Interesting angle within two of those FT links
If one lesson is clear from the
G4S Olympic security scandal, it is that private companies should tread warily when bidding to run high-profile, high-risk services that governments might ordinarily handle. A botched job could throw up as much grief as a security breach at the Olympics
“This is a trophy contract,” says Mr Tusa at Echelon.
But a trophy contract with risks attached: “Once a capability becomes contractorised, the public becomes more critical and demanding,” he says, adding that the government is asking a lot of companies both in terms of complexity and efficiency. “This is very high risk if something goes wrong.”
Was the Olympics originally a trophy contract for G4S I wonder? Is it really worth the risk?
Then in another article
They will be looking for savings in the way they run bases, for example, or on whether training is conducted in or out of house and in the way pilots’ employment contracts are structured.
Moreover, because the DfT did not specify how many aircraft it would require to replace the Sea King fleet retiring in 2016, some operators may have submitted plans that use fewer helicopters, bringing down annual costs.
If this kind of prediction has already found its way into the wider public domain, what hope is there that it will become anything other than another Olympics when the lesser product that some foresee becomes reality a few months or years down the line?
