KAF Fraud
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South of the ex-North Devon flying club. North of Isca.
Age: 49
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just sounds like sour grapes from some thruster that actually did make star rank and was beaten to it by someone else trying to make a quick buck out of MoD.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I see they both have plenty of support from their friends and ex-colleagues in the Service.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
The cunning bit seems to be that the contractor acquired the ownership of the spoil - possibly by the contract requiring that they "dispose" of it? Which they were then able to sell at a profit
Excavated material sold onto other contractors for construction site area elevation.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly, a simple Google search for Jetspark comes up with
Going to the former Honington Staish's Linkedin profile now, though, shows no mention of Jetspark; Steven Abbott | LinkedIn
Corporate Development at Jetspark Group; Independent Associate at BMT Defence ... New service company expanding rapidly with contracts in Afghanistan
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I meant in respect of the OP. There were 4 names in the OP and Abbot wasn't one of them. Must have missed something.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius Navigator, I see your point but, as rarelyathome mentioned, Steven Abbott had Jetspark as a "qualification" in his Profile/CV but has since removed it. I'm sure I would have done the same. I drew attention to it, though, as a point of interesting coincidence. I'm not suggesting in any way that there is a link to any alleged wrong doing with regard to Jetspark in the 'Stan but it would be easy to add 2 and 2 and arrive at 3.
I still believe that the salient point of any alleged wrong doing is whatever was written in the contract. MoD "Commercial Officers" have been known sod up the occasional contract. In fact, it might not have been a sod up at all and simply an interpretation of best advantage to the Crown. Limiting risk to the Crown can also have unusual consequences.
I still believe that the salient point of any alleged wrong doing is whatever was written in the contract. MoD "Commercial Officers" have been known sod up the occasional contract. In fact, it might not have been a sod up at all and simply an interpretation of best advantage to the Crown. Limiting risk to the Crown can also have unusual consequences.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
GBZ, OK.
On contracts, I was involved in writing a re-bid contract. It was a classic in how not to do it.
We started with the old and updated it. We removed bits that we didn't like (unnecessary) and added bits that we highly desirable.
We met and the desirable bits were chopped out. Our individual work was merged and we departed to mull over the ashes.
We met again at a different location but a new bundle of T&S. We took our edited work only to find that the CO had re-written our original submissions that now bore no relation to the revisions we had wrought.
We left, we edited, we met again and it was all bl**dy different once again.
She just could not avoid tinkering. Our carefully crafted and specified criteria that would spell satis/unsatis had been removed and an anodyne requirement with no specific substituted.
The sitting contractor failed to win as they were unable to keep up with the changes. Personnally I think they were lucky and I got out too.
PS, none of us was asked if we had shares etc in Qinetiq or Serco!
On contracts, I was involved in writing a re-bid contract. It was a classic in how not to do it.
We started with the old and updated it. We removed bits that we didn't like (unnecessary) and added bits that we highly desirable.
We met and the desirable bits were chopped out. Our individual work was merged and we departed to mull over the ashes.
We met again at a different location but a new bundle of T&S. We took our edited work only to find that the CO had re-written our original submissions that now bore no relation to the revisions we had wrought.
We left, we edited, we met again and it was all bl**dy different once again.
She just could not avoid tinkering. Our carefully crafted and specified criteria that would spell satis/unsatis had been removed and an anodyne requirement with no specific substituted.
The sitting contractor failed to win as they were unable to keep up with the changes. Personnally I think they were lucky and I got out too.
PS, none of us was asked if we had shares etc in Qinetiq or Serco!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fife, Scotland
Age: 78
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the ownership of the excavated soil is retained by the owner of the site, then they are liable for all the subsequent costs of storage, transporting, landfill charges, etc for the material.
It makes much more sense to transfer ownership of the soil to the contractor.
If they can find a way of making money from it, then they will factor that into their tender to help win the contract, which will reduce the cost of the contract to the site owner.
I had exactly this situation as an Engineer's Representative when people who should have known better complained about spoil being re-used on another site.
It had not occurred to them that both tenders were lowered because the contractor knew that he could save the costs of dumping the material in a landfill site and having to buy replacement material elsewhere.
And those who complained most were the 'greenies'. who should have been overjoyed by the environmental considerations.
In any case, I doubt if the officer in question wrote any part of the contract himself, as the MOD would no doubt have dealt with such issues.
It makes much more sense to transfer ownership of the soil to the contractor.
If they can find a way of making money from it, then they will factor that into their tender to help win the contract, which will reduce the cost of the contract to the site owner.
I had exactly this situation as an Engineer's Representative when people who should have known better complained about spoil being re-used on another site.
It had not occurred to them that both tenders were lowered because the contractor knew that he could save the costs of dumping the material in a landfill site and having to buy replacement material elsewhere.
And those who complained most were the 'greenies'. who should have been overjoyed by the environmental considerations.
In any case, I doubt if the officer in question wrote any part of the contract himself, as the MOD would no doubt have dealt with such issues.
