Is that because the majority are simple rather than complex systems? Its obviously going to be a lot easier to buy something on CTP if it is simple. Don't know the answer, just asking.
I can only speak from personal experience. 131 projects while in MoD(PE) and its bastard offspring, including Air (mostly), Land and Sea. Plus a few two grades before being promoted into MoD(PE) – concepts unknown to most in MoD these days. I was what you’d call a “Requirements Manager” in the post before being the lowest grade in PE. Another alien concept!
The “easiest” were ALWAYS those where the proper contractor was selected and the Requirement written by someone trained to do so. Most importantly, where proper Materiel and Financial provision had been made (how many so called Requirements Managers know how to do this, or even realise it is their primary role?)
Perhaps the most difficult one was a piddling little £5M job. DEC wanted 20 systems they acknowledged cost £1M each. Plus platforms to host them. So why staff and have approved £5M? And then accept a cut to under £3M at screening? In a project management sense it was an “easy” job. But having to “manage” DEC is an entirely different thing. (It was Army).
-re “mandatory adherence to KURs and the SRD”. I’ve seen many major programmes with KURs that defy physics. You are right, KURs are allegedly mandatory, but the first thing a sensible project manager does is prepare a “SRD Clarification Paper” written in such a way it doesn’t actually say “This is balls” but in a way which allows you to meet the End Users’ actual needs, not what someone thinks they need. This is an artform. On my last but one Army project, I met all of ONE single KUR out of 15, and perhaps a dozen of about 90 others, yet the General Officer Commanding sandy places described it as his ”equipment of choice” and wondered why we pissed billions down the drain on a useless system that nobody used. That one example illustrates what is wrong, just as well as your own examples do. Communication, flexibility and common sense – and the PM understanding the technical and operational requirement.
On the subject of SRDs etc, the move away from Cardinal Points Specifications to a policy of not “solutionising” was not because this is a better way, but because as a matter of policy MoD had rid itself of staffs able to prepare a CPS. Contractors will tell you most SRDs are too vague. It leads to bidders offering vastly different “solutions” and the best bid is difficult to select as you are seldom comparing like with like. Since the introduction of SRDs, the most successful projects I’ve managed are those where I quietly ditched it and agreed a CPS with the firm, very often one I’ve written. Also, far too many Invitations to Tender don’t contain enough (or any) “differentiators”. Too often you see 95% of the marks available to anyone who can just tick “yes” to 600 yes/no ILS questions. And too often the wrong company, and wrong product, is selected.
And then you have political interference, and contract awards to companies with senior politicians and retired VSOs on their board. It isn’t overt corruption (ok, sometimes it is). But former rank brings access to DE&S, and that access leads to influence being maintained.
Too much of procurement is outwith the PM’s sphere of influence, and it is manifestly unfair to blame them for all cock-ups without ascertaining the facts.