SARH to go

[Tallsar]

Hi Guys - I suppose if the premise of any of this discussion is predetermined by a prejudical viewpoint of any sort, it is always diffcult to convince otherwise or make headway with fact(s).

Crab - Despite the very large resources and expertise put in to such bids (by both remaining bidders) the whole purpose of customer scrutiny is to clarify and identify ambiguities - remembering too that the Customer's own (extensive) requirements document can be ambiguous too - so the whole purpose of the process is to bottom out the facts even if most are very clear. Remember too that the interaction of technical, commercial and financial requirements can lead to compromise outputs to ensure the overall requirements are met - this is not just a contract about a highly specified aircraft. Yes it is only right that the Customer scrutiny team identifies any issues within any bidder's response - but I take real issue with your prejudicial viewpoint that the bidders go out of their may to potentially mislead or hide things. This is simply a typical frontline prejudiced viewpoint that would not stand up to any independent scrutiny - certainly not as far the SAR-H project is concerned. For this stage of the process (as in any major project) an IPT may take some issues "at risk" as you say, to ensure the free flow of the bidding process and progress within sensible timescales to get to the contract negotiation stage. What matters here is whether these issues are resolved before the signing of the contract and committment by all signatories thereafter. In the SAR-H bid process such a process will occur after award of preferred bidder early next year. This is when those "at risk" issues must be resolved to all parties satisfaction - if you assume that all will merely be taken on board by the customer and the requirement therefore effectively abandoned - you are doing a real diservice to a hard working (and under resourced) IPT and their many frontline reps. The long negotiation over FSTA contract is a clear example of this.

Unfortunately it is not (and never would have been) possible to fund and deliver what each of us as active or ex SAR practioners would have desired and defined as our ideal SAR-H or UK SAR replacement programme. Life just ain't like that - so compromises against the budget will always have to be made. You personally may not like the result in some important details (as no doubt will I) but its the only game in town at present and what will result will in overall terms be a real improvement over the present amalgam of the 3 UK service providers - whichever side wins will result in a common fleet of brand new modern and capable aircraft which will effectively replace the increasingly decaying Sea King et al and be a real step forward. While the solution for me will not be a step forward enough and a missed opportunity to deliver a different style of solution - it will be a real improvement nonetheless.

As a guy who has now worked in the mil and industry - I have a great deal of admiration for the expertise on all sides imperfect and institutionally crazy as it might be occasionally (on all sides of the project family!!) - and I have to say, that certainly in this particular programme, the suggestion that a long term PFI can produce large bonuses and huge profits for the chosen contractor is just simply a prejudiced and cynical joke - henc emy previous comment re Metronet. Any long term PFI is about major risk being placed on a contractor for the sake of long term service provision, financial stability and budgeting for a customer who has now gained access to resources that the they would otherwise not be able to afford (for whatever reason - and there are several in UK SAR's case as previous threads have discussed). Essentially a simplistic view of this PFI concept is that a contractor rejects short term larger profit as might be the case in a major aircraft production contract with no servcie delivery, for their own acceptance of a much lower annual profit margin but the confidence that as long as they manage the contract well (and thats a big if!!) and have budgeted correctly in the first place (with no hidden gotchas - which could soon undermine any profit!) they will maintain that profit for the immense length of the contract - the risk in signing up for 30 years to major programme like SAR-H with all its potential gotchas over that time should not be underestimated!! So to suggest that contractors are only seeking large profits and bonuses is simplistic trash - it would not survive the scrutineers! To ensure this cannot happen means signifcant Customer rules and financial scrutiny that is more extensive in many ways than that applied to the technical requirements - so be in no doubt people - imperfect as it might be from individual perspectives - SAR-H will not be a financial walk over for anyone.