Guest Tracker Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken wall at 10 Downing Street ; one from London , another from Bristol and the third, from Liverpool . They go with a government official to examine the wall. The London contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil. 'Well', he says, 'I figure the job will run about £900: £400 for materials, £400 for my crew and £100 profit for me.' The Bristol contractor also does some measuring and figuring, and then says, 'I can do this job for £700: £300 for materials, £300 for my crew and £100 profit for me.' The Liverpool contractor doesn't measure or figure but leans over to the Government official and whispers, "£2,700." The official, incredulous, says,'That's more like it - you didn't even need to measure like the other guys - but just how did you come up with such a high figure?' The Liverpool contractor whispers back, 'Simple economics, sir - £1000 for me, £1000 for you, and we hire the guy from Bristol to fix the wall.' 'Done!' replies the government official. And that, my friends, is how the Government spends our taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordThornber Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 And quite right too, after all, who wouldn't take a grand for themselves if they can get away for it? 8-) Martyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Momma Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 You obviously have insider knowledge of how the procurement process works, enlightening (^) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordThornber Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Big Momma - 2011-06-06 8:55 PM You obviously have insider knowledge of how the procurement process works, enlightening (^) Not so much the procurement process Eric, but I do have a VERY good eye for an opportunity. Always have had. Martyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flicka Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Well they had to find an alternative method of supplimenting their income, now their expenses are scrutinised >:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Not sure that "bungs" are a big problem - but incompetence most certainly is:- This from an article on the debacle of the 8 Chinooks - see the link below:- "The Ministry of Defence is accused today of a litany of mistakes after it was revealed to have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on eight Chinook helicopters which are still not airworthy 13 years after being ordered. A report by the National Audit Office reveals that for seven years the helicopters have been stored in air conditioned hangars in Britain while troops in Afghanistan have been forced to rely on helicopters which are flying with safety faults. The new helicopters should have been in service in 2002." http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/04/military.defence The cost of this debacle is estimated at circa £500M - not to mention the cost in human lives where soldiers had to get about in Afghanistan in snatch Land Rovers designed for the streets of Belfast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laimeduck Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 CliveH - 2011-06-07 8:43 AM Not sure that "bungs" are a big problem - but incompetence most certainly is:- This from an article on the debacle of the 8 Chinooks - see the link below:- "The Ministry of Defence is accused today of a litany of mistakes after it was revealed to have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on eight Chinook helicopters which are still not airworthy 13 years after being ordered. A report by the National Audit Office reveals that for seven years the helicopters have been stored in air conditioned hangars in Britain while troops in Afghanistan have been forced to rely on helicopters which are flying with safety faults. The new helicopters should have been in service in 2002." http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/04/military.defence The cost of this debacle is estimated at circa £500M - not to mention the cost in human lives where soldiers had to get about in Afghanistan in snatch Land Rovers designed for the streets of Belfast. Yes & add to this the fiasco with the Nimrods, now broken up and never operational and also the Eurofighters - designed as interceptors, defunct when ready for service, so converting to fighter bombers, but still not operational so they have to fly with a Tornado who spots the target so the Eurofighter can drop the bomb! Brilliant! Add in the scrapping of the Harriers & the Ark Royal both effective & operational, & the pilots who have been made redundant- all now needed in Libya - spectacular! Another few 100 £Million or £Billion down the drain. Thank God they don't design motorhomes ........... or do they? :D :D :D Jeremy the L'AimeDuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 PLEASE - do not start me on the Nimrod fiasco Jeremy! :-D Whoever sanctioned the refurbishment of airframes decades old and sticking new wings on them need to be held to account! The debacle of when they set all the wing manufacture up using one airframe then finding out that as each airframe was made in pre cad days and were so “hand made” meant that each was different and so none of the wings would subsequently fit is testament to the monumental stupidity of the original decision! Contrast that decision to buying an airframe from Airbus or Boeing such that the aircraft would be totally new not an old one withy new bits stuck on it. Such a brand new aircraft could have been sold to other countries so it could have been an export winner – instead we have £billions wasted and absolutely nothing to show for it. It really makes you angry at the stupidity of the waste of such huge sums of money. >:-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The numpty who sanctioned it probably got promoted >:-( ................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Almost certainly right Dave. :-S But looking at the accounts of "projects" like this (as i do because, let's face it! - I am a sad person who can and does enjoy looking at the "story" that a balance sheet tells) you have to wonder how the hell such a decision was ever made re the Chinooks and the Nimrod. With the Chinooks - Boeing repeatedly said what we were buying would not do the job it was specced to do without their software to go with it and that for secrecy Boeing would never release the "code" to anyone else so that a UK firm could shoehorn in non Boeing hardware. So someone actually went ahead and snctioned the purchase of £millions of hardware that everyone knew would not do the job they were bought for 8-) With the Nimrod - everyone from the Head of the RAF to the Fitter on the hanger floor asked what possible benefit there was to refurbishing decade old airframes that would only have a couple of decades left of flying in them! - But again - someone sanctioned a really stupid idea that could not work and has now cost the taxpayer circa £500M. Think of what the front line of public service - hospitals, schools libraries could do with that sort of money. And of course, closer to home – there is terrible waste in these sectors as well – not as demonstrably huge as with MOD procurement but significant. The one item I would probably say is equal is NHS Computer procurement – what a dogs breakfast that has been! And the trouble is that those that make such decisions being part of the public sector are largely unaccountable, and do indeed revel in the cock-ups as it usually means promotion. Have a look at this:- “ Richard Granger is one of the highest paid civil servants in charge of a £20billion project to transform the NHS's computer system. But despite his colossal £280,000 a year pay packet, Granger's 'Connecting for Health' project is over-budget, behind schedule and threatening to become the biggest IT disaster in history. Now we may finally have the explanation for all the problems. His mother revealed that the man overseeing largest civilian IT project in the world failed his computer studies course while at Bristol University.” http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23374264-nhs-computer-chief-failed-computer-studies-exam.do You could not make it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laimeduck Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Ok - you boys carry on the discussion ( methinks it will run & run! :D :D ) I'm just off to the tunnel for a week in Normandy :-D :-D BYE!!!!! Jeremy the L'AimeDuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 That's great isn't it!!!!!!!! You come on here - lob in a good discussion point so that all us boring old farts get all worked up and then you b*gger off on holiday! Have you no shame?????? (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) Have a good time Jeremy and keep your head down in the tunnel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.