The news
HMRC Capgemini payments totaled at least £4.2 billion between 2014 and July 2026, according to an analysis of procurement data published by The Register on September 28, though HM Revenue & Customs set out a decade ago to spread its IT work across more suppliers.
The Register built the figure from data supplied by Otnox, which collects and standardizes public procurement data from more than 80 countries, and counted 15,726 transactions. Sixteen months of data are missing from the period, so the true total may be higher, the outlet said. The window starts in 2014, the year HMRC's original Aspire outsourcing contract was first due to end, so it includes years when Aspire was still running.
HMRC let Aspire to Capgemini (CAP) in 2004. A June 2016 National Audit Office (NAO) memorandum described it as the government's largest IT contract, costing around £10 billion over the 13 years to 2017, and said it accounted for about 84% of HMRC's technology spending between April 2006 and March 2014. The same memorandum said HMRC's commercial strategy was to work with more IT suppliers, let shorter contracts and avoid extending contracts wherever possible.
Capgemini kept winning work after Aspire's June 2017 end date, according to The Register. It cited a £51 million, three-year deal in January 2022 to support the Enterprise Tax Management Platform (ETMP), HMRC's core SAP-based tax system, and a £214 million legacy application maintenance contract in March 2022 awarded without competition. In May 2024 came £245.5 million for running legacy systems and a five-year ETMP operations deal valued at £403 million to £574 million, running to June 2029.
The awards continued in 2026. On April 27, HMRC gave Capgemini a contact centre contract worth up to £600 million including VAT for up to ten years. In August, Capgemini won a £37 million project to move ETMP from SAP ECC 6.0 to S/4HANA, running to 2032, and a £200 million, five-year contract to migrate legacy data warehouses, The Register reported. If the contact centre deal runs its full term, the relationship that began in 2004 would reach 2036.
An HMRC spokesperson told The Register that some strategic suppliers still play an important role, but that the department has moved from a small number of large legacy contracts to a more diverse supplier base. Capgemini did not comment in the report.
The numbers
- HMRC payments to Capgemini, 2014 to July 2026
- At least £4.2 billion
- Transactions counted
- 15,726
- Aspire cost over 13 years to 2017 (NAO)
- Around £10 billion
- Aspire share of HMRC tech spend, 2006-2014 (NAO)
- About 84%
- ETMP operations deal to June 2029
- £403 million to £574 million
- Contact centre contract, awarded April 27, 2026
- Up to £600 million including VAT
- Data warehouse migration, August 2026
- £200 million over five years
Why CEOs should care
For any organization planning to leave a long-standing IT outsourcer, HMRC's record is a caution. A clear strategy on paper in 2016 did not stop the incumbent from winning maintenance, operations and migration work for another decade. When one supplier has run the core systems for years, much of the practical knowledge of those systems sits with it, and follow-on work can gravitate back. CIOs should budget the exit as a multi-year program, not a single contract change.
Procurement leaders can take specific steps. Write knowledge-transfer and documentation duties into current contracts, well before exit. Decide early whether the incumbent may bid for migration work, and if so, how to keep the contest fair; for the SAP migration, HMRC said it used ethical walls and non-disclosure agreements, according to The Register. Track progress by the share of spend going to the largest supplier, not by how many suppliers are on the roster.
For CFOs and boards, the £4.2 billion figure only became visible by adding up 15,726 separate transactions. Few organizations look at supplier exposure that way. Ask for a consolidated view of total spend with each strategic vendor across every contract, and review it alongside the contract end dates that would allow a change.
The bigger picture
Breaking up large outsourcing deals has been UK policy for years. The NAO memorandum noted that the Cabinet Office's 2011 government ICT strategy sought to end large technology contracts in favour of smaller, shorter ones. HMRC's Aspire replacement program, called Columbus, was expected to deliver recurring savings of around £200 million a year. In 2020, HMRC launched a Technology Sourcing Programme to open its £900 million annual IT budget to more suppliers, and the Cabinet Office later said it would produce £824.6 million in savings, according to The Register.
Politics adds pressure. The Register noted that when Andy Burnham became Prime Minister in July, he said public procurement would back British industry. The outlet described Capgemini as a French supplier, which puts its continued role at the tax authority in a sharper light.
What’s next
Watch how the SAP S/4HANA migration and the data warehouse program progress, since both keep Capgemini inside HMRC's core systems into the 2030s. Also track whether the government's stated push to back British suppliers changes how departments like HMRC structure future IT contracts, and whether HMRC publishes figures showing its spend spread across suppliers.
What “Fact-checked” means
Fact-checking means testing a story’s facts against the evidence before it is published. This story went through at least two separate checks before this version was published.
- What we checked
- Its names, figures, dates, job titles, quotes and who said what were checked against the story’s sources, including its main source where it could be opened. The headline was checked for accuracy and overstatement.
- How
- A first check reviewed the whole story. If it passed, a second, skeptical check went back to the sources to look for mistakes in the most important facts. If a check flagged the story, it was edited to fix the problems found, and a separate re-check then reviewed the whole story again.
- Who
- The checks are made by our newsroom, as steps kept separate from the writing, under rules set by our editor, Hussein Mukhtar. A story the checks still flag is held for the editor, who decides whether it is fixed, published or dropped.
- If something is wrong
- “Fact-checked” does not mean error-free. If a material error is found after publication, we correct the story and add a note saying what changed. Report an error
