21/09/2012
G4S Should Forgo £57m Olympic Security Fee MPs Say
After failing to supply the required number of Olympics security staff G4S should forgo its £57m management fee, a committee of MPs has said.
In a report on Olympics security, the Home Affairs Committee go on to argue that G4S should also compensate people who were accredited for Olympics work with the firm but not given any shifts.
The firm's Olympics contract was worth £237m, including the management fee.
G4S said the £57m management fee was "substantially" real costs not profit.
But committee chairman Keith Vaz said the firm had delivered an "11th-hour fiasco" after "recklessly boasting" that it could meet the terms of its contract.
"The largest security company in the world, providing a contract to their biggest UK client, turned years of carefully-laid preparations into an 11th-hour fiasco.”
Mr Vaz explained: "Twenty-four hours before they admitted their failure, Nick Buckles met with the Home Secretary and did not bother to inform her that they were unable to deliver on their contract, even though he knew about the shortfall a week before."
The report also suggested that ministers should maintain a blacklist of companies to avoid when making future procurement decisions.
A G4S spokesman said: "As explained by both G4S and Locog to the committee, the £57m 'management fee' is not a profit.
"It relates substantially to real costs which have been incurred such as wages, property and IT expenditure. The final financial settlement is currently under discussion with Locog."
(H)
In a report on Olympics security, the Home Affairs Committee go on to argue that G4S should also compensate people who were accredited for Olympics work with the firm but not given any shifts.
The firm's Olympics contract was worth £237m, including the management fee.
G4S said the £57m management fee was "substantially" real costs not profit.
But committee chairman Keith Vaz said the firm had delivered an "11th-hour fiasco" after "recklessly boasting" that it could meet the terms of its contract.
"The largest security company in the world, providing a contract to their biggest UK client, turned years of carefully-laid preparations into an 11th-hour fiasco.”
Mr Vaz explained: "Twenty-four hours before they admitted their failure, Nick Buckles met with the Home Secretary and did not bother to inform her that they were unable to deliver on their contract, even though he knew about the shortfall a week before."
The report also suggested that ministers should maintain a blacklist of companies to avoid when making future procurement decisions.
A G4S spokesman said: "As explained by both G4S and Locog to the committee, the £57m 'management fee' is not a profit.
"It relates substantially to real costs which have been incurred such as wages, property and IT expenditure. The final financial settlement is currently under discussion with Locog."
(H)
Related UK National News Stories
Click here for the latest headlines.
28 September 2012
G4S Bosses Resign After Olympic Security Review
Following a MPs committee review of the Olympic Games security contract, two G4S have resigned. David Taylor-Smith, chief operating officer, and Ian Horseman Sewell, a managing director, have now left the company. Chief executive Nick Buckles, the public face of the company, however, has kept his job.
G4S Bosses Resign After Olympic Security Review
Following a MPs committee review of the Olympic Games security contract, two G4S have resigned. David Taylor-Smith, chief operating officer, and Ian Horseman Sewell, a managing director, have now left the company. Chief executive Nick Buckles, the public face of the company, however, has kept his job.
17 July 2012
G4S Chief Executive Regrets Taking Olympic Contract
The chief executive of security firm G4S, Nick Buckles, has said he regrets that the firm ever took on the Olympic security contract. Telling the Home Affairs Select Committee that G4S had taken on the contract to enhance its reputation, he agreed it has become a "humiliating shambles".
G4S Chief Executive Regrets Taking Olympic Contract
The chief executive of security firm G4S, Nick Buckles, has said he regrets that the firm ever took on the Olympic security contract. Telling the Home Affairs Select Committee that G4S had taken on the contract to enhance its reputation, he agreed it has become a "humiliating shambles".
05 August 2015
Claims Management Company Fined For Nuisance Calls
A claims management company has been fined more than £200,000 under new claims management regulation powers.
Claims Management Company Fined For Nuisance Calls
A claims management company has been fined more than £200,000 under new claims management regulation powers.
16 July 2012
G4S Shares Drop 9% Amid Olympic Security Problems
Shares in security provider G4S fell 9% after announcing that it had failed to recruit enough security staff for the Olympic Games, and could face up to a £50m loss on its contract. Late on Friday, G4S said it faced a £35m-£50m loss on the £284m contract after admitting that it did not have enough staff to cover the Games.
G4S Shares Drop 9% Amid Olympic Security Problems
Shares in security provider G4S fell 9% after announcing that it had failed to recruit enough security staff for the Olympic Games, and could face up to a £50m loss on its contract. Late on Friday, G4S said it faced a £35m-£50m loss on the £284m contract after admitting that it did not have enough staff to cover the Games.
06 January 2014
Oakwood Prison Incident Resolved
An incident which occurred at Oakwood Prison, near Wolverhampton, has been resolved. Private security firm G4S confirmed the situation is now under control after trouble broke out on one of the prison's wings on Sunday evening. It added that it would be "inappropriate" to give further details of the incident.
Oakwood Prison Incident Resolved
An incident which occurred at Oakwood Prison, near Wolverhampton, has been resolved. Private security firm G4S confirmed the situation is now under control after trouble broke out on one of the prison's wings on Sunday evening. It added that it would be "inappropriate" to give further details of the incident.