Tallsar - I have never made a secret of the fact I am fundamentally opposed to PFIs in general and the SARH process in particular -
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
and it is this type of risk taking that has got us into the financial mess we are in now.
We all now know that when major institutions fail, the Govt will (and has to) pick up the tab - against a background like that, where is the incentive for the contractor to perform well?
Cornwall established a much lauded PFI for their schools where the contractor promised to maintain the present schools and build new ones - jam today and jam tomorrow - except that what they produced was substandard and has just failed - who suffers? oh yes the taxpayer again.
Can we really afford to do this to SAR? Whilst the management of both the remaining bidders may be promising the earth and offering every guarantee under the sun in order to get the money, we heard the same thing from the utilities companies and the train companies.
The people calling the tune are the financial backers and they always want more profit from their investments - see what First Reserve are doing to CHC.
As to the misleading - the bidders ticked all the boxes of the SARH requirement to meet the bids capability requirements, all claiming to meet the spec. But when all the said claims were scrutinised, many areas were found to be wanting and some were missing altogether (the devil is always in the detail). If the SMEs hadn't been so diligent and professional, how much of a capability gap would have made it to the front line? Either there was some smoke and mirrors and subterfuge to dodge round the capability requirements or the bidders were incompetent in researching their own bids - which was it? Either way it is unsatisfactory!
I don't suppose for an instant anyone has the balls for it but this process should be halted now before it is too late. When politicians are actually talking openly about saving 5Bn by reducing the number of SSNs in Trident replacement, how can we justify 5Bn on SARH when all we really need are new helicopters which would cost a whole lot less than that?