Don't necessarily agree with all of it (contractorising DE&S doesn't feel deeply clever) but otherwise it shines a light on the things that MoD wouldn't / doesn't like.
I’d say that contractorising even one aircraft/equipment IPT would shine a light on precisely those things MoD doesn’t want exposed.
For example, how on earth would you incorporate the raft of formal rulings imposed upon some procurement staffs by CDP and Mins(AF) into a contract, such as…….
If an aircraft is not airworthy, it is acceptable to make a false declaration that it is.
I can’t imagine for one minute any Westland staffs (for example) accepting such a condition given their long history of complaining against this ruling.
Or,
We shall not tolerate you delivering to time, cost or performance if other programmes in the IPT are not.
I think companies would be looking for a financial incentive to deliver to TCP. I accept this would cost more initially, but the sheer efficiency caused by shorter programmes, fewer cost over-runs and contented Users would soon outweigh that.
And having this under a formal contract arrangement would largely solve the biggest bugbear in any programme – wholesale, unfunded changes to the endorsed requirement.
I haven’t read the entire report yet, but a quick look indicates it doesn’t differentiate well enough between budget and fair and reasonable cost. While many projects may be over-budget, they do not exceed a fair and reasonable cost for the actual requirement. Which gets you down to the age old and most basic question in all acquisition – Who is responsible for Materiel and Financial Provisioning? I’ve asked this question in every project team/IPT I’ve worked in since the process was abandoned in the early 90s – not one person has answered. As time passed, fewer knew what I was talking about.
In practice, what this means is that the endorsed requirement often omits fundamental pre-requisites to a successful programme. For example, it is common to omit training, including the simulator, in its entirety. Similarly, sufficient spares, tools, test equipment and accurate tech pubs.
I recall one particular helicopter Director going ballistic at the mere mention of buying a simulator, walking away when reminded that without a trained aircrew you can’t demonstrate airworthiness or achieve an In Service Date (neither of which bothered him in the slightest). The User, but not their aircrew, actually agreed with him. As did our Director General (2 Star) and CDP (4 Star). We ignored them all and, much to their annoyance, delivered to TCP. The programmes that did what they were told are the subject of annual trashings by the PAC, NAO and HCDC. “Gold Standard cock-ups” is the phrase, I think.
Contractorising would get rid of those dangerous attitudes at a stroke. It may not work across the board, but I’d certainly give it a go, perhaps on a trial basis. As a project manager though, the one thing I’d want is the “prime” having was the right to “hire and fire” his suppliers. One cock-up you get a yellow card, a second and you’re red carded (or alternatively financial penalties). We go somewhere else, regardless of how well you know Ministers and senior officers. (Which, believe me, is another major bugbear. It would negate another CDP/Ministerial ruling – that if you cock-up you can be paid in full, and then paid again to try to get it right, and then paid………..).