While no one would argue with the sentiment of this inquiry, one wonders why?
The NAO have so many reports that show why things have gone wrong. There are good well-documented comparators of projects. So simple desk research would answer most of the questions.
In my view, Government fails at the start of projects. If you were doing any work on your house you would start with research. Then when you had an idea of what you wanted, budget etc. you would go and find an architect. They would take your ideas and refine them. You would agree and ask for planning. If granted you would research possible builders and their reputations, look at their past work, make up a tender list and issue the tender, award the work have it built with building control checking it and then you pay the final bill. All done. At each stage, you review your progress and adapt to the circumstances.
The government, however, ignores various stages (research, architecture, planning etc.) and jumps all too often into the procurement stage adopting the competitive dialogue method and then trying to engineer a solution, to a problem that is not properly defined. Their failure to obtain a clear vision of what they want and what is available means they seek to procure an undefined solution through the most costly and bureaucratic method and then Parliament wonders why problems occur.
We only need to look across to the French to see how they spend significantly less on their procurements than ourselves.