Excellent point JFZ90.
To coin a phrase, this is a real No Turning Back moment for Defence procurement. MoD's expertise is almost gone, deliberately run down in the 90s by Walmsley. ("I don't want engineers running engineering projects"). If GOCO fails, where to then? It is a "Must Not Fail" moment and MoD's historical answer is to chuck money and staff at it, but make sure the cost is booked somewhere else. But neither guarantee success. Hard won practical experience and ignoring senior staffs is as near as you'll get to a guarantee in procurement. History tells us this is irrefutable fact. So, what is MoD's fallback position?
Is it co-incidence MoD is in the same position over Army cuts and the "Army Reserve"? The cuts are going ahead without any guarantee we'll get 30,000 strong reserve. What is the fallback plan? Full scale retreat? The same people are in charge of this asylum. By this, I mean politicians and those at the top in MoD. Savings, savings savings, but never mind the deliberate waste.
I've said before, but worth repeating, that Gray announced the model he was going to use on Radio 4 in December 2011. It was the very same model endorsed in June 2001 for a major Cat A Army project, and still successfully in place today. (Mr C Hinecap alluded to it on another thread the other day). It is based 100% on mandated (at the time) airworthiness regulations.
When questioned by an MP in January 2012, MoD then denied Gray even uttered the words, despite the full interview being available on Radio 4 archives for download. When this was pointed out by the MP, MoD refused to reply, and the initiative went quiet for over a year; in which time MoD announced more experience was being removed.
Therein lies the real story. Clearly, Gray was simply fed a line without understanding "his" proposal was extant policy in many domains anyway; so by definition scores of reputable contractors knew it inside out. When this was revealed by an MP, embarrassment ensued. But you'd expect the person who briefed Gray (or submitted the policy as his own new idea) to be asked to explain it. Crisis over, crack on, promote the briefer again. But no, they denied he even mentioned it. Why? The obvious answer is that the briefer didn't understand what he'd cribbed, and couldn't find anyone who did. Or didn't want to admit how low down the MoD hierarchy they'd have to go to find someone to brief a 3 Star. (One answer would be an Army Corporal at Warminster, but that's by the by).
I would like to hear the bidders' views. Did they appreciate, or were they told, that Gray's proposed model has already been implemented? I've never heard of half the companies involved, so I doubt it. Perhaps one has had the mandated Def Stan called up in one of his contracts, many years ago. None are involved in the current Army initiative. A wheel has been reinvented over the last 2-3 years, while DE&S has regressed in terms of ability to do its job. Gray is not on record as changing his mind over the model to be used. He just got someone to think up a new name (GOCO), which took a year. I'd also like to know what the exam question to bidders was, to see if he quietly changed tack, while denying his original tack. Entirely possible.
In short, this recent announcement is no surprise.