Tweet
The short version.
1. "some of the sub’s early problems were caused by a Ministry of Defence decision to give the original contract to a non-submarine builder,"
2. "didn’t understand the work and had massively underestimated the price."
The longer version.
Engineer slams MoD (Ministry of Defence) for ‘nearly wrecking yard’
Published on 23/10/2007
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/viewartic ... ?id=556439
A RETIRED shipyard systems engineer told a packed public meeting that decisions by the Ministry of Defence in the 1990s seriously damaged the Astute submarine programme and nearly wrecked Barrow shipyard for good.
Peter Gillett, an official of the Barrow and District Association of Engineers, was formerly a systems manager at the shipyard.
He said he wanted to put the record straight because Barrow shipyard had got most of the blame for the delays and cost overruns on Astute that caused headlines in the past.
The submarine and the shipyard have recovered their reputations since Astute’s troubled days early in the decade.
Mr Gillett said, at the lecture at Forum 28, that some of the sub’s early problems were caused by a Ministry of Defence decision to give the original contract to a non-submarine builder, the then GEC company, instead of giving it to VSEL. Mr Gillett said: “Over the years the Astute programme has often been in the headlines with stories of delays and cost overruns. The impression in the press is, too often, that it is the shipyard’s fault.
“The (House of Commons) Select Committee on Public Accounts has investigated Astute many times and publicised a predicted cost overrun of £1 billion and delay of 43 months; even referring to Astute as one of the so-called “toxic legacy†projects.
But Mr Gillett said MPs found that the Ministry of Defence itself “now acknowledges that the original deal was flawedâ€.
He added: “Back in the mid 1990s the MoD persuaded an electronics company GEC to set up a consortium to bid against VSEL Barrow for the new submarine programme.
“Apparently certain influential individuals in the upper echelons of the MoD Defence Procurement had privately decided it was time to break the run of submarine design and construction in Barrow. The MoD’s Smart acquisition initiative demanded fresh thinking.
“In 1997 MoD informed Barrow that it had lost the bid and they had decided to award the three submarines to the GEC. The GEC team, based near Farnborough, decided that the submarines would be built by AMEC in the north east on a brown field site.
“This decision would ultimately have resulted in the end of shipbuilding in Barrow as our surface ship programme completed-When Barrow yard was then bought by GEC, so-called Chinese walls were set up to keep Barrow staff at arms length from the subs programme.
Mr Gillette said: “GEC didn’t understand the work and had massively underestimated the price. GEC finally accepted that their Barrow shipyard needed to be involved.â€
Mr Gillett said BAE Systems, which bought the yard late in 1999, realised it had inherited a flawed contract and needed to re-negotiate it and increase the price.
He said: “The MoD became openly very critical of BAE Systems – a story making headlines in the national press. MoD even brought in the Americans to try and help their case. This backfired big style. As the Committee on Public Accounts later recorded, US prices for submarines are way, way higher than UK.â€
Mr Gillett said six years after the original contract award in 2003, Murray Easton arrived to head up the Barrow yard.
He quickly killed off the Farnborough Prime Contract Office “drawing a line under the unfortunate historyâ€.
“All this is water under the bridge, but it is worth recalling the history next time you hear outside experts criticising the yard. Fortunately Astute is now a magnificent achievement and is a programme of which Barrow can be proud.â€
His comments preceded a talk on Astute by its shipyard head of design and engineering, Keith Minnican, whose talk attracted 200 people
1. "some of the sub’s early problems were caused by a Ministry of Defence decision to give the original contract to a non-submarine builder,"
2. "didn’t understand the work and had massively underestimated the price."
The longer version.
Engineer slams MoD (Ministry of Defence) for ‘nearly wrecking yard’
Published on 23/10/2007
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/viewartic ... ?id=556439
A RETIRED shipyard systems engineer told a packed public meeting that decisions by the Ministry of Defence in the 1990s seriously damaged the Astute submarine programme and nearly wrecked Barrow shipyard for good.
Peter Gillett, an official of the Barrow and District Association of Engineers, was formerly a systems manager at the shipyard.
He said he wanted to put the record straight because Barrow shipyard had got most of the blame for the delays and cost overruns on Astute that caused headlines in the past.
The submarine and the shipyard have recovered their reputations since Astute’s troubled days early in the decade.
Mr Gillett said, at the lecture at Forum 28, that some of the sub’s early problems were caused by a Ministry of Defence decision to give the original contract to a non-submarine builder, the then GEC company, instead of giving it to VSEL. Mr Gillett said: “Over the years the Astute programme has often been in the headlines with stories of delays and cost overruns. The impression in the press is, too often, that it is the shipyard’s fault.
“The (House of Commons) Select Committee on Public Accounts has investigated Astute many times and publicised a predicted cost overrun of £1 billion and delay of 43 months; even referring to Astute as one of the so-called “toxic legacy†projects.
But Mr Gillett said MPs found that the Ministry of Defence itself “now acknowledges that the original deal was flawedâ€.
He added: “Back in the mid 1990s the MoD persuaded an electronics company GEC to set up a consortium to bid against VSEL Barrow for the new submarine programme.
“Apparently certain influential individuals in the upper echelons of the MoD Defence Procurement had privately decided it was time to break the run of submarine design and construction in Barrow. The MoD’s Smart acquisition initiative demanded fresh thinking.
“In 1997 MoD informed Barrow that it had lost the bid and they had decided to award the three submarines to the GEC. The GEC team, based near Farnborough, decided that the submarines would be built by AMEC in the north east on a brown field site.
“This decision would ultimately have resulted in the end of shipbuilding in Barrow as our surface ship programme completed-When Barrow yard was then bought by GEC, so-called Chinese walls were set up to keep Barrow staff at arms length from the subs programme.
Mr Gillette said: “GEC didn’t understand the work and had massively underestimated the price. GEC finally accepted that their Barrow shipyard needed to be involved.â€
Mr Gillett said BAE Systems, which bought the yard late in 1999, realised it had inherited a flawed contract and needed to re-negotiate it and increase the price.
He said: “The MoD became openly very critical of BAE Systems – a story making headlines in the national press. MoD even brought in the Americans to try and help their case. This backfired big style. As the Committee on Public Accounts later recorded, US prices for submarines are way, way higher than UK.â€
Mr Gillett said six years after the original contract award in 2003, Murray Easton arrived to head up the Barrow yard.
He quickly killed off the Farnborough Prime Contract Office “drawing a line under the unfortunate historyâ€.
“All this is water under the bridge, but it is worth recalling the history next time you hear outside experts criticising the yard. Fortunately Astute is now a magnificent achievement and is a programme of which Barrow can be proud.â€
His comments preceded a talk on Astute by its shipyard head of design and engineering, Keith Minnican, whose talk attracted 200 people