"Under Ministry Control" or not, cannot the buyer at least assume that the supplier is capable, as the other posters here have suggested, of meeting the most rudimentary of airframe fabrication skills? Or is it assumed that MoD must inspect and endorse every stage of the manufacturing process?
Should this actually be the case I would say there is something very wrong with the UK defence procurement process.
Jim, you are absolutely correct.
UMC is a formal status. MoD can choose not to bring a design UMC, but must make alternative materiel and financial provision for it to be managed UCC. The problem, as ever, arises when staffs do not understand that SOMEONE must control it. Too often the transfer has been cancelled as a savings measure by someone who doesn't understand the significance, but no contract let with industry to retain it UCC. This was a significant factor in, for example, 4 of the 7 Sea King ASaC crew (2003) having the wrong standard helmets, and neither aircraft having the specified comms system; both contributing to the Cause - loss of Situational Awareness). THAT is one of the major breakdowns in the defence procurement process you speak of. By definition, the validity of your Safety Case progressively erodes.
As to whether BAeS "bounce this one back to MoD" I suppose that is up to them, and the degree of liability on each side. Goodwill is a factor, and sometimes it is wise to take the hit. My point is that, in my experience, most companies are well aware they have a standard defence. MoD flatly refuses to follow its own regulations or meet its legal obligations.
I don't know what occurred in this case, only that a claim has been made of poor documentation. Given MoD policy, it would surprise me if the documentation was correct! But, as I said earlier, poor docs are no excuse for poor engineering practice. Who is responsible for ensuring this doesn't happen? MoD no longer has a viable Quality Assurance department. Resident QARs are a rarity, if they haven't all gone already. MoD no longer exercises its right of veto on company appointments. (Find me someone who knows they have this right!) You could go on, and deeper, until you get to a lack of proper engineering apprenticeships and basic training. MoD don't believe in that either, being content to permit non-engineers to make engineering design and safety decisions. BAeS may have inadvertently screwed up. MoD do it as a matter of policy!