Mod criticised over procurment

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by nurse, Jan 23, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. 749

    749 Old-Salt

    just for a change then?
    don't these people at Abbey Wood get the message?
     
  2. Ventress

    Ventress LE Moderator

    Memo to Mr Blair- When you see this sack Mr Hoon- as he is in charge- it's called RESPONSIBILITY.

    £3,000,000,000 overspend on the new subs, nimrod, brimstone and the Eurofighter. On paper looks a lot of money- for one reason- it is a lot of money!

    They won't get anymore money and will have to find 1.5 billion out of the MoD budget this year to sort things out!

    Looks like food and accom is going up then! Oh and no more CBA.
     
  3. Heard on the radio the former chairman of BAE Systems saying that they routinely under-estimated the costs to the MoD because if they told them the true costs, they'd never be awarded the contracts!
    All very well if you know the client will pay up in the long run - how about putting a clause in the contracts saying that if a job runs over-budget, the company pays the difference out of its profit margin?
    Might get the right kit on time and at a reasonable cost in the future...
    Defence Contractors getting rich over supplying us with sh*te kit while we're struggling to make do.
    Now if I had a Luger...
     
  4. thats actually whats ment to happen but then British waste of space go crying to the press about profit warnings and impending redundancies and the politicans cave in and tell the mod to pay up.
     
  5. Memo to Mr Blair

    Ref: Previous Memo

    But don't do it until AFTER the Hutton Report is promulgated ; otherwise you will have to find another scapegoat for that particular fiasco.
     
  6. No time for Buff, but surely the people that should be promoted sideways are at the DPA, DLO etc?
     
  7. Having been inside BAE for one of the projects singled out for abuse I found that both sides were fairly culpable. BAE underestimate the cost to get the job (as do all major defence contractors) and the DPA then screw up managing them to the extent that they have to share the blame. Honestly, if the DPA could find their bum with both hands and a tracker dog they could nail BAE to the wall every time. But they can't, so they have to bite the bullet.

    Arguably both sides collude in this activity as it is the only way to get such contracts awarded in the face of defence spending restrictions - which is the side of the story no-one seems to wish to discuss.

    And while we're discussing really dumb DPA management decisions let's look at future carrier - planned all along for a single prime, then at the last minute bottled it and split it between BAE and Thales - a move almost guaranteed to screw things up and increase costs.
     
  8. and they also built in loads of extras that they know will be asked for at a later date
    then they tempt the user into asking for the improvements by showing them what could be done
    when user asks DPA for the enhancements the supply bills for development costs, although they have already been paid for in the original contract!!
    very crafty