undertaken at the pilot centre, between April and September 2001, indicated that it was possible for a car/light goods vehicle test to be completed in 18 minutes. However, because the equipment was not configured in the manner in which it would be used at the actual test centres, there were a number of important differences between the test environment and subsequent, 'live' operation, including:
• vehicles were examined individually, instead of the continuous flow process that would operate in an actual test centre. Consequently, waiting times that could occur when a queue of vehicles developed at the four different stages of a test lane, were not apparent (see Appendix 3);
• testing was carried out on relatively new vehicles, which probably had fewer defects than many of those typically requiring an MOT test; and
• some IT requirements, such as the printing of test results and certificates, had not been fully developed and were not tested.
3.11 In our view, these limitations meant that the pilot centre testing fell short of establishing that the full testing process could be completed and sustained in a live environment within the 18 minutes required by the contract. DVTA officials highlighted the potential to the contractors for particular problems arising when testing was conducted in a live environment. However, DVTA took the view that it had transferred the full risk for achieving an 18-minute test to the contractors (see paragraph 1.9) and, on this basis, it decided to proceed with full-scale implementation of the project. The contractors told us that they had accepted the full risk for the equipment, but not the staff operating it. This fundamental difference of opinion as to which party is responsible for inability to achieve the contract test times has been a significant factor in the unresolved difficulties that materialised shortly after the commencement of live operations (see paragraph 1.13).