Incompetence of the MOD procurement procedures again

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by YouAreHavingALaugh, Jun 4, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

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

  1. Just for a change we are reading of equipment that was ordered at an exorbidant price that actually does not fit the criteria it is needed for, on top of that they are again not ready on time so we pay another approx £500 million for a different version.

    Over decades serving officers and civil servants have been clueless when it comes to ordering our equipment and actually receiving it on time and on cost.

    How many more millions, no, billions are still going to be wasted by defence contractors running rings around our procurement staff.

    When this happens do the staff lose their job, as they would in a civilian firm, Think Not.

    Just move on to another procurement and probably cock that up aswell.

    How much for a Type 45 then, bet it will not be the cost that was stated by the contractor.

    Feel better now, had my morning rant after another cock up by our own teams!
  2. Still, the same thing of cost errors happens with the Belgians too :


    "The Belgian Army has instructed its soldiers to cry the local equivalent of 'Bang Bang you're dead' during exercises.
    Defence officials misplaced a comma in a munitions order and left themselves 5 million bullets short, according to one of their newspapers "Het Laatse Nieuws".
    Each soldier has now only 4 bullets each until April 2009.

    As reported by Ephraim Hardcastle of the DW

  3. I'm still waiting for someone to procure some White Short Sleeved Shirts - I'm running out of serviceable ones :thumright:
  4. Well let us hope that they know the difference between a Land Rover and a Viking armoured vehicle.
  5. Read "Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs". MOD Contract writers are to blame - not the companies. As Red said, ordering something and then changing the spec costs money.
    Some defence contractors do take the p!ss though. I was at a presentation when a speaker who used to work for THE British Defence Industry Company (BAe Systems to you) stated that one particular item would cost the MoD 3 times what a civilian company would pay.
  6. Amne to that.
    Profit is not a dirty word, but some companies kick the arrse out of it.

  7. Not wishing to piss on anyone's fireworks; but NSNs are a better insurance against getting the wrong thing than some long item name in a BR. Remember the 2 Ronnies and 4 candles? Once the item's fit, form and function has been precisely defined, that is what you will get every time that item is demanded (unless some idiot Supplier tries to read the specification imaginatively, like a certain hand tools Supplier did some years ago). That part of the introduction process is, err, umm, clanky/sparky/plumbers only; with or without Degrees.

    Admittedly, budget constraints are a problem and a lot of the "specifying" and sourcing task has been delegated to the Prime Contractors. The Contractor will , indeed, try for the lowest cost item to get inside the Tender limits. That then needs robust mechanisms in place to make sure they have contracted for Availability at the Contractor's risk (unfortunately, a Contractor accepting the risk for rectifying a defect in a ship on operations and in contact has a somewhat lesser risk than Jack getting his a**e toasted).

    Anyway, let's have less bollocks about "buyers" needing to be engineers. If the engineers have done their job properly at introduction, the buying could be delegated to suitably trained chimps. A point I would readily concede, though, is that too much has been contracted out. Additionally, the Supplier base has been rationalised significantly and it is now likely that a single Contractor deals with several stores provisioners (as Red73 is probably observing). Does that mean we have too many provisioners? Well, there are some 450,000 line items in the Naval store range; that's a fair bit of managing and puts your B&Qs, M&Ss and all the other small time operators into perspective.
  8. I've always been told: if the MOD ordered a dog, what would turn up is a cat with a mod kit!
  9. Red73. You've not acquired a certain Company in Devizes, have you?

    Regrettably, "lean" material support can result in that. If an item is bought too soon and needs to be stored before fitting, the IPT will be criticised for having too much stock. Equally regrettably, this can be confused with overly long Lead Times (not considered conducive to modern SMART Procurement) if the item is ordered sensibly in advance. Also, some Contractors will accept advance orders and then get p**sy when they produce it ahead of when needed and aren't going to get immediate payment. Build and UPKEEP Contractors aren't always clever about calling forward internal fittings to a set and notified schedule. If an IPT with trained inventory managers knows what is needed and when, it will normally be provided in good time. Retaining trained inventory managers is not easy, though, as such bright people can usually get better jobs elsewhere that pay better than £12 - 16K a year.
  10. But how many typem 45s are actually going to be built and how many were originally planned. The design costs still have to be paid just on less hulls.
  11. May I point out that BAe (or the Great some on here would have us believe) was formed by the Government to take over all the loss making aircraft manufacturers.....they have since been given most of the major defence contractors as well.Contrary to popular belief there is not a great deal of profit in defence work....the constant changes to requirements and stupid specifications guarentee that.

    Edited for spelling
  12. Well, actually, neither Hawker Siddeley Aviation nor the British Aircraft Corporation were loss makers when the Government so generously nationalised them. It is true, of course, that rationalisation (old Fred Handley Page always said that rationalisation was nationalisation by another name!) of the Industry to a single entity was inevitable. It is also true that manufacturing military eqiuipment isn't a licence to print money, despite the popular myth. Most BAES Shareholders (since privatisation) will tell you that you would get a higher return from money in a Building Society. We criticise BAES but it is what Government has demanded of it and now makes virtually everything that moves. Remember that similar drips have been made about Rolls Royce (again, a product of Government ideology).

Share This Page