Indeed, which is what they're doing now.
Once that is sorted, the consultation document is likely to be used as the basis for ITT▸ requirements, honed better to the length of said franchise to extract the best offer possible.
Yes - that was my point; that should be what happens. But the briefing document just doesn't read that way.
Look at section 4: "Progress to date and next steps" (P 20). It does use the word "franchise", but not in the sense I would expect - as what follows the current franchise from 2020 or 2022, involving a competition stage. This is section 4 in full (my bolding):
4. Progress to date and next steps
4.1 Since the public consultation ended, we have been reviewing the responses and evaluating these to decide whether there will be a case for specifying specific improvements to the franchise. This builds on the earlier round of stakeholder engagement which took place during Summer 2017. In some areas, we will seek specific improvements from the franchise; in others we may set out the issue or the outcomes we require, and ask FirstGroup how it will address these issues or outcomes.
4.2 We had originally suggested that we might to issue the formal specification to FirstGroup in June 2018. However, a number of issues have arisen, which mean that this will no longer be appropriate. In particular, there have been delays in completed sections of the agreed infrastructure upgrades, and we feel that it will be more beneficial if the franchise is able to concentrate on managing the effect of this, the introduction of new fleets of trains and the transfer of trains within the franchise, and preparing for the introduction of new timetables. In common with other franchises, we also need to consider how future timetable improvements can best be introduced in order to provide the intended benefits while restoring better performance, and ensuring that passengers can be confident that the timetable will operate as planned.
4.3 Over the coming months, we will work with FirstGroup as we develop the ‘Request for Proposal’, which will comprise the formal specification for the franchise. In doing so, we will have to consider consultees’ priorities for improvement alongside the availability of central government funds to secure those improvements, recognising the continuing pressures on the public finances. We will expect FirstGroup to engage closely with stakeholders as part of this process and this engagement could include discussions about the potential for local funding contributions towards initiatives that support local plans for economic, employment and housing growth but that would not be viable for FirstGroup to deliver alone. FirstGroup will develop a full costed ‘Proposal’ in response to our specification, which we evaluate to ensure that it meets our specification and is affordable. We will then negotiate detailed terms with FirstGroup, including contractual commitments to secure delivery of the outcomes promised within the Proposal.
In this section, "franchise" means a further contract already awarded to FirstGroup subject to agreement of details. It doesn't sound right to me for a two-year extension from 2020 to 2022 - step back about five years and it would fit perfectly if the competition had been scrapped in favour of a new five-year (at least) direct award. And if it is the two-year extension, there's still my original question - where have
DfT» hidden the rest of the 2020s?
