cuckoopen
I have been reading these threads for a number of years but have never been inclined to post anything until now. And it is the wild generalisations made by Tecumseh about the SAR-H programme that has made me do it.
I speak as someone who has been involved in the SAR-H programme for a number of years and who spent his life in the RAF helicopter world. At the outset I would like to say that IMHO, if the Soteria bid had gone through we would have ended up with a first rate SAR service, crewed by professional aviators from the civil and military world, with a modern, SAR capable aircraft easily meeting, and at times exceeding, the demands set by the Government for the service. Yes, it would have been expensive over the life of the programme but that seems to be the nature of PFI deals in the UK.
Soteria was chosen after a very comprehensive review of all bidders returns and the results of that review are transparent and completely traceable.
The 12 bases would not have been ideal (or even necessary) but there were political issues to consider. Operationally, a different deployment plan would have been better but have you ever tried to close an ambulance station? MPs can get very heated. Logic does not form part of the argument.
Nevertheless, Tecumsehs point about the requirements is ridiculous. Reading his rant you might come to believe that if he had been involved all would have been well. The User Requirements actually evolved over an extended period as a result of much debate among a number of very experienced SAR operators and some detailed OA. These were translated into a set of quite complex system requirements, which were certainly not "vaguely worded and meaningless", and then passed to the potential contractors to form the basis of their responses. Those Contractor responses were actually very detailed and comprehensive rather countering the idea that there was confusion and misunderstanding about the requirements.
As part of the EU rules on acquisition a period of competitive dialogue then took place. This gave the contenders the opportunity to ask the Project Team as many questions as they wanted in order that they be in no doubt as to the capability the military (and the DfT) were seeking. Yes, there were a number of clarifications requested but in a project of this size it would be remarkable if there were not. The questions and the responses, unless there was a commercial reason not to do so, were shared across all interested parties. Queries about operational matters elicited a response from serving Subject Matter Experts (ex SAR Flight Commanders/Training Officers/Experienced crewmen) and MoD and MCA Consultants. Although I cannot speak for the legal and commercial aspects I am convinced that those teams were fully competent.
Soteria and the others took full advantage of this facility and thanked the PT for the refreshing opportunity There can be no excuse for anybody subsequently claiming that they did not understand anything. This is complete "tosh". Everyone was given as much time as they wanted and at the end of the period the potential contractors went away happy. It was also made clear to them that they could come back to the PT with supplementaries on the understanding that these would also be shared. There was absolutely no need for anyone to make private approaches to individuals. Information that was requested was freely given.
An what exactly is Tecumseh "on" when he mentions fast jets and submarines? I cannot follow this at all. Can anybody help?
So, Tecumseh, I suspect you are being facetious. It is a great shame that the conduct of a single individual seems to have ruined this programme. But the new Government was never keen on Browne inspired PFI deals - was this just too good an opportunity to "kill it off" without actually having to cancel it themselves? Just a thought!