Originally Posted by
NutLoose
Call me old fashioned and not experienced in anyway shape or form in negotiating contracts, but why wasn’t there some form of contractual clause inserted to financially hit the company until they rectified the situation to the satisfaction of the RAF and met pre contractual levels in delivering 123 number of students in xyz timeframes, whilst ensuring adequate staffing and aircraft fit for purpose to deliver those aims. And if there is such a clause why isn’t it being I acted upon.
I have no idea about the contract under discussion, but in general terms Commercial people concentrate on Terms and Conditions, and Technical people (and in this case, one assumes, 22 Gp flying staff drafted in to assist) on the Schedule of Requirements. Perhaps, like the SAR privatisation job, 95% of effort went into T&Cs instead of the other way round? There, experienced SAR aircrew were largely ignored. It is not unusual for a project to be deemed successful because T&Cs have been met, irrespective of time, cost or performance. Much depends on the structure of the project team. If dominated or even led by Commercial, what is described above becomes inevitable. One must recall that it is some years now since the Chief of Defence Procurement decreed he did not want technical people near technical projects. That was a lot of expertise to throw away, and very difficult to regenerate.
As Haddon-Cave noted, you don't put submariners in charge of aircraft. The programme will sink.