Originally Posted by
racingrigger
Having spent more than 35 years in the RAF (some of those years on stations where various activities were contracted out) and a further 8 working for contractors, I do have some understanding of the situation. My experience indicates that at "contract start" all contractors try to meet the requirements of the "authority." However, it is often the case that the the contract requirements are poorly specified, because the people writing the requirement have little idea of what is required! For example if the contract does not require round the clock availability of sustenance, it is unlikely a contractor will provide it Gratis after the contract has been let.After all a contractor is running a business that presumably needs to make some sort of profit - and don't forget that audited annual accounts are required to be lodged with Companies House, so you can see whether anybody is being "ripped off."
Public accounts prove nothing. The company could be makig a reasonable profit (usually abut 5% of turnover) but paying huge salaries and bonuses which are just costs. There is no way to break down company accounts on a per site basis either. I agree that poor drafting is often to blame, but then if the contracts were short, improvements and changes could be added each year. This Kaizen (continuous improvement) principle ensures that things get better. Long contracts lead to cost cutting and poorer service each year.