On the first point, whilst we absolutely do need to deliver value for money on the budget we have, there is a point in pursuit of that where that desire itself costs money. I think of the MoD scrutiny process, contracting arrangements, approvals staffing etc etc. Whenever we think we have hacked that area, another group of people, with a vote, seem to pop up and so the wheel turns.
Requirement Scrutiny is the mandated process by which MoD ensures a proposed spend is “good”. The process itself is not inefficient nor does it cost much – if done properly. It is NOT done properly, and hasn’t been for over 20 years. Successive PUSs, who mandate the process, have been told this on numerous occasions by MoD’s own auditors. I suspect your (justified) view is based on the result of this failure, not the process itself.
As for industrial requirements, it is now pretty clear that the MoD is unable to run effective, competitive tenders
Again, you are correct. While the official policy is “competition”, as a matter of policy MoD has not employed the necessary expertise to run and assess competitions for the same 20+ years. There are other factors. Political interference. Many competitions have run for excruciatingly long periods (years) only for the clear winner to be rejected on an overrule because he is not in a constituency of the Government in power.
More obscurely, in 2000 the Chief of Defence Procurement issued a formal ruling that if Thales (no one else, just Thales) expressed an interest in an ongoing project, the project manager was expected to cancel the contracts and start all over again with Thales. Regardless of cost or delay. (Inability to do the job was taken for granted). In December 2000 he went so far as to uphold disciplinary action against staff for refusing to do this (such an act would never pass the above scrutiny), instead insisting on delivering to time, cost and performance. This was utterly deranged, but was not a one-off act of lunacy. To my personal knowledge this ruling has been upheld at least 5 times in the past year alone, most recently this week!
I’m afraid under such “leadership” those in DE&S who try to do the right thing are stuck between a rock and hard place. 15 years ago, or even 10, it could have been fixed. But today, because there are so very few left who have been taught properly, I see a GOCO type structure as the only way out for MoD. But even then, as I said before, it is highly unlikely they will follow the extant rules, because Bernard Gray won’t want to admit “his” solution is simply to regress to an old policy that actually worked. So, what we’ve got, is a bastardised version which didn’t even draw a bid from a reputable defence contractor.