Transparency
← Back

Transparency · Major projects

British Museum - Energy Centre Programme (ECP)

DCMS · DCMS_0254_2324-Q1

Department page: Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

Data as atRatingEnd dateWhole-life cost
March 2024Amber (NISTA's independent assessment)31 December 2029£209m (price basis not stated)
March 2025Green (the department's own assessment)31 December 2029£209m (price basis not stated)
March 2026Green (the department's own assessment)31 December 2029£181.97m (in 2024/25 prices)

Each year’s cost is shown with its price basis. Costs are not compared between years: the March 2024 and March 2025 reports state no price basis, and from March 2026 costs are in 2024/25 prices.

The department’s commentary

This is the department’s own commentary. It may use different prices from the table above, so its figures may not match.

March 2026

Rating: Compared to the financial year 24/25 Q4, the NISTA/SRO Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) rating at 25/26 Q4 remained at GREEN. The last review was conducted in October 2024, with the next review being due in October 2026. The Energy Centre Programme has generally been progressed over the last 12 months on schedule against the agreed programme and within budget. The two main building contracts were awarded on schedule and within budget in both instances.

Schedule: Compared to financial year 24/25-Q4, the project's end-date at 25/26-Q4 remained the same at 31/12/2029. This is primarily due to the following factors: The early stage enabling works projects have been completed within the agreed programme. Any delays that have been incurred to date on the construction of the East Road Building have been non-critical to the overall programme. The two main building contracts (SWEC Main Works and SWEC MEP) works are currently being progressed in line with scheduled completion dates in June 2029.

Cost: Compared to financial year 24/25-Q4, the project's departmentally agreed Whole Life Cost at 25/26-Q4 (measured in £m) remained at £194m. This is primarily due to the following factors: Procurement of the two main building contracts within budget. Change managed within allocated risk allowances. No significant commercial claims from contractors Please note figures referenced in the narratives were entered as nominal and the system automatically converts them to Real Terms.

Source: NISTA Major Projects Annual Report 2025-26 (data)

March 2025

Rating: Compared to financial year 23/24-Q4, the Infrastructure Project Authority's Delivery Confidence Assessment rating at 24/25-Q4 increased from AMBER to GREEN. This is primarily due to the following factors‚ - The Stage 4 design was progressing well with no major issues or problems. - The programme had sufficient contingency to meet costs. - A delivery manager had been appointed and was in the process of being embedded within the wider programme team. - The major planning consents had been granted, with only more minor ones pending. The conclusion of the Review Team (RT) following the IPA review was that there were no major outstanding issues that threatened the delivery of the programme at that stage, and that the strategic case for the programme was in the RT’s view, sensible.

Schedule: Compared to financial year 23/24-Q4, the project's end-date at 24/25-Q4 remained at 31/12/2029. This is primarily due to the following factors‚ - Although there have been delays to the programme that have affected the expenditure profile as detailed in the response to the in year variance question below, these delays are covered by the in-built programme contingency allowance meaning that the programme end date remains unchanged. - The construction of the East Road Building is progressing on programme. - The South-West Energy Centre enabling works are progressing on programme.

Cost: Compared to financial year 23/24-Q4, the project's departmentally agreed Whole Life Cost at 24/25-Q4 (measured in £m) remained at 209. This is primarily due to the following factors‚ An exercise was undertaken during the 24/25 to revisit the contingency levels and as a result £15m of contingency was removed from the overall budget so the updated agreed whole life cost of the project is now £194m

Source: NISTA Annual Report 2024-25 (data)

March 2024

Rating: The Infrastructure Project Authority's Delivery Confidence Assessment rating at 23/24-Q4 is Amber. This is primarily due to the following factors. The project's IPA DCA rating is Amber. This is primarily due to the following factors: the Full Business Case was not approved by HMT at the time of the rating. Due to the nature of the programme's staged procurement, the main contacts have not yet been tendered. Since the issue of IPA's Amber DCA, the programme has received HMT approval for the Full Business Case. The programme team continue to develop changes in response to the IPA review recommendations from January 2024.

Schedule: The project's end-date at 23/24-Q4 is 2029-12-31. This is primarily due to the following factors: the programme remains on schedule to deliver its objectives by 31 December 2029.

Cost: The project's departmental-agree Whole Life Cost at 23/24-Q4 is 209m. This is primarily due to the following factors: the budgeted whole life costs are from the HMT approved Full Business Case.

Source: IPA Annual Report 2023-24 (data)

Names, figures, dates, ratings and commentary are as the department reported them. Where a rating, cost or date is withheld, the file’s wording is shown. Every major project →