Sopra Steria’s £370M Capita spat heads for 2028 courtroom showdown
Sopra Steria will get its day in court over a £370 million UK government shared-services contract awarded to rival Capita, with a trial date set for early 2028 pending settlement talks. The French IT services firm alleges Capita's winning bid, led by the Department for Work and Pensions, was "abnormally low" and relied on staffing levels far below those currently used, raising questions about how the deal was awarded and whether it truly represents value for money.
The contract, covering finance and HR shared services across several Whitehall departments, was valued at £370 million over ten years, well below the £958.7 million estimated during the tender stage. Sopra Steria, which currently runs some of these services through its wholly owned SSCL business, claims Capita's bid was 42% below the DWP's own "Should Cost Model", which had put the total price at £642 million. Capita and the DWP maintain the procurement process was robust and fair. The dispute, listed for seven weeks from 17 January 2028 at the Technology and Construction Court, comes as Capita also faces scrutiny over its troubled handling of the Civil Service Pensions Scheme, which has left some of its 1.7 million members facing payment delays.
- Sopra Steria contests £370m Capita contract award; 2028 trial set
- Alleges Capita's bid was 42% below DWP's own cost estimate
- Dispute coincides with Capita's separate pension scheme problems
New here? Start with this
The contract covers finance and human resources services shared by several government departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Sopra Steria currently runs some of these services through SSCL, while Capita is the rival company selected to take on the work.
The ten-year contract was priced at £370 million, compared with a higher estimate made during the tender process. Sopra Steria says Capita’s bid was unusually low and questions whether it could deliver the required services at that price; Capita and the DWP say the procurement was fair.
The dispute matters because government contracts are expected to provide services reliably and make proper use of public money. Capita is also under scrutiny over its administration of the Civil Service Pensions Scheme, where some members have faced payment delays.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Sopra Steria's concern reflects legitimate questions about contract sustainability when a bid is 42% below the government's own Should Cost Model and involves significantly lower staffing than current provision. A gap of this magnitude between the government's assessment and the winning price raises serious questions about whether the contractor can deliver the same quality and coverage to 1.7 million pension scheme members, or whether the procurement failed to account for realistic delivery costs.
The case against
Competitive procurement often yields substantial savings as suppliers demonstrate genuine operational efficiencies and economies of scale that initial cost models may not capture. Capita's lower bid reflects standard market competition, not inherent unreasonableness, particularly if the company's technical proposal met all specified service requirements and was properly evaluated against stated criteria. The DWP's procurement process included rigorous assessment, and lower pricing from a qualified bidder represents the intended benefit of competition.