Melchett I am normally in agreement with your POV but this confuses me:
Originally Posted by
Melchett01
I o find it irratiting when organsitations and groups want to hang on to the coat tails of the military, are quite content to take whatever kudos they can get from the association of contributing to the defence of the country,
Do you mean the service industry contractors that cite the number and value of Government contracts that they have been awarded.
I see that as a company issue.
but then in the next breath are happy to stamp their feet when they don't get their own way.
Who? Employees or the company? The employees often have little choice. Many would have been TUPEd in from the civil service and previous contractor(s). Not for them is the kudos for working for the military.
If we have to put up with contractorisation as part of a one force concept, fine, we will. But you are in or you're out, you can't pick and choose.
But therein lies the rub. They can indeed not so much pick and chose but adhere strictly to the contract.
Most contracts will have been awarded where the contractor has built in an annualised inflation element into the contract. If he got it wrong then he will try and correct it by economies.
Only where the contractor fails to meet the contract terms can the Service hold him to account. The first line of attack is the Contract Monitoring Team. Now many contracts will contain errors such as over specifying something, say too many meals per week, but the contractor has only had to supply 80%. A good team can get the contractor to, say, increase food quantities or qualities to return the output to the same contract value.
That notional saving (however it arises) should not be used by the contractor to balance his books.