Sub-questions

Have the achievable benefits and outcomes been defined?

Is the funding secured?

Does the business case consider all elements that will contribute to successful delivery of the programme?

Is there a credible estimation of all costs, appropriate for the stage of the programme?

Is there a credible estimation of all durations, appropriate for the stage of the programme?

Are decisions through the lifecycle made with regard to VfM?

Essential evidence

Cost benefit analysis for the full programme - likely to be included in economic case. The financial case should highlight funding and affordability issues.

Accounting Officer's assessment of feasibility or value for money - departments are expected to publish a summary of all such assessments, for major projects within the Government Major Projects Portfolio that receive Outline Business Case approval, or for existing projects where the need for a further assessment has arisen and been approved after that date.

Business case - examples from our studies

Our 2017 report Hinkley Point C found that the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) had not sufficiently considered the costs and risks for consumers when it agreed key commercial terms on the deal in 2013. It only considered the impact of the deal on consumers' bills up to 2030, while consumers are locked into paying for Hinkley Point C long afterwards. By the time BEIS finalised the deal in 2016 its value-for-money tests showed the economic case for Hinkley Point C was marginal and subject to significant uncertainty. Less favourable, but reasonable, assumptions about future fossil fuel prices, renewables costs and follow‑on nuclear projects would have meant the deal was not value for money according to BEIS's tests. Between 2013 and 2016 the government's case for the project had weakened, but BEIS's capacity to take alternative approaches was limited once terms were agreed. Although the government increasingly emphasised Hinkley Point C's unquantified strategic benefits, we found that BEIS had little control over them and had no plan to realise them.

Early progress in transforming courts and tribunals highlighted the impact of programme change on the business case and the need to consider wider benefits. In 2016, HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) set up a portfolio of change programmes to introduce new technology and working practices to reform and upgrade the justice system. We found that since 2015, HMCTS had twice revised its business cases for each of two programmes. The 10-year economic case weakened with each iteration, partly due to longer timescales for rolling out the programmes. Annual planned benefits of the whole portfolio also fell as HMCTS reduced its scope. At the same time, we found that the total benefits were underestimated because the business cases only quantified benefits in terms of savings to HMCTS and the Crown Prosecution Service, not the wider benefits to other organisations and court users..

Other relevant reports

The new generation electronic monitoring programme (paragraph 6)

Crown Commercial Service (paragraph 8)

Equipment Plan 2017–2027 (paragraph 6)

Rolling out Universal Credit (paragraph 12)