Procurement Privatisation [Archive]

JFZ90

24th Apr 2013, 22:39

some good points here

RUSI - RUSI NEWS (http://www.rusi.org/news/ref:N501674F3225F2/#.UXhZd3wayK0)

what i can't get my head around is how will reqts be effectively controlled with the goco? with the 10,000's of individual and diverse projects being delivered by de&s (the vast majority to PTC), who will control and hold the goco to account? is someone in cap / flc commands just going to agree 6-7 KURs for each project upfront then leave all the control and spending to a company? just how will that work on an aircraft programme? who will control integration / interoperability between projects & how?

i fear there maybe some nasty shocks in store when the goco turns around and says "you didn't ask for that - send more cash". there is surely a real risk that either current overruns/spends will look trivial, or it will result in kit that is not fit for purpose.

GrahamO

25th Apr 2013, 05:58

i fear there maybe some nasty shocks in store when the goco turns around and says "you didn't ask for that - send more cash". there is surely a real risk that either current overruns/spends will look trivial, or it will result in kit that is not fit for purpose.

You mean just like we have now ? From the publics point of view, its exectly how the UK MOD has behaved for the last 20 years. Vast sums of money wasted by ineffective procurement at all stages and absolutely no consequneces and frankly, no interest in being the slightest bit efficient or effective.

Thats exactly what we have but there are no consequences for those in the current process when abject failures cause price and time overruns.

At least under a go-co, some folks could be sacked and the system would gradually learn that actions have consequences. I know the MOD isn't Tesco, but a lot could be learned about effective supply chain management, and getting the right thing defined at the outset.

Lima Juliet

25th Apr 2013, 06:19

Roland mentioned "Save as you starv" and I agree that the Catering Retail and Leisure (CRL) contract has some significant shortfalls that need ironing out. However, I recently heard that significant "gain shares" (which is 50/50 dividend share to the station and contractor) have been delivered back to RAF stations - 10s to 100s of thousands of pounds - which they can spend on stuff on station for 'quality of life' improvements. Now if a little more was spent back on improving CRL and the price/food quality then I suspect it would find a happy median.

So I see no reason why PFI shouldn't work if we had some decent individuals doing contract monitoring and tweaking them to our benefit (ie. the Service). If the RAF did this we might gain another lever to pull and gain some control back from DIO or DE&S or this proposed GoCo.

LJ

Evalu8ter

25th Apr 2013, 06:43

Sadly, the attitude of Service manning (the need to move fast-trackers every 18mths) means that often the 'value added' provided by a serviceman in DE&S/Cap Dev areas is in short supply as they just gain competency when they're moved. The best PMs I've worked with in DE&S are either 'mong stream' S/L and W/C who've settled in the West Country (but are often ignored or overruled by Gp Capts/B1 CS who are going places....) or ex-mil contractors who bring experience and gravitas to the role - but you do pay for the privilege. In many cases the best CS have their morale and enthusiasm crushed lest they embarress their seniors. I'm tired of seeing poor decisions taken by ill-informed people based on turning dashboards the correct colour in order to meet bonus targets and to hang with the military need. If, and it's a big if, Manning wake up to the true needs of acquisition and nurture SQEP individuals to place in Cap Dev in the FLCs then DE&S could be massively streamlined if the Cap Dev area were holding them to task. Properly drafted requirements with behaviours driven by contract are the way ahead - but I'm not holding my breath. If a GoCo hires the right people, and is prepared to pay them the right money, it could make a tangible difference. Hmmm........

AF03-111

25th Apr 2013, 06:57

A couple of points spring to my mind. Firstly, there is likely to be a Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) requirement on the GOCO so don't expect there to suddenly be a 'clean sweep' with lots of new staff.

Secondly, there might just be a chance that a commercial outfit might force the DE&S system to clean up its act. Perhaps this would prevent the sort of recent farce witnessed in a major UOR, in which the bizzare requirements set in the SRD guaranteed that no bidder could be compliant with the ITT! Net effect - significant delays in delivering an operational capability to the front line, and additional costs to the bidders, who all now have to re-compete against a revised SRD. DE&S' own rules state that the MOD expects bid costs to be recouped by the winning team in the delivery phase, so who do you think will ultimately be picking up the tab?

I work for a small commercial outfit and if we operated in the manner DE&S did, we'd be out of business in no time....

Pontius Navigator

25th Apr 2013, 06:58

Why not try COGO?

Take some costly and ancient piece of kit, a Land Rover say. Contractor determines that a new fleet of Toyotas can be acquired and operated at a lower through life cost than the old kit.

The Service is responsible for maintenance and operation - we have an expeditionary force so we can deploy and maintain without having to start a new contract to have grey suits wherever doing the dirty stuff.

When cost basis changes the contractor changes the kit.

tucumseh

25th Apr 2013, 06:58

who will control integration / interoperability between projects & how?

This is a good question, inadvertently (it seems) answered by Bernard Gray in his Radio 4 interview of 27.12.11 (“Buying Defence”). He cited a long-mandated policy but clearly didn’t actually know it was mandated, or even existed, as he presented it as an original thought. Clearly, a lackey who didn't understand the policy, but only knew that it was responsible for successful programmes, simply scribbled it into a briefing.

When this was pointed out to MoD by an MP, they promptly denied Gray had even uttered the words. When the MP passed on an audio recording of the interview, MoD still denied it.

At the time, on another thread, I opined being caught in this lie would probably delay the GOCO announcement by some time, as MoD desperately struggled for alternative words that meant the same. It seems the delay was about 16 months.

The article in the Guardian is so light on facts and detail as to be worthless. There is far more in Gray’s 30 second interview from 27.12.11.

The Defence Standard that lays down the procedures for this policy was cancelled, without replacement, 3 years ago, yet remains mandated in ALL aircraft/aircraft equipment contracts. MoD no longer have a complete copy of it. Despite cancelling it, MoD didn’t think it wise to amend the contracts that call it up, perhaps because a flagship Army programme relies 100% upon it. Nor did they withdraw copies from those Contractors who use it as the Bible.

Finally, an old chestnut. The assumption that only servicemen can manage procurement is absolute nonsense. No one likes discussing the fact that many, in fact the majority, of projects are delivered to time, cost and performance. MoD’s main problem is their unwillingness to learn from these successes, instead only looking at the failures. And when they discover that failures could have been avoided by following mandated regulations (in the main, the above Def Stan and the underlying training necessary), they walk away, because that reveals where the true problem lies, and with whom. (And the list of names on the RUSI website doesn’t give you confidence they’d be in any way objective).

Always follow the lies because that is where the truth can be found. Ask why MoD would deny Gray said something, when it can be listened to and downloaded from the BBC website!! The mentality is that of a 2 year old, and getting rid of such people should be the first step.

Roland Pulfrew

25th Apr 2013, 08:27

No one likes discussing the fact that many, in fact the majority, of projects are delivered to time, cost and performance.

Tuc

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.

Having worked in procurement I think part of the problem is the mandatory adherence to KURs and the SRD. Sometimes you know what is the right buy; if it is the only thing out there that can do what you want (C17, E3) or it is blindingly obvious that if you need a system to do X the answer is Y you should just buy it. However we have to write a requirement (which may not completely encompass everything that the single requirement manager can think of when drafting the SRD) and then allow bidders to bid against the KUR/SRD, with systems that might deliver anything from X-- through X to X++. The scrutineers wont allow you to just buy X++ even though, invariably, it is the right answer because X-- is cheaper (and doesn't meet the requirement); as the RM you then have to "move the goal posts" as you try to get the capability you actually want, particularly when you remember that critical capability that was a "compartment" on the old system and you now need to add to the SRD; which the contractor will seize upon as a new requirement for which he can charge more and delay the programme; meanwhile technology moves on and the in service platform you are trying to replace gets some upgrades, possibly through UOR action; which means your replacement is now a backwards step. In the mean time other nations who just bought Y in the first place are wondering why they have a platform in service meeting their requirement and doing the job for which it was procurred, whilst you are still tied up in negotiations with the "preferred bidder". And relax.

LJ 10s to 100s of thousands of pounds

I would be stunned by 10s of thousands let alone 100s of thousands. Of the various tri-service stations that I have visited recently I have yet to hear of anyone getting £s back let alone 10s or 100s. Of course it would also suggest that had the Service decided to invest properly in its messes and on base "all ranks coffee shops", "we" would be receiving 100% of the gain share not 50%. Any ideas as to which stations have received this substantial windfall?

Whenurhappy

25th Apr 2013, 11:32

Having an intelligent customer capability is vital. In the infrastructure environment, the RAF has not had any professionally trained or experienced construction professionals (eg builders, architects, civil engineers, QS) for many years, rather, the task fell to junior officers of the Admin Branch (Pers Branch in new pence), with not so much as a day’s experience on a building site. The justification for not having SQEP was that DWS/DE/DIO would provide that intelligent input.

If that was so….

Xercules

25th Apr 2013, 11:42

One though that springs to mind - once procurement has been privatised who arranges the next contract for the same service? It would seem from the current rules that the incumbent contractor is either compromised already or would have to be excluded from bidding again. Nobody else would surely accept that the incumbent could run an unbiased competition.

the result would surely be complete stagnation whilst the issues are sorted out or a complete change of contractor with the same stagnation over the handover and learning period.

Xercules

25th Apr 2013, 12:03

tucumseh

25th Apr 2013, 12:06

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.

Pontius Navigator

25th Apr 2013, 12:48

once procurement has been privatised who arranges the next contract for the same service?

The initial contractor won the competition by offering a price at the in-house cost less x%.

5 years down the line the ability of the Service to take the work back in house is severely compromised and the sitting contractor can now up his offer. While a new bidder might undercut in price they may also under-estimate the risks which places the ball back with the initial contractor.

Barrel and over springs to mind.

Not_a_boffin

25th Apr 2013, 13:37

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.

Heresy, heresy, burn the heretic! I can hear the "systems engineering" purists writing the requirements for their instruments of torture now!

It's a huge part of the problem in that theoretically giving the contractor total freedom to propose solutions is a good thing. That may be so at pre-concept and concept phase, but beyond that it leads to uncertainty which leads to risk, which leads to suffering (to paraphrase Yoda). Trouble is the theoreticians have convinced many of the scrutineers and finance types that theirs is the true path, when as you say it's actually having requirements managers who understand the requirement and its derivation and PMs who are sufficiently experienced in the relevant area to make pragmatic decisions.

I remember the utter bewilderment of many in teh shipbuilding industry when the CVF SRD came out. If you want a price, you'd better write us a shipbuilding technical specification they said - which in essence was the SRD with pragmatic levels of solutioneering built in.

romeo bravo

25th Apr 2013, 14:07

A quick way of wiping 15,000 civil servants off the Government books :oh:

tucumseh

25th Apr 2013, 15:56

NAB - Thanks

I think GOCO is a good policy for today. The time is long gone when MoD could possibly regress and become broadly competent. (Ask the MAA!). We haven’t had the necessary recruitment policy since 1990. There are a number of firms I’d happily hand such a contract to. And a few I wouldn’t. What worries me is the malign influence past and present VSOs will bring to bear. They won’t want it to be successful, because success will emphasise their failures.

But if you look at the procurement cycle (Concept to Disposal) much of it is actually operated by industry anyway, often despite MoD’s attempts to (mis) manage it. Requirements capture and management, and system design, has been contracted out in certain Army domains for 12 years, an initiative based entirely on the above 1990 Def Stan I mentioned, which even lays down the conditions upon which MoD delegates financial powers to industry (although that's in one of the parts MoD can't find, so someone will have to reinvent that wheel). Notably, the Users bought into it straight away, which makes you wonder how well DEC reflects the Users' views.

The trouble there though is part of DEC being hostile to what is trying to be achieved, and I can see that hostility being repeated if the RAF is to be Bernard Gray’s guinea pig. This raises an interesting point. Given the existing initiative, why not simply extend it to encompass a greater degree of the Contractor Operated bit? Again, this implies (to me) that he doesn’t want to admit “his” idea is actually largely based on mandated policy. My point is; none of this is new, just that MoD think it is. They should ensure it is managed by people to whom it is routine, not those who regard it as some new and highly risky undertaking.

JFZ90

25th Apr 2013, 18:55

can anyone explain how 1000s of projects - each with requirements that are vital to get right - will practically be managed at the govt interface?

what level do you actually manage the goco at? who exactly will be the intelligent customer to set the requirements and accept against them with the goco?

how many staff & what skills will that take? they are all 'in-house' and in de&s today. think the cap/flc can do it? lol!

good luck getting what you want when de&s all work for serco!

GrahamO - my point is without even the controls in place today (which you say are not good enough) the scope for cock-ups will be increased, not decreased.

GrahamO

26th Apr 2013, 04:50

GrahamO - my point is without even the controls in place today (which you say are not good enough) the scope for cock-ups will be increased, not decreased.

I agree 100% that the potential for cock up is increased but would contend that the outcome is moderated by the ability of the organiser to run a professional integrated programme. Its very difficult to draw direct parallels between the breadth of military procurement activities and any directly comparable activity, but lets say for example, building the olympic stadium and constructing the logistics chain and remodelling much of London to suit. G4S cockup aside, the programme management of that task, with its massive overlapping security took the best that the UK had to offer and look how staggeringly well it went. then look at the shambles of government procurement, and the quality of staff and you can see why MOD can never catch up.

I've just been listening to some HMG 'security' experts waxing lyrical on how they are solving the challenges of events in 2020/2022 today, and they are spending a lot of brain power, time money and effort trying to convince themselves that they are spending wisely. The locals here are much more sensible and pragmatic , and commercially minded - their view is to come back in 2018/2020and tell me what the threat is then and we'll buy the best kit at that time, and not waste any money or effort trying to divine the future.

Sometimes 'being agile' means doing nothing until you must, rather than being constrained by historical constructs which are guaranteed to be out of date.

tucumseh

26th Apr 2013, 06:01

can anyone explain how 1000s of projects - each with requirements that are vital to get right - will practically be managed at the govt interface?

The challenge when developing the initiative I spoke of was not so much the Contractor/MoD interface, but defining and managing he interface between projects and equipments. At least MoD tries to do the former, often successfully. The latter was ditched long ago (the underlying detail in the Haddon-Cave report and many before it). Nevertheless, the Management Plan was formally approved in 2001 and works. It is a case of implementation and will. But.....

what level do you actually manage the goco at? who exactly will be the intelligent customer to set the requirements and accept against them with the goco?

As you correctly imply, the scale of Gray’s task is made difficult by the numbers, with skills, he’ll need to manage it. Traditionally, the method of retaining staff is to reorganise and allow the new regime a 2 or 3 year period during which they can be over-manned. When cuts are proposed, another reorganisation is planned. It is a self perpetuating system. But this time the decision to chop posts has already been announced and partly implemented. As for skills, the Chief Engineer chopped funding and did away with the skills in the early 90s, a policy replicated by CDP in 1996 in MoD(PE); so few, if any, are properly trained these days. Luckily, any reputable Design Authority, and most Design Custodians, will regard this as second nature. The down side is that they, too, have been dumbed down as the necessary contracts have been pretty scarce since Alcock’s policy. But I think they will have retained more expertise than MoD (who retained none!), which is one reason why I think this a sensible move. (20 years ago I wouldn’t have said this, as the situation was recoverable).

However, there are certain companies I’d prefer not to have such authority and delegation, so it is important the mandated rules for selection and delegation are followed (whereby the delegated, named person at the contractor is an MoD appointment, not a company appointment). Again, this means implementing the only Def Stan covering this. I emphasise this point because it is a practical stumbling block. Once senior staff realise the contradiction, whereby this mandated Def Stan has been cancelled without replacement, they’ll procrastinate for ages to avoid any implied criticism of those who are anti-efficiency. In the 2001 initiative I mentioned, they waited a few years after approval, then changed the name of the initiative and all postholder titles. I gave the presentation at Shrivenham which led to approval, and then sat in frustration as VSOs, DEC and, especially, the MoD Integration Authority, faffed about over their own status. Anyone reading the Plans can see why they were concerned. Their very existence was called into question. There wasn’t the political will then to carry it through more widely, but Gray may just have that backing. By the way, that initiative ensures retention of key Service posts by funding them from the programme, not from central funds (or whoever pays Servicemen). That was a key aspect.

how many staff & what skills will that take?

How many depends on what skills/experience. The days are long gone when an equipment project manager in PE would have 60 projects and 500 contracts on the go at any one time. It is because of this historical fact that I agree that DE&S is grossly overstaffed, but the current cuts are not being made for the correct reason. As I said above, this initiative must go hand in hand with a fundamental change in recruitment and personnel policies.

JFZ90

26th Apr 2013, 12:21

was the olympic delivery authority ever asked to save 100s of millions of early cash and slip the programme to 2014? no

and on big programmes, isn't the delay often down to baes or other big contractor? they have all the skills, no?

still no answer, who will control it, and how? 1 wc/sl in town with 10kurs will have a regular meeting/telecon with the goco to see how jsf is coming along? not enough? then who & how? multiple by 100s for each project......

GrahamO

26th Apr 2013, 12:46

was the olympic delivery authority ever asked to save 100s of millions of early cash and slip the programme to 2014? no

No, because it delivered to time cost and quality. The reason MOD is 'asked' to slip things is frequently slippages from its own programmes causing problems in programmes elsewhere. Drop the ball in one part of the MOD and the rest have to reschedule. Repeated reworks of requirements from OR people delay equipment delivery programmes. MOD causes most, but not all of its own delays - not external factors.

and on big programmes, isn't the delay often down to baes or other big contractor? they have all the skills, no?

While there certainly circumstances while this is so, my personal experience is that the delays start right at the beginning with MOD adequately defining the requirements and things snowball from there. Earlier posters who claim have run MOD programmes to time and cost will almost certainly confirm they they didn't keep changing the requirement or interpretation, every week. remember that every time you suggest a contractor is poor, you have to ask the question as to how they the contractor is always successful with other clients who know their own minds?

The answer to the rest is pretty simple to do - write down what you want and stfu until its delivered. In my experience, 99.9% of problems come from the user not actually making clear what they want.

Anyone suggesting that 10k people, units, users or whatever should each have an input into anything, is asking for failure from day1.

Roland Pulfrew

26th Apr 2013, 13:05

No, because it delivered to time cost and quality

I can accept the time and quality (performance) bit, but saying it delivered to cost is stretching the imagination to the levels of DE&S 50% estimate.

Only 4 times over budget according to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6453575.stm)

tucumseh

26th Apr 2013, 15:06

Earlier posters who claim have run MOD programmes to time and cost will almost certainly confirm they they didn't keep changing the requirement or interpretation, every week

That goes without saying! Which is what I meant by management of DEC. (And I didn't claim, I stated fact!)

But there are also occasions, especially in complex programmes, when the spec MUST evolve (as opposed to the requirement changing), as designs in parallel programmes, which must later be integrated, evolve. You must be able to foresee this and make allowances up front. Such foresight requires experience and knowledge.....and full circle back to MoD's most basic problem. For 20 years and more it has not been policy to employ experienced or knowledgeable people as PMs. MoD's corporate knowledge has long gone.

The answer lies with both DE&S and DEC. If DEC tries to foist changes on the PM, he must declare planning blight if it affects his time, cost or performance criteria. OK, so he's unpopular. But only once, with that DEC, because it places the onus squarely at DEC's door to get it right first time.

I appreciate events can occur which are outwith DEC's control. But, similarly, it is up to them to take the lead and declare blight, not hide away and hang the PM out to dry as so many do.

This is where GOCO (or whatever it's called today) is beneficial. A formal contract exists between the contractor and MoD, and is (obviously) enforceable in a way Service Level Agreements are not. If MoD go into this blind they're in for a shock when the contractor tables his terms and conditions. Chief among them, penalty payments for changes.

JFZ90

26th Apr 2013, 15:12

Graham, lots of the delays are caused because the silt charts don't add up and crazy decisions are made to take out cash - this creates delay.

You are of course right that changing reqts causes havoc - but they still need to be set properly and managed and accepted. OK, get contractors to do it, but how are you going to effectively control those contractors given 1000s of diverse and dissimilar projects? Trust the goco as they have the skills? lol!

ignoring past mod woes for a moment, is there a vision for what govt oversight would be on e.g. a typical project?

GrahamO

26th Apr 2013, 17:07

The advantage of a GOCO is that it can hire professionally qualified and experienced programme directors to manage complex programmes- with the greatest of respect to our Armed Forces, that isn't what you're good at. You just have to look at all the massive projects around the world that are successful and accept that one of those folks, could do what MOD cannot.

Decisions to take line items out are not crazy - they are the least worse option for an organisation that wastes cash like no other part of government. Its not some nasty bunch of folks stealing from MOD - its MOD burning a hole in the public pocket and being told there is no more money tree. MOD is the new Greece - simply n o longer trusted to be wise with money.

As the Goco doesn't exist, nobody has the right to be dismissive about what it can or cannot do as what there is now doesn't work.

Oversight is good thing, but oversight it should stay. Most problems IMO come not from oversight, but from reinterpretation and interference. I have no idea how the URS/OA guys will come up with the demands and seek oversight, but things will become far more functional IMO. Under current regimes, if there are two equally valid interpretations of a requirement, and the contractor does A and the user wants B, the project will be overbudget and delayed while arguments ensue.

In the future, our Armed Forces will have to justify every change of requirement within a fixed budget line and if there's no cash they they will get what the Goco provides as a valid interpretation. If changes are required, then its time to dig into reserved and do UOR or similar.

UORs offer great value for money as long as the main equipment is delivered on time and I suspect but cannot be certain, that if kit were delivered on time, to cost and quality but was only 80% of what the suers changed their mind into, the UOR costs would be miniscule compared to heaving the original programme all over the calendar, running a huge cost overrun and giving the supply chain the excuse for non-performance.

JFZ90

26th Apr 2013, 20:37

de&s has already had a fair few high paid industry 'high performance' outsiders employed - and its entirely accurate to say they are far from head and shoulders above their mil and civil counterparts. infact the opposite.

it is naive to assume that cost pressures at mod are just down to internal management - cost cutting has been very real, rendering previous budgetary assumptions invalid, forcing otherwise on time projects to be delayed. the NAO reports admit this, if you can wade through their orherwise amatuerish dialogue.

so how much govt oversight of this goco again? i really want to see this explained. i really think it will really lead to anyone with any experience in this area to mutter 'oh sh*t'

GrahamO

27th Apr 2013, 13:49

You make good generic points J, but there has been nothing like the level of change coming in the pst.

de&s has already had a fair few high paid industry 'high performance' outsiders employed - and its entirely accurate to say they are far from head and shoulders above their mil and civil counterparts. infact the opposite.

Putting a new limb on a diseased and dying body, doesn't reinvigorate the body. I wouldn't put anyone up against the corporate inertia and outright stubborness of a large swathe of practically unemployable folks. The best in the world will always fail unless the good wood, has control of its destiny and that is what goco is designed to do. In my own case, I had the pleasure of effectively replacing a large number of IPT's before they were called that, plus a bunch of support command, RAFSEE, administrators and the like - and we delivered a service with half the repair at massively lower costs. We didn't play politics, we didn't care about the past, we didn't care about defending little empires and we pretty much started all over again and threw away old constructs. It can be done - but it remains to be seen if MOD is actually capable of doing its part.

it is naive to assume that cost pressures at mod are just down to internal management - cost cutting has been very real, rendering previous budgetary assumptions invalid, forcing otherwise on time projects to be delayed. the NAO reports admit this, if you can wade through their orherwise amatuerish dialogue.

While there are elements of truth in your statement, a whole lot of the truth is that MOD have overspent year on year against every estimate they ever produce, by any measure they chose and the recent situation is the first time that MOD have had to actually suffere the consequences of their actions.

so how much govt oversight of this goco again? i really want to see this explained. i really think it will really lead to anyone with any experience in this area to mutter 'oh sh*t'

Nobody knows yet but based upon MOD experience and ability, as little oversight, or as the rest of the world calls it, naked interference, as possible would be the best thing.

I wouldn't trust pretty much anyone alive in UK MOD today to do anything important to time cost and quality. Frankly there is nobody in Abbeywood even remotely competent to say what 'good oversight' looks like. Its like asking the unnumerate to run up a budget or the illiterate to write a book on writing poetry. People at Abbeywoood should no more be consulted that shoplifters should be consulted on store layouts. They may have been in a shop but know sfa about how they should be run. They may consider themselves to be competent at something but time, cost, quality and 'to spec' are none of them.

They say 'oh sh*t' so often, it should be the cap badge of the Abbeywood 'battalion'.

dervish

28th Apr 2013, 05:24

This thread encapsulates MoD procurement. OP asks a question. Somebody who's been there and done it answers, then others debate which wheel to reinvent first. :ugh:

JFZ90

28th Apr 2013, 07:53

as the op no-one has yet answered the oversight/requirement setting question with a credible scenario. Does this mean it has not been defined yet? Is there no example available? Why is that? Surprising that no-one here seems to know what oversight will even look like (or is prepared to discuss it). If you don't understand this, how can you state the goco is a good idea?

i'm not sure that just saying 'all in abbeywood are incompetent' - in itself far from true - is a reason to abandon reasonable controls over taxpayers money, though tuc raises good points about the younger skills base.

you can almost hear the 2017 statement now - "the recent procurement cock up was due to difficulties in establishing correct controls with the new goco - which was of course needed to radically shake up procurement so it wasn't really an unmitigatable f***up from day 1 as some suggested, honest."

tucumseh

28th Apr 2013, 09:34

JFZ90

Not wishing to sound awkward, but the "oversight" procedures you speak of are laid down for existing similar "GOCO" contracts, although as alluded to before, MoD have chosen a new name this time to avoid having to admit they already have such procedures. In turn, this will ensure plenty of jobs are retained for expensive consultants who are employed to work out what to do, but of course aren't told it is already being carried out successfully. As happened with the so-called MoD Integration Authority some years ago.

The current procedures were the subject of a series of test cases in 2001/2, overseen in accordance with the procedures you ask about. I cannot publish what are probably Commercial-in-Confidence details here, mainly because MoD do not publicise them (for the reason stated above - it is too embarrassing to admit the solution is actually long standing policy). You should ask the aforesaid MIA, or his successor, about this. He refused to sanction the initiative until the name was changed to remove the word "Authority" from the body with "oversight" responsibility. That little paddy cost us 9 months, but it ate into the remaining time in his lucrative contract.

Chugalug2

28th Apr 2013, 14:38

dervish:-
Somebody who's been there and done it answers, then others debate which wheel to reinvent first.
Amen to that, dervish. It seems to this uninformed outsider that the problem here is the MOD. Unless and until it is reformed from top to bottom, it will go on wasting lives and treasure unimpeded. I contend that of the two the former is by far the most important to stop. As a start that requires that the MAA, which boasts that:-
It ensures the safe design and use of military air systems,
be made separate and independent of the MOD in order to do just that. Ditto with the MAAIB, which must in turn be separate and independent of the MAA. That will start to arrest the avoidable fatal accidents that the present incestuous system facilitates. To do that will mean exposing those who presided over the subversion of the Mandated Regulations, which have been airbrushed out of sight and out of mind as tuc says. In short the VSO Star Chamber must be stopped from covering up such illegality. That of course will be only the beginning of the beginning, but the more it is delayed the more lives the corruption will cost.
The MOD dragon needs a St George to go to work on it, not a wheelwright.

JFZ90

28th Apr 2013, 17:17

as i understand it tuc the outsourced aspects you speak of still have an intelligent customer team of some form that resides in govt, not least of which manage the overall commercial approach & commitment etc.

its not impossible of course, but given the breadth of de&s tasks i'm not sure how it is practical or prudent to take that interface all the way back to cap/flc - unless there is some other organisation to be set up as a half way house - is that the plan? what will it look like? anyone any ideas or will we invite the lowest compliant bidder to 'innovate' the best way for them to tell govt how they are getting on with spending >10bn/year?

tucumseh

28th Apr 2013, 17:54

I never thought of it as "outsourcing" to tell you the truth. MoD weaknesses were identified. The lack of experience I spoke of. Lack of DEC support (to DPA at the time). The complete refusal of DPA higher echelons (by which I mean most IPTLs and the entire Management Board) to support their their own staffs or DEC. A framework was needed which negated this malign influence. The solution was, as ever, implementing mandated regulations, but in this case tweaking ever so slightly beyond their original scope.

If you break down the procurement cycle, from Concept to Disposal, there are numerous examples of Industry doing most of the work for many years. It is not a great leap to combine this. In practice, you only need to look at two extant contracts.

I have no idea what structure MoD/Gray will decide upon. As I said earlier, in December 2011 Gray informed the BBC he was going to implement one of the two above frameworks (the one approved in August 2001, which is by far the more comprehensive one, covering most of the procurement cycle). Only, as I said, MoD then denied he said it. The only possible reason for this was they were caught out cribbing from this ancient policy which, as I said, was based ENTIRELY upon a Def Stan that has subsequently been cancelled without replacement in about 2009, not having been amended since Jan 1991. As Chug has alluded to, what Gray was actually admitting, without knowing it, was the perceived need for "GOCO" was driven by the deliberate waste which caused the airworthiness failings; and the acceptance of the Nimrod Review (because the same Def Stan, if implemented, would have prevented the systemic failings). I believe that as soon as this was pointed out to Minister by an MP, they foolishly denied Gray's words (it is this lie which reveals their thinking and incompetence), stopped to regroup, and 16 months later have revamped it with lots of fanny new names.

I have no doubt there are scores of people who have been beavering away trying to work this out for the past 2 or 3 years. If I remember correctly, in May 2001 it was tasked as a minor job to one person on a Monday, and the first draft approved on the Wednesday. It received 3 Star endorsement in August 2001. The test cases were run over the following 4 months, encompassing almost 190 systems; some minor, some major. The contract was let and I understand it works just fine (in that domain).

Yes, there is an MoD team at both AbbeyWood and within the Service involved. Intelligent? Now there's a question.