SDSR 15
Its nearer 50 than 2
Unfortunately, several of those who have PVRd are our brightest and best; which doesn't necessarily bode well for the rest of us and the future!!
I also agree that SDSR should be job for 15/16; with the actual decisions and announcement into 2016. Let's face it SDSR 10 was rushed and certainly not a true Strategic review!
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Age: 50
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SDSR 16
My understanding is if you delay into 16 that means the CSR from HMT has already allocated the money for the next 3 years at least. Therefore you can review all you want but the budget is set and fixed making SDSR 16 an internal resource shuffle/cut rather like the current ABC rounds (annual planning round in new speak). If you allign with the CSR in 15 you can at least argue your point for capability based on some proper assessment.
Last edited by Selatar; 30th Dec 2014 at 10:00.
Leon
It's the timing that upsets the top shop.
The BOWMAN HF replacement was specified, trialled, delivered and in theatre, all in the space of 2 months in 2003 - and not under a UOR. UORs took far longer!
A month later, the BOWMAN main contract was let to buy its predecessor. This was so embarrassing, the BOWMAN IPT lobbied for the replacement programme to be cancelled, but the PM told them to push off, the replacement would prevent losses whereas in many ways BOWMAN was going to contribute to losses (and so it proved). But they were partially successful as the replacement, at first scheduled for 3 "special" users, wasn't pulled through for everyone else. But BOWMAN did eventually make a supplementary buy outwith their main contract for proper antennae, which had been left out of the contract. Radios. No antennae. You couldn't make it up. Mind you, first things first. The batteries didn't work either, as well as costing 3 times as much as those from other suppliers, and being to a 10 years out of date specification (and not built to that spec). And don't mention battery chargers. Or exploding batteries. Or the total recall and destruction order, that left troops short of power for around 2 years. As the General Officer Commanding said in a press briefing in January 2006, the BOWMAN HF replacement was "the comms system of choice in AFG". What an indictment.
Point being, we need to avoid waste like this before deciding on cuts, otherwise the cuts are from an uninformed and false baseline.
It's the timing that upsets the top shop.
The BOWMAN HF replacement was specified, trialled, delivered and in theatre, all in the space of 2 months in 2003 - and not under a UOR. UORs took far longer!
A month later, the BOWMAN main contract was let to buy its predecessor. This was so embarrassing, the BOWMAN IPT lobbied for the replacement programme to be cancelled, but the PM told them to push off, the replacement would prevent losses whereas in many ways BOWMAN was going to contribute to losses (and so it proved). But they were partially successful as the replacement, at first scheduled for 3 "special" users, wasn't pulled through for everyone else. But BOWMAN did eventually make a supplementary buy outwith their main contract for proper antennae, which had been left out of the contract. Radios. No antennae. You couldn't make it up. Mind you, first things first. The batteries didn't work either, as well as costing 3 times as much as those from other suppliers, and being to a 10 years out of date specification (and not built to that spec). And don't mention battery chargers. Or exploding batteries. Or the total recall and destruction order, that left troops short of power for around 2 years. As the General Officer Commanding said in a press briefing in January 2006, the BOWMAN HF replacement was "the comms system of choice in AFG". What an indictment.
Point being, we need to avoid waste like this before deciding on cuts, otherwise the cuts are from an uninformed and false baseline.
Tuc
Yet again I agree. The waste in our procurement is a disgrace to the hard working taxpayers that pay for the capability. The sooner we start actual 'smart' procurement, like we have with Reaper, Harris 117, Mastiff, Ridgback, Shadow, SigSauer P226, Sharpshooter, M6-895 mortar and others, then the better - all of these have been brought into service at significantly lower cost than the normal method of procurement. The guys at General Atomic were agog when I told them how much we paid contractors to develop something like Watchkeeper or Phoenix - originally we went to look at Predator and then the company asked if we might like to see their next generation of un-manned armed-ISR; this was Reaper, and it was developed from the company's own investment. Furthermore, look at the Jaguar aircraft when the ability to bolt on bits from off the shelf and trial them, came in? The step-change in capability versus amount spent was exceptional.
I agree that procurement is where the majority of savings should come from and the other part from the mismanagement of infrastructure by DIO and their rip-off Regional Prime Contractors who add a "40% variance" to the price of the work before they even start! For example, some simple corrugated roof work was quoted by a local roofing contractor at £750+VAT (they were all HSE approved) and then the Regional Prime Contractor got the job at ~£2,200+VAT - how's that for value for money!!!
Makes me grumpy...
LJ
Yet again I agree. The waste in our procurement is a disgrace to the hard working taxpayers that pay for the capability. The sooner we start actual 'smart' procurement, like we have with Reaper, Harris 117, Mastiff, Ridgback, Shadow, SigSauer P226, Sharpshooter, M6-895 mortar and others, then the better - all of these have been brought into service at significantly lower cost than the normal method of procurement. The guys at General Atomic were agog when I told them how much we paid contractors to develop something like Watchkeeper or Phoenix - originally we went to look at Predator and then the company asked if we might like to see their next generation of un-manned armed-ISR; this was Reaper, and it was developed from the company's own investment. Furthermore, look at the Jaguar aircraft when the ability to bolt on bits from off the shelf and trial them, came in? The step-change in capability versus amount spent was exceptional.
I agree that procurement is where the majority of savings should come from and the other part from the mismanagement of infrastructure by DIO and their rip-off Regional Prime Contractors who add a "40% variance" to the price of the work before they even start! For example, some simple corrugated roof work was quoted by a local roofing contractor at £750+VAT (they were all HSE approved) and then the Regional Prime Contractor got the job at ~£2,200+VAT - how's that for value for money!!!
Makes me grumpy...
LJ
Have you got a link - I'm pretty sure I have enough to employ someone investigating it for 12 months!
Sadly, as it is a 'closed shop' for Regional Prime Contractors and also those under the Catering Retail and Leisure (CRL) contract (that also charge silly prices for their services when an outside firm could do better) then it is unlikely to get a satisfactory conclusion for the taxpayer.
LJ
Sadly, as it is a 'closed shop' for Regional Prime Contractors and also those under the Catering Retail and Leisure (CRL) contract (that also charge silly prices for their services when an outside firm could do better) then it is unlikely to get a satisfactory conclusion for the taxpayer.
LJ
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon, never was a truer word said - there are more savings here than you would care to believe.
I agree that procurement is where the majority of savings should come from
The problem is, you have to do it properly if you want to make the savings. That means a proper/mature/stable specification, open and fair competition, and preventing interference from parties with vested interest during the procurement process.
Oh, and ditching the belief that appointing certain companies as "strategic resources" is the only way of achieving technology and capability transfer.
New Procurement Regs coming in April are going focus the MoD's mind on that one.
I agree that procurement is where the majority of savings should come from
The problem is, you have to do it properly if you want to make the savings. That means a proper/mature/stable specification, open and fair competition, and preventing interference from parties with vested interest during the procurement process.
Oh, and ditching the belief that appointing certain companies as "strategic resources" is the only way of achieving technology and capability transfer.
New Procurement Regs coming in April are going focus the MoD's mind on that one.
Vasco
Many thanks PM sent back. I also found thus amongst the FOI stuff - https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...regularity.pdf
Sad thing is that all of the Regional Contractors are changing to a single source right now - Carillion (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/444bb632-1...#axzz3NPhIPg3x). So now it is just a "one horse race" and I cannot see how this can possibly offer value for money as there is no competition!
I am glad that the current apparent 'cowboy builders' have been shown the door though!
LJ
Many thanks PM sent back. I also found thus amongst the FOI stuff - https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...regularity.pdf
Sad thing is that all of the Regional Contractors are changing to a single source right now - Carillion (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/444bb632-1...#axzz3NPhIPg3x). So now it is just a "one horse race" and I cannot see how this can possibly offer value for money as there is no competition!
I am glad that the current apparent 'cowboy builders' have been shown the door though!
LJ
The construction industry was regarded as the most corrupt and organised-crime ridden sector in Britain, at least in the 1990s, when I spent time auditing. For example, on average 20% of goods ordered never arrived on site - being 'pilfered' along the way.
The scaffolding industry was particularly prone to OC activities; in another example in 1995 a contractor working at RAF Lyneham had a number of his vehicles fire-bombed in Bristol and thus withdrew from the contract, requiring 'single-tender action' to permit work to continue - and to allow a much larger - and more shadier - firm to take over. That sort of behaviour was particularly prevalent.
The scaffolding industry was particularly prone to OC activities; in another example in 1995 a contractor working at RAF Lyneham had a number of his vehicles fire-bombed in Bristol and thus withdrew from the contract, requiring 'single-tender action' to permit work to continue - and to allow a much larger - and more shadier - firm to take over. That sort of behaviour was particularly prevalent.
Hence the famed 1970s graffiti
IN COMMUNIST CHINA WORKERS TAKE THE LEAD!
Beneath which, in a different hand
IN SOCIALIST BRITAIN THE B***ERS NICK THE COPPER PIPING
IN COMMUNIST CHINA WORKERS TAKE THE LEAD!
Beneath which, in a different hand
IN SOCIALIST BRITAIN THE B***ERS NICK THE COPPER PIPING
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon
Sad thing is that all of the Regional Contractors are changing to a single source right now - Carillion (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/444bb632-1...#axzz3NPhIPg3x). So now it is just a "one horse race" and I cannot see how this can possibly offer value for money as there is no competition!
Surely for a contract of this size there is a legal requirement to compete under the Public Contracts/Utilities Regulations 2006? - unless Carillon are being awarded work under a framework, in which case the obligation to run a mini-competition would lie with the Authority.
The FM/Building world is quite competitive - it would be interesting to know how Carillion's services are being procured.
Sad thing is that all of the Regional Contractors are changing to a single source right now - Carillion (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/444bb632-1...#axzz3NPhIPg3x). So now it is just a "one horse race" and I cannot see how this can possibly offer value for money as there is no competition!
Surely for a contract of this size there is a legal requirement to compete under the Public Contracts/Utilities Regulations 2006? - unless Carillon are being awarded work under a framework, in which case the obligation to run a mini-competition would lie with the Authority.
The FM/Building world is quite competitive - it would be interesting to know how Carillion's services are being procured.
Here is another link better than the FT one: Carillion plc - Carillion joint venture signs contracts with the Defence Infrastructure Organisation for a further three Next Generation Estate Contracts
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whenurhappy
(sorry - got carried away with this one)
Corruption perception indexes - Global:
2014 Corruption Perceptions Index -- Results
Within the UK there was a scale for each industry - usually Oil & Gas, Building, Defence took 1st, 2nd and 3rd.
Personally I can't see how Health did not make it into the top running as it is still common to see fund controllers awarding themselves contracts.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c84ead24-c...#axzz3NaHwGJjI
Uk Bribery Act 2010 puts an obligation on organisations to prevent fraud and replaces previous legislation on corruption.
There is still a duty to report and the presumption of innocence does not automatically apply. (If you don't report you are considered to be part of the scam).
Fun to view webpage at the Serious Fraud Office
Latest press releases | Press room | SFO - Serious Fraud Office
(sorry - got carried away with this one)
Corruption perception indexes - Global:
2014 Corruption Perceptions Index -- Results
Within the UK there was a scale for each industry - usually Oil & Gas, Building, Defence took 1st, 2nd and 3rd.
Personally I can't see how Health did not make it into the top running as it is still common to see fund controllers awarding themselves contracts.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c84ead24-c...#axzz3NaHwGJjI
Uk Bribery Act 2010 puts an obligation on organisations to prevent fraud and replaces previous legislation on corruption.
There is still a duty to report and the presumption of innocence does not automatically apply. (If you don't report you are considered to be part of the scam).
Fun to view webpage at the Serious Fraud Office
Latest press releases | Press room | SFO - Serious Fraud Office
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bigbux,
The reason health didn't make it onto the list, is because it's a corruption perception index, not an index of actual corruption, and health is not perceived to be corrupt.
Sun.
The reason health didn't make it onto the list, is because it's a corruption perception index, not an index of actual corruption, and health is not perceived to be corrupt.
Sun.
Gentleman Aviator
Whoever, or whatever coalition or mix we finish up with in May, they will have a fiscal mountain to climb.
You should be so lucky!!
I think it vanishingly unlikley that Defence, with such fragile public support post Afghan, will not be an early major target - and that doesn't mean waiting 'til 2016 unfortunately.
All the Pollies at the moment are fighting shy of addressing or even acknowledging the extent of the Defecit and its seriousness.
Listen in Best Beloveds, because - without being patronising - many (most?) seem not to know the difference between Debt and Defecit.
Debt is what you owe, Defecit is all about cashflow - and we've all been there (I certainly have!) Say you earn £3k a month, but you're spending £3.5k. Whatever you actually owe, that £500 is your defecit. And we get over it temporarily with the help of the plastic or a nice Bank Manager. (and we haven't touched the Debt)
Temporarily is the key - it cannot be sustained. At present, even in so-called "austerity" and with supposed actual and planned "cuts", UK plc is spending about £3k per second more than its income, or if you'd prefer, £10.9M per hour, £250M+ per day. Between now and 7th May that's nearly £33Bn of just defecit, not a penny reducing the debt, not a penny contributing to servicing that increasing debt.
One is not optimistic against that background, at how successfully MoD will be able to compete against NHS and DHSS.
And cynical moi still doesn't expect any Pollie to come clean on the Defecit until 8th May when - foolishly - someone will have a guaranteed 5-year tenure .......
I think there is a serious possibility that SDSR will be delayed until 2016.
I think it vanishingly unlikley that Defence, with such fragile public support post Afghan, will not be an early major target - and that doesn't mean waiting 'til 2016 unfortunately.
All the Pollies at the moment are fighting shy of addressing or even acknowledging the extent of the Defecit and its seriousness.
Listen in Best Beloveds, because - without being patronising - many (most?) seem not to know the difference between Debt and Defecit.
Debt is what you owe, Defecit is all about cashflow - and we've all been there (I certainly have!) Say you earn £3k a month, but you're spending £3.5k. Whatever you actually owe, that £500 is your defecit. And we get over it temporarily with the help of the plastic or a nice Bank Manager. (and we haven't touched the Debt)
Temporarily is the key - it cannot be sustained. At present, even in so-called "austerity" and with supposed actual and planned "cuts", UK plc is spending about £3k per second more than its income, or if you'd prefer, £10.9M per hour, £250M+ per day. Between now and 7th May that's nearly £33Bn of just defecit, not a penny reducing the debt, not a penny contributing to servicing that increasing debt.
One is not optimistic against that background, at how successfully MoD will be able to compete against NHS and DHSS.
And cynical moi still doesn't expect any Pollie to come clean on the Defecit until 8th May when - foolishly - someone will have a guaranteed 5-year tenure .......
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, now my headache has subsided can I just confirm that so far on this thread that we serving, ex-serving and interested thread posters acknowledge that:
1. The pseudo ring fencing of Defence and the ability to deliver operationally trained, equipped and experienced forces (less so Navy) due to Afghan will stop abruptly in 2015.
2. The Defence budget will be cut by a significant amount over the next 4 years.
3. Any funding savings requested by HMT will be delivered by the MoD via savings found in DE&S and DIO, in what appears to be the way that procurement and Defence contracts are awarded.
Have I got that right, or is last night's ale blurring my naive judgement?
Just one more question if you don't mind, is there a military definition for the term strategic, specifically in the timeframe that any SDSR should review - 5, 10, 15 years? Is there a set time metric, or is it decided upon every SDSR or by its very (political) timing it only looks out to the next 5 years acknowledging that a change of Government of the day will invariably result in a change to Defence?
1. The pseudo ring fencing of Defence and the ability to deliver operationally trained, equipped and experienced forces (less so Navy) due to Afghan will stop abruptly in 2015.
2. The Defence budget will be cut by a significant amount over the next 4 years.
3. Any funding savings requested by HMT will be delivered by the MoD via savings found in DE&S and DIO, in what appears to be the way that procurement and Defence contracts are awarded.
Have I got that right, or is last night's ale blurring my naive judgement?
Just one more question if you don't mind, is there a military definition for the term strategic, specifically in the timeframe that any SDSR should review - 5, 10, 15 years? Is there a set time metric, or is it decided upon every SDSR or by its very (political) timing it only looks out to the next 5 years acknowledging that a change of Government of the day will invariably result in a change to Defence?
Last edited by MaroonMan4; 1st Jan 2015 at 17:50.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Itr wouldn't be so bad if the politicians said "we'll look at the NHS/SocSec/Defence budget after the election" but they will gave ANY promises they htink will get the votes - and that means they will tie themselves absolutely to the NHS etc
They don't leave themslves any wriggle room and Defence will be massacred again
Unless President Putin goes totally off the rails it all looks bad from here on in
They don't leave themslves any wriggle room and Defence will be massacred again
Unless President Putin goes totally off the rails it all looks bad from here on in
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I recommend this as an excellent articulation of some of the underlying challenge associated with SDSR
It's a bit of a polemic but makes some very insightful points. In particular; Defence has no agreed definition for 'strategic' but there are several acknowledged definitions that are widely understood by the military. Further, that whilst Defence has a shared language for the creation of both policy and doctrine, Westminster, and more importantly, politicians, do not.
The consequence of this, is that outlining defence and security needs in a manner that will 'hit home' with decision makers, is very, very hard.
Sun.
It's a bit of a polemic but makes some very insightful points. In particular; Defence has no agreed definition for 'strategic' but there are several acknowledged definitions that are widely understood by the military. Further, that whilst Defence has a shared language for the creation of both policy and doctrine, Westminster, and more importantly, politicians, do not.
The consequence of this, is that outlining defence and security needs in a manner that will 'hit home' with decision makers, is very, very hard.
Sun.