The Home Office opted for design, build and operate as the most flexible option to build the centre
6 The Home Office considered four procurement options: design, build and operate; a private finance initiative project9; a contract to operate the centre, assuming accommodation could be found; and design and build with a separate operations contract. These options were assessed against various factors, including cost, speed of delivery, and flexibility. The Home Office opted for design, build and operate because it felt this route offered potential for innovation, including an option to convert existing premises (if available); that overlapping design and construction should reduce the period to opening; and that it offered the greatest certainty in terms of price, because once the contract was signed, the private sector would carry construction risks.
7 The contract for the first centre was advertised in February 2002. More than 70 companies expressed an interest in bidding and in May 2002, 21 firms were invited to complete pre-qualification questionnaires.10 Following prequalification questionnaires in May 2002, the Department selected five prospective bidders, two of whom then merged, another withdrew, leaving three.
|
1 |
Applications received for asylum in the UK from 1987 to 2006 |
|
Source: Table 1.2 Applications received for asylum in the UK, initial decisions and percentages, Asylum Statistics, United Kingdom, 1997 and 2000, and paragraph 3.1, Control of Immigration Statistics, United Kingdom 2006 |
|
|
Notes 1 Includes dependants who applied with the principal applicant and those who arrived subsequently but before the principal application was decided. From 1997 to 2001 figures are estimated and rounded to the nearest 100. Figures from 2002 are based on actual data and rounded to the nearest 5. 2 May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices between January 1999 and March 2000. |
|
______________________________________________________________________________
9 The Home Office did not pursue a public finance initiative solution as it felt it would take too long to arrange finance. The project team also expressed the view that potential funders may not have been attracted to the project, because of the novelty of the concept and the political risk associated with a lengthy planning inquiry and subsequent judicial review.
10 Taken from commercial case section of business case 2, not validated by the NAO.