MoD suppliers warn Government of risk to security of privatising budget agency

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by SJRM_RN, Sep 18, 2013.

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. Oh dear; the Gray man won't welcome his retirement nest egg getting scrambled.

    I love it when it takes outsiders to get noticed for stating the bleeding obvious.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. If suppliers are nervous about this, perhaps instead of it being because of "security concerns" (because surely those requiring access to classified level data will be appropriately cleared) but instead they see a reduction in their ability to make a quick buck care of the taxpayer?
     
  3. That's a fair point but I don't think it holds in this case. The Contractors are always security screened, the level depending upon what they are doing. The US Government knows that but is still incredibly twitchy, near paranoid, about Foreigners knowing its business. Foreign Governments get over that on a one to one basis but when it comes to Contractors, curtains can get drawn quietly and quickly; even if the Contractor might be American.

    A Contractor (or Partner!) will always strive to be on the best side of a deal. Having another Contractor as referee and deal maker isn't likely to make a net difference. What it will do is screw Customer 1 (each CoS) into fixed Statements of Requirement and probably remove the flexibility they've had so far, even if that has been costing us money. That flexibility has often been a source of embuggerence (capability creep) to DES (as is now) techies and loggies but the pointy chaps in the Commands know what they need to counter the threats they're presented with. It will be interesting (in the Chinese sense) to see if flexibility stops or what the additional charges by the Procurer will be.

    I'm reminded that S Pepys caused Naval procurement to be removed from the Dockyard Contractors for very good reasons. Also, the DES people have very firm Government Rules constraining them. That's one aspect that reduces their ability to react quickly and cheaply; the very sin they are accused of. Will that means of safeguarding the Public purse be applied to the wonderful new Contractor?
     
  4. I don't profess to have anything more than an end user knowledge of procurement (ie I only see what we got and then hear about the very large price tag!) but I hope that they put a bit more effort into this than the MoD stationery contract, CBRNDC Pens suddenly no longer available through the supplier, yet I'm not allowed to use the GPC to buy some from Staples (who were cheaper, had a better stock and were far quicker to source than the previous supplier!)

    (I know I'm comparing 2 very different things, its just if we can't even get pens and paper right how can we get multi-billion pound bespoke engineering marvels right!)
     
  5. Please don't get me started on bloody Stationery. In the olden days, all Government Departments including the fighting and other uniformed ones were supplied by the Stationery Office. That was then modernised and trendyfied into the Crown Suppliers. In turn, it was commercialised and called Banner and Departments were no longer forced to use them. As a consequence, many didn't and the economics of scale dropped like a brick and, as the costs went up, the offerings became increasingly gash. The other thing to consider is that one of the 1st casualties of "financial stringencies" is the Stationery budget; which probably explains the ban on using the GPC to bypass it.

    The NPPO wallahs in DE&S had the chance to sort the clusterf**k out but failed. That said, it would have been hard work but not impossible. Don't even mention the way we buy paint these days. eusa_wall.gif
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2013

Share This Page