Baldrick - let us put some perspective on this. ATLAS did not choose to sign up for the contract on its own, it won the bid over its competitors. It was the MoD that signed up to and awarded the ATLAS bid.

Putting aside the lowest bidder wins argument (which in this case is not true) - there must have been some governance by MoD (through contractors perhaps? I don't know on this point) to decide which was best for MoD? If not - well you only have yourselves to blame!!! That is rather like the child who keeps hitting the dog and then is surprised when the dog bites back!!!

The MoD has never learnt its lesson of getting its own people in (rather than contractors) to do its contracts that are on a decent wage with sufficient incentive to stay - again we come back to the same point of paying peanuts - get monkeys. What the MoD does which is worse, is that it gets serving personnel to get involved in commercial discussions and decisions - that is akin to asking an arsonist to look after a box of matches and a full petrol can!!!

The old argument that the consortium that is delivering a big deal for MoD rapes the public purse is misled. The whole of the public sector has never got it right in terms of asking for what it actually wants. Look at the Prison service, NHS, Education - all of whom had large contracts that have over spent and overran. MoD is not in splendid isolation here.

It is very easy for everyone to blame the contractor all the time but the MOD has to accept some blame for this fiasco. The MOD still works on old school handshakes and is a dinosaur when it needs to adapt to modern business methods (however much we hate them).

Yep you hit the nail on the head with all of that and I'm not going to disagree with any of it. You are 100% correct on the serviceman issue after all three guesses where half the head shed are now working for on retirement?
Atlas didn’t ‘win’ the bid as you put it, everyone else walked away from it, so they were the only bidder!
I'm not going to slate any of the techs on the ground either because they are some of the best blokes I know most are excellent at what they do. Nearly all of them incidentally happen to agree with my sentiments on the way DII has been delivered. As one of the eloquently put, “If they are stupid enough to pay the money, I’m not stupid enough to refuse it!”
The whole fiasco comes back to the DCSA trying a one size WILL fit all approach, p**s poor project management, people trying to cover their own backs, trying to enforce all three project elements on the contract (budget, deliverable, time) as opposed to one. Funny enough exactly the same as the NHS, HMPS, Inland Revenue……………. Etc, etc and we all know how well these projects have worked out…..don’t we? As for the prime contractor in all these Government projects………the same contractor the former head of DCSA now consults to?
Time and time again the MOD was advised NOT to proceed with DII both from within and by other government departments and even the US Navy! All were ignored and the corporate head was stuck in the sand. (It’s always a bad sign when the project team leader threatens his staff with disciplinary action if they don’t tow the party line)
Who blames any contractor for making 100% profit on an item of hardware and charges 10% handling and installation fee? If that was the contract then it’s the MOD’s fault for dropping its pants and taking it in the rusty sheriff’s badge.
Mean while the only people who will suffer are the guys on the ground, I wonder how many extra lines of delay have gone on projects the last couple of weeks because DPA project teams can’t communicate with the outside world, or access project data. Doesn’t bode well for any of us really,
“Sorry guys, you can have ….xyz…… for at least another 6 months because the procurement people have been (F)’d and can’t access the data to place any orders”

Well, so now we have got the finger pointing and blame culture bit over and done with...... Thanks for your thoughts.

Anyone else!!!??

Just one question.......... How much extra do you want to make it work as advertised?

OOOOO dunno mate, [sucks air through my teeth].....looks expensive. These things ain't cheap you know...a few bob to sort this.........I'll do you an estimate and we can 'ave a chat about it over a cuppa - can't say fairer than that can I?

Now I know you've been to Corsham!

Dammit - I've been rumbled!!!

This is all too much the case. In our Squadrons case it was left to the 'FofS' who then left etc etc. The Brigade also had an operational tour in between aswell so the lists of UADs including numbers and locations fell through the 'cracks' so to speak.

This has resulted in a poorly managed and implemented system with the obvious 'top brass' getting exactly what they want and fcuk the rest of us. This is especially poor when the person who was given the task of 'sorting the problem out' still hasn't got a terminal of his own.

This is a bump.

I still remain interested in what you guys have to say as it has helped to shape some thought so far. Keep it coming!!

Why has the role out been delayed at Ensleigh and where have the Atlas bods gone, their office is empty

I don't know the answer to that, but will try and find out and get back to you via PM.

Easy answer to that............ They quit!

Or on a serious note at least three of them have been pulled over to Abbeywood due to the problems with 'F'

So the new excuse for underperformance will be "We've been (F)'d"!!!

How apt.

So, no change there, then...

Please feel free to explain it to me, I am a Staff Officer with 22 years CIS experience. I am consistently involved in staffing DII F and FD documentation - including the current recycling paper which suggest a way has been found to re-use the current printers/consumables.

It is utter rubbish to suggest it is cheaper to buy new hardware and consumables rather than simply reuse existing DII(C) equipment. There is no justification in any of the DII business cases for this.

Whilst you are on please can you explain how the current DII/F system is any better or even as good as the DII/C service it is replacing. Why are Atlas staff not allowed to use the term "reach back" - why are we having to run DII/C and DII/F in order to allow DII/F users at Abbeywood any semblence of normal working.

As far as I can see the implementation of DII/F has been an unmitigated disaster made worse because we have been force fed a solution that doesn't even meet our requirements - anyone want to use EDMS, tough luck!

The only thing that Atlas and DII/F has delivered is masses of jobs at inflated rates for ex-Service personnel and consultants.

And for all of you at field units just think, Atlas have made a complete pigs ear of delivering a solution to the UK fixed environment. How stable and easy is that - just wait until they have a crack at the operational theatres, I would love to be in HERRICK or TELIC when they turn up.

DII(F) utter ficking tonk.

Seems my machine has been replaced by a Pentium 2 with 333MHZ of RAM. A3 printers replaced, like for like, by A4 printers.

Oh and it works really well with JPA - NOT!

As for my data that seems to have disappeared into the ether......

Jockster

A2-matelot.

This is obviously an emotional issue.

Printers - it is cheaper for a full service wrap to have a limited number of accredited, networked printers on the system for a service based contract that is over 5 years. Why? Because, the seat charge that is associated with also covers the software licensing, the tech re-fresh, commonality of consumables (i.e. printer cartridges), less scope for engineer support, SPOC understanding and handling and a reduced replacement pool - the list goes on.
Further - YOUR (read MoD) contract and requirements asked for this profiling of equipment. Yes, there is a clause for re-use (not recycling - a completely different thing), but only where there is a realistic case for Value for Money. Do you honestly believe that the re-use of equipment at a single site that requires the above mentioned effort is Value for Money? If so - you are misguided and are probably thinking of this year's budget - not the full life of the contract.

You say that there is no justification in any DII business case to suggest that replacement of old with new is cheaper - so why is that the case with all monitors less those specified in your re-use policy and have to be treated as consumables (i.e. throw it in the bin if it doesn't work and you get no support for it!!!).

I have no idea why you think that ATLAS staff are not allowed to say the words "Reach Back" - I do, a lot. In fact on a site I am working on - I talk about and make sure that I provide it.

I think the message that really is coming over is this:

Be careful of what you ask for - you might just get it. You cannot blame a contractor for doing the job that they are paid to do.

If there are faults with that job then we both have the ICDN and the RFC process. Tell me when you think that over 15000 RFCs is an awful lot of change and additional burden on the existing roll out? I am not here to defend ATLAS nor am I here to defend MoD.

The reality is that there is fault to be dished out on both sides - of course there is, but until the MoD learn some lessons and employ people to look after their commercial interests as well as those companies that they deal with and at the same time make their mind up as to what they want before committing millions of taxpayers money to project so that they can enforce the terms of their contract.

Yes.......yes it has

The further it slips, the longer I'm in job, invoicing for a rediculous amount of money each week

Oh happy days!

I might buy myself a BMW M3 next week

And good luck to you too......