Originally Posted by
helispotter
Can you see a case for how Norwegians could also claim cost of an alternate replacement helicopter? I can't.
Something similar would be perfectly normal in a UK commercial contract, so I expect MoD has suitable words somewhere in Defence Contract Terms. It will in effect say that if the first contractor fails to perform the contracted duties the client may employ a second contractor and charge the extra costs to the first contractor.
Not easy to enforce, as the first contractor is unlikely to cooperate, very hard to value the work actually done and hell on skates to manage the second contractor who has no imperative to keep costs down. Completely useless when dealing with a monopoly contractor.
I suspect the Norwegians have decided to start their claim from the position that the machine was of no use whatever and so the entire cost of providing replacement NH90 capability now falls tothe account of the supplier. They can always walk back during hegotiations.