Locog and G4S Square Up To Each Other

Locog and G4S are squaring up for a battle over G4S's fees for the security cover they provided (or rather didn't provide) for the London 2012 Olympics.

Paul Deighton, CEO of Locog, told the Home Affairs Select Committee that Locog stopped payments to G4S on July 13, two days after G4S admitted that it would not be able to deliver the 10,400 security guards it had agreed to deploy.

The Telegraph reports that Locog has paid G4S £90M of a total £240M, and that the rest (according to Mr Deighton) is subject to negotiation.

Deighton said:

“We had absolutely clear and consistent reassurances from the senior management that they’d be able to deliver ... up until that fateful day on July 11. We shouldn’t over-complicate this. They just failed to deliver because their own processes broke down.”

Step forward Nick Buckles, CEO of G4S, who also appeared before the committee. Unsurprisingly he has a different view, and is of the opinion that G4S should be paid in full:

“I’m not going to sit here and say we did a great job, but we delivered a significant proportion of the contract. I expect them to pay us in line with the terms of the contract.”

The contract would make fascinating reading. However, I doubt that we will ever be able to read the contract as it is shrouded in secrecy.

As I have stated before:

"This is of course what happens when a major project/event is not run in an open transparent manner, and is not subject to scrutiny by independent professionals acting in the interests of the taxpayer."

The hapless taxpayer will end up footing the bill for the largess and incompetence of Locog and G4S.

Don't forget to visit www.olympicswarehouse.com

www.olympicsdiary.com brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

The Real Legacy of London 2012

As James Pearce has said, Replacing G4S personnel with personnel from the armed forces made London 2012 friendlier and safer.

Thus proving the old adage that every cloud really does have a silver lining!

Don't forget to visit www.olympicswarehouse.com

www.olympicsdiary.com brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

G4S Securing Your World - The Song

I kid you not!

"You love your job and the people too 

Making a difference is what you do

Consider all you have at stake

The time is now, don't make a mistake

Cause the enemy prowls, wanting to attack

But we're on the wall, we've got your back

So get out front and take the lead 

And be the winner you were born to be.

Calling G4S, protecting the World 

G4S, so your dreams can unfurl 

24/7 every night and day 

Our warriors stand ready so don't be afraid. "

Don't forget to visit www.olympicswarehouse.com

www.olympicsdiary.com brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

G4S Securing Your World

Don't forget to visit www.olympicswarehouse.com

www.olympicsdiary.com brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Jeremy Hunt Feels Safer

Apparently Jeremy Hunt thinks that it's a "good thing" that soldiers are guarding the London 2012 venues, as opposed to G4S.

He is quoted by the Telegraph:

“That makes me feel safer, so I think it's a good thing.” 

That being the case, why did the government and Locog originally contract G4S to guard Olympic venues?

Don't forget to visit www.olympicswarehouse.com

www.olympicsdiary.com brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Locog's Chickens Come Home To Roost

It has emerged that Locog, the organisers of London 2012, encouraged G4S to keep wages for security staff as low as possible.

Security guards have been offered £8.50 an hour to work at the Olympic venues, which is below the market rate of about £10 an hour.

This pressure on G4S by Locog is somewhat "ironic" given that the government and Locog said publicly that security staff should be paid £10 an hour, so that enough staff were recruited in time.

Locog's chickens have come well and truly home to roost!

The BBC reports that G4S was "incentivised" (ie pressured) in the contract (which was renegotiated and enhanced in December) to keep costs down in order to maximise profits.

Unsurprisingly Margaret Hodge, the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, has said that it raises "serious questions" about Locog's management of the contract.

Quite!

I will therefore repeat what I have said before:

1 This is what happens when a major project/event is not run in an open transparent manner, and is not subject to scrutiny by independent professionals acting in the interests of the taxpayer.

2 As an experienced FCA and fraud investigator I recommend that a full independent audit be conducted of the tendering process, the contract, Locog and G4S operations pertaining to their work for the Games.

Don't forget to visit www.olympicswarehouse.com

www.olympicsdiary.com brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

The G4S Locog Omnishambles Continues Apace

On the day that Nick Buckles the CEO of the hapless and hopeless G4S appears before the Home Affairs Slect Committee, to answer questions about G4S shambolic performance, Surrey Police Fed have said that out of an expected turnout of 300 G4S staff (promised at Box Hill) only 30 turned up.

Whilst everyone is justifiably crucifying G4S for this national disgrace, let us not forget the organisation that signed the contract with them in the first place and was allegedly mean to "manage" G4S.

Step forward Locog, which will soon find itself under the same degree of scrutiny as G4S.

Newsnight last night reported that an insider from Locog has stated that Locog failed to deal with the problems at G4S despite warnings over the last 18 months.

"G4S have been appalling."

He claimed that those in charge of Locog's security were "amateurish", and it was a mistake using one company to supply staff.

"It was the wrong strategy, to use only one company."

The insider who has worked in security for many years asserts that "at the top level" the management of security at Locog was "thoroughly amateurish and incompetent".

This is of course what happens when a major project/event is not run in an open transparent manner, and is not subject to scrutiny by independent professionals acting in the interests of the taxpayer.

As I recommended on Friday:

"As an experienced FCA and fraud investigator I recommend that if G4s, the government and Locog want to put taxpayers' minds at rest over the integrity of the contracts awarded for the Games, then a full independent audit be conducted of the tendering process, the contract and G4S operations pertaining to their work for the Games."

This recommendation naturally applies to Locog as well.

Don't forget to visit www.olympicswarehouse.com

www.olympicsdiary.com brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

The G4S Clusterfuck - Staff Don't Speak Fluent English

Nick Buckles, chief executive of G4S, when challenged about whether those recruited by G4S even spoke fluent English:

"That is a difficult question to answer. 

They all have a right to work in the UK and have been vetted to very high standards."

When the question was repeated he admitted:

"I can't say categorically."

ROFLOL!

The G4S clusterfuck is the story that just keeps giving.

Don't forget to visit www.olympicswarehouse.com

www.olympicsdiary.com brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

The G4S Debacle - The Next Steps

Unsurprisingly G4S, the security firm that failed the nation when the eyes of the world were watching, continues to remain in the headlines. The media and other interested parties are analysing its business and operations with a fine tooth comb, something maybe the government and Locog should have done before signing the Olympics contract?

The Telegraph reports that confidential Home Office documents show that G4S has had its fee for managing civilian security staff for the Games rise from £7.3M to £60M.

The fee the company takes for running its Olympic office has risen more than 10 times faster than its spending on recruitment.

"Almost £34 million of the increase is for the G4S “programme management office” overseeing the security operation. By contrast, the firm’s recruitment spending has increased by only £2.8 million.

The company told ITV Tonight that the contract was subject to “extensive negotiation to ensure value for money” and that there were caps on any profit made. G4S said it had been “absolutely transparent” with Locog about its finances."

Whilst G4S may or may not be "absolutely transparent with Locog", as I noted yesterday, Locog and the government are not absolutely transparent with the taxpayer about this and other aspects of the Olympics.

As an experienced FCA and fraud investigator I recommend that if G4s, the government and Locog want to put taxpayers' minds at rest over the integrity of the contracts awarded for the Games, then a full independent audit be conducted of the tendering process, the contract and G4S operations pertaining to their work for the Games.

Only then will the fears and worries of the taxpayers be assuaged.

Don't forget to visit www.olympicswarehouse.com

www.olympicsdiary.com brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

G4S Win Gold Medal For Spectacular Olympic Incompetence

In April I wrote the following about G4S (the company that is meant to provide security for the Olympics Park):

"The cost of providing security for the games has rocketed skywards, eg elements of the main contract with private security provider G4S have increased by up to seven times."

With only a fortnight to go until the Olympics and G4S and the costs of providing security for the Olympics have yet again hit the headlines, in a spectacular manner.

G4S have failed to deliver on their contract to provide sufficient trained security staff for the Olympics Park, as such the government is having to cover the shortfall with 3,500 troops (many of whom are returning home on leave having just finished a tour of duty in Afghanistan). In a remarkable display of incompetence, G4S only informed the Government that it was struggling to fulfill its brief only in the last fortnight.

Although G4S is rumoured (according to Channel 4 News last night) to be being fined around £50K per day for its incredible incompetence, this is but a drop in the ocean when compared to the £535M that they are making from the Olympics contract.

Needless to say, were the Olympics being run in transparent and open manner the taxpayers (who are paying for this corporate marketing fest) would have the right to look at the contract that G4S has signed for providing security for the Games. Unfortunately the Olympics are not being run in an open and transparent manner, and the contract is not available for public scrutiny.

Why are the taxpayers, who are funding the Games, not allowed to satisfy themselves that their money has been wisely spent and that contracts signed in their names have been negotiated in their best interests?

As an FCA and experienced fraud investigator I would never advise people to put money into a project/business without them at the very least seeing the contract and reviewing it thoroughly, taking advice from independent finance/legal professionals.

The government would argue that they acted in the interest of taxpayers when reviewing and negotiating the contract with G4S. However, as can be seen from this omnishambles of incompetence, it is clear that the government was not up to the job of looking after taxpayers' interests.

Needless to say the fact that troops are being brought in to cover G4S's failure means that the costs of the Olympics will rise. When will the government tell us by how much?

Don't forget to visit www.olympicswarehouse.com

www.olympicsdiary.com brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

G4S Told To Smile!

Staff at G4S, the security company that banned photographers from taking pictures of the Olympics Park on public land, have been told to smile to people during the forthcoming Olympics.

For why?

They are company that has been hired to provide security over and above the police, army, navy and RAF; and it is of concern that they may be a tad "over-zealous" in their attempts to maintain security and control around the Games.


Mark Hamilton, the man leading G4S's Olympic security team which will operate airport-style searches and screening at venues, said guards were being encouraged to engage with spectators is quoted by Reuters:

"I think it is very relevant not to over-react to situations that arise on the first day - to make sure they are properly assessed and that the communications process is working in the way it should so that the decisions are made at the right time and people act in the right way."

He referred to the photography incident and noted:

"There's no doubt that's a lesson learnt, not to overly criticise the workforce and the guards involved because they are operating under a regime where hostile reconnaissance is something they have to be aware of.

How they handle that, and how they manage it and how they report it is obviously something we've learnt a lesson from."

A G4S spokesperson admitted that ‘two members of our staff incorrectly intervened to prevent photographers from doing their work at Olympic Park’ adding that this is something it ‘regrets and [we] have instructed and reminded our staff to operate completely within the law’.

It is good that G4S are learning lessons, given that they have, according to David Hencke, had to admit in their annual report that they need to train people to understand human rights.

Details of some of G4S's activities can be found in this report by Unite "Tax Avoidance, Strike Breaking and Human Rights Abuses".


Olympic Medals won during the Beijing 2008 Olympics

Don't forget to visit www.olympicswarehouse.com

www.olympicsdiary.com brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Olympics "Budget" Beyond Belief!

The arguments over the Olympics "Budget" continue, with the Public Accounts Committee laying to Jonathan Stephens the most senior civil servant in soon to be "resigned" Jeremy Hunt's Department for Culture Media and Sport.

The Telegraph reports that the cost of providing security for the games has rocketed skywards, eg elements of the main contract with private security provider G4S (the company that illegally bans photos being taken on public land) have increased by up to seven times.

Liberal Democrat MP Ian Swales said it was “beyond belief” that the Government would have agreed to such a huge increase in the security budget (£86M to £284M) if it had not been forced to do the deal in a hurry having underestimated the original requirement. 

PAC took Stephens to task for this, along with his response to a recent PAC report which described the Olympic budget as “finely balanced”.

Margaret Hodge (Chairman of PAC) quite rightly said that PAC had the right to tell the public the real cost of the Olympics.

For good measure Hodge, again quite rightly,  said it was “dishonest” not to acknowledge that some costs outside the Games budget, such as transport improvements, could be interpreted as Olympic spending.

Stephens claims that he remained “very confident” that the Games would be delivered within the £9.3BN budget.

Which is all very well except that, as has already been pointed out, the "budget" is £12BN!

The whole Olympics "Budget" is in fact beyond belief!

Olympic Medals won during the Beijing 2008 Olympics

Don't forget to visit www.olympicswarehouse.com

www.olympicsdiary.com brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

G4S Ban Photographs

It seems that some journalists had a wee bit of a run in with G4S, the private security company protecting the Olympics park, the other day when G4S tried to stop photos being taken by the journalists on public land.

The Guardian reports:

"Private guards at the Olympic park have been filmed forcibly attempting to stop the media taking pictures and footage of the complex in east London, raising new concerns about potentially aggressive and over-intrusive security during the Games.

During the incident two guards from G4S, the security giant which is recruiting at least 10,000 staff for the event, attempted to clamp their hands over the lenses of stills and video cameras, even though the footage is being shot on public land.

While there are numerous rules about photography and filming inside the Olympic complex itself, which is private land, there are no restrictions on the use cameras from public areas."

Apparently no one told G4S that photos can be taken from public land.

This "misunderstanding" by G4S over the law does not bode well for the smooth and "harmonious" running of the games.

Olympic Medals won during the Beijing 2008 Olympics

Don't forget to visit www.olympicswarehouse.com

www.olympicsdiary.com brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"