UK government buys off Serco lawsuit with £10m bung. Whew. Now Capita can start running fire and rescue The Ministry of Defence has slipped £10m of British taxpayers' money into Serco's back pocket to settle a legal challenge over the award of a £525m Fire and Rescue services contract to rival outsourcer Capita. Capita won the MoD tender in June last year but the project – which includes running 53 fire stations in the UK and on …
Just posted this elsewhere but seems appropriate for here as well!!!
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy defines the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as "a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes," with a footnote to the effect that the editors would welcome applications from anyone interested in taking over the post of robotics correspondent.
Curiously enough, an edition of the Encyclopedia Galactica that had the good fortune to fall through a time warp from a thousand years in the future defined the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as "a bunch of mindless jerks who were the first against the wall when the revolution came."
Give Serco a contract to sue Capita and Atos for contract failings; payment based entirely on results.
Give Capita a contract to sue Serco and Atos for contract failings; payment based entirely on results.
Give Atos a contract to sue Serco and Capita for contract failings; payment based entirely on results.
Give Waitrose a contract to supply a large quantity of popcorn, retire to a safe distance away while they self-destruct.
"Clearly the MoD's recent chequered history with Capita over the botched Army recruitment project hasn't deterred the department from awarding the company additional service contracts."
There often seems to be a big misunderstanding in how public sector procurement works. The reason for these challenges is due to perceived incorrect procedures being followed for procurement that 'unfairly' harms a legitimate bid.
So they've paid out £10mill to Serco due to potential irregularities but then the article suggests they should be deterred from awarding the contract due to failings on a different project. Not awarding due to the other project would have seen a similar payout to Capita for unfair procurement.
Doesn't mean it is all good and proper and it requires EU procurement rules for very large spends to ensure fairness across the region and even state aid rules for fairness across the free trade areas.
Mix with that the limited number of companies that have decided to put themselves onto suitable frameworks to be eligible for procurement tensers or those with enough resources to complete all the paperwork for a bid and sufficient resources to carry it out and you are limited to a small number of the same companies bidding.
Even for smaller public sector contracts you can close a contract due to poor performance but may, in some circumstances, have to award to that very sam supplier for the re-tender as they won the bid again. Without going to court to get them ineligible to bid or taking a big risk then you can be back to square one again. You can also find that you may be perfectly happy with a supplier and their piece of software that works great but expiry of the contract means a re-tender which results in having to use a different company along with massive disruption, retraining costs etc - possible even a worse solution, due to the limited ability for apportioning cost-of-change scoring as part of the tender.
Fun, isn't it?
"...a protracted legal battle over the tender, the details of which are not public."
There's an old saying. "He who pays the piper calls the tune."
Not in this case it would seem. Instead we have the sight of two bunches of incompetents, Serco and the MOD huddling in a corner and stitching up a deal with our money and then saying that it is none of our business. This lot make the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation look like geniuses. It's a pity they won't be suffering the same fate
We have now mutually agreed an out-of-court settlement £10m which provides better value for money for the taxpayer than an uncertain and costly court case,
As a taxpayer I didn't agree to this, so kindly ask Serco to put my money back in the bank please.
It is utterly outrageous to try and pass this off as "value for money for the taxpayer".
Even more shameless than admitting that the stitched-up secret bidding process, which you hide from view with a spurious notion of "commercial confidentiality", was so badly tilted and incompetent that you're having to pay another 10 million to a company that you already pay billions to, just so they don't "make a fuss".
Agree, this also sets a very dangerous precedent where the 3 ghouls (Serco, Capita and Steria) could collude to defraud taxpayers by each demanding settlements where they have ‘failed’ to win contracts.
My experience with all 3 is that where there is a way to easy money then they will take it.
Crapita is the only company I know who managed to destroy three very profitable companies by meddling with them and not allowing them to continue as they had been for many a year.
They would insist that anything required had to be provided by a Crapita company were possible. A CPU fan could be soured from that cheap IT supplier called PC World at a fraction of the price from a Crapita IT supplier. Any expenditure going out of the company had to be approved at a senior level and then, only when it has been proven that using a Crapita company wasn't feasible.
The Royal Air Force and Royal Navy will still employ firefighters, though numbers in the Air Force will reduce "over time… due to the introduction of new technology," the minister added.
What!?! How exactly does this wonderous 'new technology' replacing the need for humans holding fire hoses to, you know, fight fires?
Let me guess... some nebulous bullshit involving IOT and blockchain.
As usual the minister is an idiot, and publicly proud to be so.
seems to still require lots of manpower. Someone to fly it, someone to connect the hoses, someone to monitor the fire engine pump used and the amount of water from the tanks if not connected to a hydrant etc.
I also wonder how good the pumps are at pushing water up 900m.
I also wonder how good the pumps are at pushing water up 900m.
In all fairness the video said 900 and something feet, not metres. Even so that would be an impressive head of water.
More to the point, at the displayed state of development that hose is more suited to watering the lawn, not extinguishing fires. Proper firefighting hoses are rather bigger, thus containing a much greater volume and hence mass of water.
I may have got my maths wrong, but a fire hose is approximately 7.5 cm diameter. (I think!) Its cross - sectional area is thus 44 cm2. A 1 metre length of said hose will thus contain 44 x 100 = 4400 cm3 of water, = 4.4 litres, which equates to 4.4 kg of water.
The stated lift capacity of the drone was 200 kg, meaning that it could lift no more than 45 metres of filled hose, and that's neglecting the weight of the hose itself.
Not quite so impressive now...
Of course if my calculations are adrift, which is entirely possible, I may have to eat my words.
Serious design flaw there, as there must be a hose from the drone to the ground, I would of thought it would be obvious to have the power supply on the ground as well and incorporate power leads in the hose.
Yes I know water & electricity are not an ideal match but I'm sure it could be done safely. Not carrying the batteries and possibly having more current available would increase the usefulness significantly. You could also have the command and control over wire instead of radio which would make control far more secure.
'How exactly does this wondrous 'new technology' replacing the need for humans holding fire hoses to, you know, fight fires?'
I'm assuming it's the wondrous 'new technology' which lets them have less aircraft, which means less bases, which means less fire fighters. So it's basically down-sizing.
Or maybe fire fighting equipment from this century, that way some of it might be serviceable...
What!?! How exactly does this wonderous 'new technology' replacing the need for humans holding fire hoses to, you know, fight fires?Let me guess... some nebulous bullshit involving IOT and blockchain.
That stuff is expensive. Much easier to redefine 'fire' in the bid, then have someone responsible for dialling 112 and reporting it to the non-MoD fire service*. For which a suitably large call-out fee can be charged. Thus Crapita-managed fires would only be those involving things other than heat, oxygen and fuel.
*The usual scumbags are nothing if not forward thinking. So want 'Green Godesses' on hand during the next fireperson's strike? Contact your account manager for a quote. Or when the civilian fire service gets privatised there can be conf calls held between Crapita and Serco to assign roles, responsibilities and most importantly invoicing before anyone uses the pole.
"So want 'Green Godesses' on hand during the next fireperson's strike?"
They were sold off about 15 years ago. Partially replaced, but in the main, the replacement for strike firefighter strike action is a legal requirement to make the existing fire engines available to the military to operate, ie the same kit they use themselves these days.
"We expect the contract to deliver significant financial savings over the course of its lifespan: money which can be reinvested in other areas of the Defence budget"
I wonder if the NAO and OBR have pre-printed reports for "failing to meet specification, over budget, behind schedule, no foreseeable return on investment, no viable cost-savings, no agreed plan for delivery, another fucking disaster" where they just fill in the blanks.
Perhaps not blanks; maybe checkboxes seeing as it is inevitably the same usual suspects.
Seems it's now a thing for the loser in public sector IT procurements to demand a bung to stop kicking-off. IIRC the FCO had to payoff some shysters recently.
The "usual suspects" have moved beyond agreeing who'll win each mega-contract on a 'Buggins' turn' basis, to demanding spoils for the loser to buy yachts, Rolex, houses in Provence. etc. Of course the pen-pushers continue to receive their KBE and £M index-linked pension as reward for incompetence.
PS wasn't GDS supposed to put an end to these omnishambles? Chuckle, chuckle.
Primarily, it's because the outsourcers and shysters can afford better contract negotiators and lawyers than the Government.
Actually, the government could easily afford better, but that would be seen as a waste of tax payers money, so they they "go with the lowest bidder".
Yet the DWP will mercilessly hound claimants for small amounts of overpayment (sub £100) caused by DWP incompetence and send threatening letters warning of court, jail etc if the claimant doesn't pay up or make an arrangement to pay up in 14 days from the date of the letter, which often arrives 12+ days later....
Capita (Not the NHS app) and Serco (Not the Army) Did neither the app or much coherent testing, costing half the lives and half the money. If I was Russian with cash I wouldnt have looked any further than these two cosey vagabonds. They must be awash with corruption, so I dont mind saying it. We call it out now or it's our fault.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
