It’s no surprise that the contract has broken down. I have seen so many similar situations, where 
the client expects the contractor to be “more flexible” (i.e. taking more risk) without recognising the need for mirroring the expected flexibility themselves (i.e. rewarding the increased risk of the contractor). The client can’t have it both ways.
Common sense dictates that a contract must be fair to both parties; likewise any renegotiation of terms. Contractors make large investments in securing large Government contracts and base their bid on the client’s expectations at the time.
Of course complex change programmes, like the NHSpfIT, are difficult to specify in absolute terms at the outset and, of course, a sufficiently flexible contract will always increase the potential for variable cost; because the contractor will factor in the risk and uncertainty involved.
Richard Granger, the former NHSpfIT supremo, made much of his ability to impose contract terms and how the programme would benefit from the “strong” contracts. Recent history has seen Granger’s tub-thumping start to unravel.
The hugely ambitious NHS programme may be within financial tolerance but the timescale is extending exponentially. According to reports, the final delivery will be at least four years late and the quality of the deliverable remains unproved.
So it seems that cost, quality and timescale are all under severe pressure because yet another major change initiative is being managed as if it is just a very large IT project. This approach will always create unexpected cost and disappointment.
Unless and until our politicians and civil servants realise that they need to take a completely different approach to managing change, the UK taxpayer will continue to pay heavily, again and again, for inadequate management.
