POL00460593
POL00460593
Message
From: John Bartle
Sent: 27/06/2024 .
To: Nigel Railtot 3
ce: Sarah I Gray! Christian Spelzini} GRO I
Subject: Requested Insight to Speak Up ReportingRelatingtoNBIT = I ————S—CS<«<«<‘
Good morning Nigel, Amanda
Nigel, when Sarah and I met with you to brief you on A&CI’s work, we discussed Project Willow 2 and the Speak Up
reporting we have periodically received over the last year that gave us a qualified insight into the NBIT programme. You
asked for a brief on the topics being reported to us. Claire Hamilton, the Speak Up team Manager has helpfully prepared
the below which I hope is a useful summary.
WILLOW2
This is a two-strand substantive investigation relating to concerns raised by multiple Speak Up Reporters concerning
NBIT. Pinsent Mason and Grant Thornton have been commissioned by POL to investigate these two allegations:
Allegation One:
e that certain POL staff were aware of problems with the NBIT system and that progress reports
to senior stakeholders including Nick and GE may not have been reliable.
e In April 2024, further information received in relation to the upward passing of information and
decision making at senior level in respect to known errors in the NBIT system.
It is to be determined if high severity defect information that was channelled upwards in an
email to SteerCo prior to roll out may have been deliberately misleading.
Allegation Two:
e that two senior engineers “pressured” two IT security/assurance personnel to disable or waive
infosec checks in NBIT’s specifications to save time in the project’s roll-out. (Comment: GT are
focusing on evidencing/testing this and understanding the specific impact if it did occur.)
General concerns relating to NBIT team/activity raised via Speak Up
The following are grouped themes of various information passed by a variety of Reporters to Speak Up over the last year
that discuss NBIT:
Behaviours
¢ Behaviours and activities were driven by timescales linked to bonuses rather than delivery of
quality and reliability i.e. perverse incentives (comment: this is now several months old so
unsure if this is still occurring but it is corroborated in the Willow2 investigation).
¢ Mirroring very senior staff behaviour GRO there was poor or lack of
effective communication between key staff around governance of the programme.
e Active discouragement by senior NBIT staff relating to use of Speak Up channels (comment: one
allegation was made relating to detriment resulting from Speaking Up (an offence under PIDA if
proved) — this was investigated and no grounds found to support the concern).
Accenture
Collective confidential reports received raising concerns/issues about Accenture and conflicts of direct awarding
by CB, with CB being ex-Accenture, without anyone looking at the bigger mapping picture of key
positions/activity held/performed by Accenture:
Business Requirements Head,
Testing Head,
Coding being done,
POL00460593
POL00460593
Data Governance,
Technology manager
In particular the position of the Programme Manager is concerning to Reporters. They sit sitting over the top
and is also the Accenture’s Account Manager for POL and so can collect info pertinent to the bidding process —
they can see what the plans are. Concerns are raised that as Accenture increases their levels of staffing around
the programme POL becomes increasingly dependent upon them and loses control.
Accenture using the power of ‘osmosis’ to get control of the SPM programme
Accenture managing governance — risk of them marking their own homework.
Accenture timesheets signed off by Accenture person, no segregation of duties
Concerns that a diagnostic report was conducted by Accenture and that Accenture has ‘worked own
homework’.
Coforge, who should be equal consultant partners, could cry foul due to direct awards to Accenture.
Reliance on third parties generally
e Need to be setting the conditions for POL to be ready to run the system once rolled out which includes POL
staff gaining relevant skills, understanding and knowledge during the design and build programme. Concerns
are being raised that POL has become reliant on third parties and so POL staff are not going to be able to
effectively take over during the end transition.
¢ The matter of cost of third parties is also being raised as a significant concern — this is being compared to the
NHS being reliant on Locum Staff, therefore not having the monies to continue as BAU.
Hope this assists.
Amanda — I have copied you as the Speak Up Champion.
JB
John Bartlett (He/Him)
Director of Assurance & Complex Investigations,
& Head of Post Office Investigation Branch
Legal & Compliance
Finsbury Dials, 20 Finsbury Street
London, EC2Y 9AQ
postoffice.co.uk
I work flexibly — so whilst it suits me to email outside normal working hours, I do not expect a response outside your own.