Robert Lovell
Share this content

G4S – lessons learned?

G4S – lessons learned?

G4S today published the findings of a PwC review into the London Olympic and Paralympic Games security contract with the company.

"The monitoring and tracking of the security workforce, management information and the project management framework and practices were ineffective to address the scale, complexities and dependencies of the Olympic contract. Together this caused the failure of the company to deliver the contract requirements in full and resulted in the identification of the key problems at a very late stage."

What conclusions would AccountingWEB members draw from PwC’s report into the security failings of G4S during the Olympics?

What kind of management information would the board have sight of? What remedial advice would you recommended?


Please login or register to join the discussion.

28th Sep 2012 13:36

No real penalty

G4S has said it lost £50m on the £235m contract to supply 10,400 staff, almost half of whom were not able to take up their posts, leaving the armed forces to fill almost 5,000 of these.

How did they get this contract? This isn't the first time that their management has gone awry. Their efforts at replacing prison services hasn't been that successful. Still, it is better that their crap management was discovered before G4S took on any more police duties.

Thanks (0)
28th Sep 2012 14:29

Who paid PWC's fees for this?


Thanks (0)
28th Sep 2012 15:03

i have some sympathy for G4S

should LOCOG really expected them to provide so many people for such a short term contract where


they had to be identified 6 months in advance

security cleared


still out of work and available for the olympic period


a lot of people who applied were not then available

it was a bad idea and logistically almost inevitable that it would not work as planned


and as for the blog mentioned above what a lot of political clap trap

Thanks (0)
01st Oct 2012 10:24


The blame has to lie with them.

If someone tenders for a contract then it is natural to assume they are confident they can fulfil the contract.

There would have been a massive problem if the contract had been denied on the basis that G4S could not be trusted to meet their agreement.

Thanks (0)
01st Oct 2012 10:46

well we will disagree on this
Blame about 50 50 in my opinion. The nature of the contract was extraordinary and locog was at fault there

Thanks (0)
01st Oct 2012 11:05

So locog (with limited experience)

put out to tender a security contract.....a highly experienced international firm with experience of security on this scale come in and say they can do it.....sorry no competition.....  

Thanks (0)
01st Oct 2012 12:05

Extension to contracts in Afghanistan ...

Hot on the heels of the Olympic failure G4S managed to renew their £72m contract by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) guarding the British embassy compound in Kabul

Seems like 'reward for failure' - so far no government contracts with G4S have been cancelled

Thanks (0)
02nd Oct 2012 10:41

and why should they be

lets face it is not the most competitive marketplace and the reasons why should be obvious.

i suppose we coould have clearer reasons re the outcom if we could see the contract which we are unlikley to

i am pleased to see that we have returned to knock knock knock how typically british


Thanks (0)
02nd Oct 2012 10:56

Security is a market like any other ...


Sorry to disavow your comment '.. not the most competitive marketplace ..'

It is a hightly competitive market and if it was re-tendered I could name at least 5 pre-qualified organisations willing to bid for the contract

However, on the face of it there was no re-tender and it went to the incumbents despite their recent (and past) track record

Therefore the question has to be:

Given G4S performance why was the renewal of the Kabul contract not put out to competitive tender by the FCO

Anyway if push came to shove you could probably get to see the original offer to tender - see

Quote - '.. The provision of security services to HMG in Kabul and various other locations across Afghanistan including Kandahar and Helmand Provinces, awarded to G4S Risk Management Limited.
Value: £69.6M | OJEU Ref: 10/S 48-70137/EN

Thanks (1)
02nd Oct 2012 11:10

On a purely personal note G4S

On a purely personal note G4S shares have made me a generous profit over the years under the current management. They have performed very well on a lot of public service and other contracts and give ongoing employment to a very large number of people. I agree they screwed up a relatively small short term one but in the contracts game you will always get the occasional problem.. Liaison between LOCOG and G4S.should have been much tighter from both sides and perhaps this wouldn't have happened 

Thanks (1)
02nd Oct 2012 11:23


i take your comments on the chin re most competitive - all i would say is that where there are high value contracts there will always be competition - i will look at the contract per the link.


i still think that the very short term nature of the contract would have given any contractor problems - it wasnt thought thro properly by locog


you say given the G4S performance why wasnt the Afghan contract put out to tender



1. they operate lots of other contracts efficiently so im told, so why should one  contract negate all the others afghanistan well thats clearly a different proposition all together. The logistics of a changeover in security arrangements at what is a crucial time was surely not in anyones interests according to my sources - but they would say that i suppose.


3. if it ws an FCO rather than a MOD contract one would think that they would rely on their explcit experience - not on locog's


ive had a quick look at the link and it refers to Afgahn contract - i was hoping to see locogs , some chance!

Thanks (0)
Share this content