1.15 In its Invitation to Tender the Home Office stated its accommodation requirements rather than specifying a solution. This meant that it was left open to bidders to come up with any alternative accommodation options. At the later stage when the no-temporary decant solution was sought, the Home Office's property advisers had identified potential buildings in the vicinity with planning consent so the Home Office was aware that it may have the opportunity to explore these options. They were:
■ Potential availability of a leasehold office building at Waterloo. This option was rejected by the then Home Secretary on the grounds that its location was unsuitable as it was too far from the Palace of Westminster; and
■ Land Securities' proposed scheme at Stag Place. The main block was expected to be approximately four-fifths of the size of 2 Marsham Street and the rent was anticipated to be more expensive at £550-600 per m2 per annum. It was also less convenient to the Palace of Westminster.
The Home Office did not consider relocating to outside central London. This was because of the need to remain geographically close to Ministers.
1.16 The Office of Government Commerce has expressed the view that at the time the Home Office were considering viable options, property rental values in central London were high. This meant that re-using existing government freeholds and leaseholds was more likely to provide value for money for the Exchequer than leasing or purchasing alternative sites. Nevertheless, the Home Office wanted to market test this and it was clear that bidders could have come forward with alternative solutions.