As I've posted before, the responsibility for the 'hash' (actually a complete c*********k) made of ATC glider and maintenance records lies squarely with the RAF, not Serco. When you contract out a maintenance activity, you don't give up responsibility for supervising and monitoring the performance of that contract. The RAF failed to do this, as was mentioned in letters from the Minister responsible.
I was part of an Air Station team that supervised Serco's execution and performance of a contract to carry out packages of work for second line maintenance of Sea King helicopters back in the (very) early 90s. We took great care to ensure that the teams assembled by Serco were fully qualified to work on our aircraft, rejecting some of their appointments if we felt the people involved didn't pass muster. The Serco operation was fully supervised and checked as part of normal Air Station Quality Assurance and regularly inspected in the same way as every other unit. The result was very good, for us. I don't have shares in Serco, not did I ever have any stake in them. They were no better and no worse than other contractors I worked with, the general standard being good, as long as you kept a close eye on what was going on.
This was (and is) 'ops normal'. It wasn't us being clever, it was just us doing the standard, basic, straightforward job of managing contracted activity. The fact that the RAF proved incapable of doing that should be ringing serious alarm bells against all the other stuff that they've contracted out. Sadly, I suspect that those bells aren't ringing. I'd guess that not a few RAF personnel are content to blame it on the contractors. Thats not a good place to be.
Best regards as ever to all those managing contracts and getting the best out of them,
Engines