Ripoff Megacorporation G4S charges 3x original price for Olympics Security
London Olympics security costs doubled
Fri Mar 9, 2012 7:40PM GMT
A report by the British parliament’s spending watchdog has warned that security costs at Olympics Games 2012 venues have more than doubled.
The public accounts committee calculated that the cost of the Olympics is overrunning its £9.3billion budget once unaccounted-for costs are included with the overall cost of the 2012 Olympics to the public purse rising to around £11billion, British media reported.
The budget increase could have been lower if the government and the Olympic authorities had taken a tougher stance over price negotiations with its main private contractor G4S, the committee said.
Margaret Hodge, committee chair, said MPs were particularly concerned about significant increases in the security bill and said questions should be asked about London’s organizing committee Locog.
“Locog now needs more than twice the number of security guards it originally estimated and the costs have roughly doubled. It is staggering that the original estimates were so wrong. Locog has had to renegotiate its contract with G4S for venue security from a weak negotiating position and there is a big question mark over whether it secured a good deal for the taxpayer,” she said.
Locog’s original estimate for the number of security guards in and around the venues was 10,000 – a “finger in the air estimate”, according to the PAC report.
The government announced in December that figure has more than doubled to 23,700. Security costs from the Olympics budget for venue security have risen from £282m to £553m in just a year.
An initial deal with G4S worth £86m had been signed in December 2010. But the following year this had to be rewritten as Locog received further advice about the needs for an increase in security provisions. As a result, G4S’s contract increased to £284 million.
Estimates for venue security could have been better informed at an earlier date, and that late planning undermined the government’s negotiating position and ability to drive down costs, the committee claims.