SFO
“Whilst I do not doubt your assertion over your observations of said DefStan implementation policy, I do know that any DefStan non-compliance has to be covered by a concession, detailing any relevant impact (risk management - safety case gurus) on all manner of things (including airworthiness) before it can be signed off.
Of course, this does assume that any relevant DefSTan's were refered to in the original Spec/Contract/MOU with the supplier!”
Thank you. This is why I referred to a “disconnect” in MoD. Clearly, the Def Stans exist for a reason. Many were written by people with intimate knowledge and long experience of delivering to time, cost and performance – long before this became the SMART procurement mantra. What you describe is what I was taught from Day 1. And any competent contractor would INSIST on them being in the contract if MoD omitted them for any reason. So, over a hundred projects later, it came as a shock when a few non-entities (but with the patronage of their seniors) denounced me openly for striving to deliver airworthiness and safety iaw these Def Stans. And, as they had that patronage, the seniors, all the way up to junior ministerial level (the latter, I concede, merely signed what was put in front of them – but nevertheless I have the papers in question under FOI), continued to dig deeper and deeper holes for themselves through their bizarre decisions to uphold the actions taken against me. However, you’ll be glad to know I completely ignored them and, despite their efforts, the aircraft in question are safe.