6 The Bureau was intended to start operations in September 2001 but a series of difficulties delayed commencement until March 2002. The timetable proved ambitious with twelve months for both the Agency and Capita to develop systems and processes, recruit and train staff, market the service and set up financial arrangements. There was a delay of seven months in the Bureau's operational start, caused by problems in business and technical development and the decision to conduct more extended testing and piloting prior to the start of live operations.
7 The three final bids received differed significantly on timescale, price and proposed mix of application channels. The Capita bid was much lower than those of competitors. One of the competitors' bids raised questions about the realism of the timetable, while another assumed a different application channel mix. Capita gave assurances, however, that they could meet the timescale; and that their business model was sound, met the Agency's specifications and assumptions and therefore that the service could be delivered for the price. These assumptions were also checked by the Agency's independent consultants and appropriate due diligence was undertaken.
8 Weaknesses in the business assumptions made at the start of the project, and in the delivery of systems to process all types of application, were key factors in the Bureau's problems. In particular, the Agency assumed that between 70 and 85 per cent of people would apply by telephone to a call centre and others would apply online. Both application channels were designed to be customer friendly and consistent with the Government's modernisation agenda but the assumptions had not been adequately researched with potential users. The Agency established a customer forum in 1999 but input mainly related to policy and legislation, and was not best placed to inform the development of operational processes. In January to June 2001, the Agency held 23 Registered Body Roadshows with some 5,000 participants to publicise the impending launch of the Bureau and to stimulate registration by employers. It was only at this late stage that the overwhelming preference for paper applications surfaced. Over 80 per cent of applications came in paper form. Data entry screens had not, however, been designed for keying in of data from paper forms, and the Optical Character Recognition Systems designed for telephone applications had insufficient capacity to deal with the volume of paper applications.
9 Additionally, the Agency had assumed that applications would be submitted individually through employers and the Bureau would then correspond with individual applicants over any errors. In practice, however, applications from potential employees were batched and submitted by prospective employers. Systems and processes had been designed around receipt of individual applications and could not cope initially when batched applications came in. Business processes also proved unable to cope with the volumes of errors and exceptions on paper applications, and the complexity of dealing with both individuals and employers.
10 Other capacity issues arose. There were limits on the number of users who could access the system at the same time, and links between the Bureau and Metropolitan Police systems were slow. The design of the Information Technology system was partly dictated by the need to prevent access to some parts by non-civil service staff, which slowed up processing of applications and made the tracking of applications difficult as non-civil servants handling customer queries could not access the whole system. These errors have now been rectified.
11 The Bureau's systems and processes were developed on the basis of dealing with applications strictly in date order. They were not designed to prioritise particular groups or urgent applications, which required manual sorting. When the Department for Education and Skills announced in August 2002 that people working in schools had to be vetted by the Bureau before taking up post, the Bureau's normal processes had to be disrupted to accommodate this approach, causing additional delay.