Procurement Parables
Rumour had it that BAe had designed the Hawk to include suitable wiring for Sidewinder missiles.
"No, we don't need that - delete it from our aircraft order"
"That'll cost more than leaving it in situ"
"No, we don't need it - delete it!!"
"OK...kerrching!!"
Then came the Mixed Fighter Force (Farce?) idea....
"Err, we'd like 88 of our Hawks modified to carry Sidewinders please. We'll call them the T1A"
"Can do - but it'll cost you!"
The rumour might have been incorrect, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was true!
"No, we don't need that - delete it from our aircraft order"
"That'll cost more than leaving it in situ"
"No, we don't need it - delete it!!"
"OK...kerrching!!"
Then came the Mixed Fighter Force (Farce?) idea....
"Err, we'd like 88 of our Hawks modified to carry Sidewinders please. We'll call them the T1A"
"Can do - but it'll cost you!"
The rumour might have been incorrect, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was true!
You can't separate 'requirements drift' and budgets. The requirement is stated by the customer, and it is for he to make adequate materiel and financial provision for any changes he makes. Not the procurer. If the procurer is having to do it, something has gone very badly wrong at requirements/committee stage, and it's far too late. Procurers are not represented on these committees. They're handed the committee's decision. If it's wrong in any way, some junior pleb has to either overrule the committee, or send it back. Both are fraught with danger, and frequent occurrences. If you bought the approved requirement every time, things would be an even bigger ****show!
Fixing them is always going to cost extra and companies know that far too well. Bid low and bump up the price later, once the contract has been won.
I’ve also had contracts where the customer did not know what they really wanted. They knew roughly, but left us to come up with the specifications. They were good.
How many contracts have been won with the provider knowing full well that the requirements are not going to work?
Fixing them is always going to cost extra and companies know that far too well. Bid low and bump up the price later, once the contract has been won.
I’ve also had contracts where the customer did not know what they really wanted. They knew roughly, but left us to come up with the specifications. They were good.
Fixing them is always going to cost extra and companies know that far too well. Bid low and bump up the price later, once the contract has been won.
I’ve also had contracts where the customer did not know what they really wanted. They knew roughly, but left us to come up with the specifications. They were good.
How many contracts...? Very many I'm afraid. But you have to realise that companies dare not complain too hard about poor contracts, less they be blacklisted. I've seen that many times. They'll reply to an invitation to tender saying 'This doesn't make sense, do you not mean this....?' and immediately their MD receives a formal complaint about the 'attitude' of his bid team.
And yes, fixing them costs a fortune, but that's not the company's fault. And again, yes, the best contracts are written by industry. If MoD doesn't want to accept it, don't. The most important ones in air systems were always done that way in my day (long ago!). But those were negotiated by MoD's technical staff, not commercial. I doubt if that happens much these days, as the mandated Defence Standard was withdrawn without replacement.
I've never experienced a company bid low to get a contract. If they do go low, it's usually because they don't understand. Seen that many times. But too often neither does the project office, so MoD will go for the low bid not realising neither have a clue. I've also seen MoD go for the high and manifestly unsuitable bid, because of political overrules.
The following users liked this post:
