The UK Government, for all its faults, is pretty good at publishing contracts it has awarded. That's why I get depressed when I see rage-bait nonsense about how companies have been award "Top Secret" deals.
Right now you can go to https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk and search for whichever bête noire has you riled up. You might want to argue that the company is corrupt, incompetent, or overpriced - but you can't argue that its contract is secret. There's no conspiracy. There's no secrecy. There's not even "beware of the leopard" shenanigans. It's all out in the open.
The Government says who it paying money to.
But, of course, there are some things the Government can't say. It's rare for them to publicly disagree with a supplier, or call out how crappy they were. They need to maintain cordial relations with people. They don't want to scare off new suppliers who can't risk being publicly humiliated. When contracts are cancelled or ended, it is usually done quietly.
So you need to learn to read between the lines.
Let's take this excellent blog post from the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government
"From emergency to sustainability: creating Share Homes for Ukraine data".
It's exactly the sort of blog post that some Civil Servants excel at writing. It clearly sets out how an ambitious and technically challenging project was delivered, why it is important, and who it benefits.
The blog post describes how the team…
exited our contract with our supplier.
And that:
Moving to this in-house model is already saving MHCLG millions of pounds a year in running costs.
They show user feedback for their new system saying:
It’s easier to navigate than the previous system
Of course, what they don't say is who supplied the previous system which was so costly and hard to use.
It was, of course, Palantir.
The original contract (CPD4124104) wasn't secret - although it was mired in some controversy as an urgent exemption to normal procurement rules.
In 2023, the National Audit Office reported on the scheme - including Palanitr's software. They said:
The initial arrangement was put in place to help get the scheme up and running quickly. Consequently, the system did not undergo the usual research and testing that would be involved for the roll-out of a new digital system. There were initial issues such as the way it presented duplicated application data received from Home Office systems, and confusion from local authorities as to how to engage with the main data system.
How bad was Palantir's software? I've sent in a Freedom of Information request to find out. But we can tell that it was bad enough to convince MHCLG to rewrite it themselves.
A lean Civil Service may not have the in-house capability to rapidly create a new service. But, as their blog post shows, when given suitable resources Civil Servants can often outperform the private sector. More importantly, the new software is under the Ministry's direct control. This open source code is a triumph for sovereign technology.
MHCLG have shown the door to Palantir. They've built something better, easier to use, and cheaper.
I don't want to oversell this as the first victory in the war against this abominable company - but I hope where MHCLG leads, others will follow.