Steps omitted in Navy order won by VSEL

Chris Blackhurst
Wednesday 03 November 1993 19:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

A SENIOR Ministry of Defence official yesterday acknowledged that there had been unusual aspects to the way the pounds 143m contract to build the Navy's new helicopter carrier was awarded earlier this year, writes Chris Blackhurst.

The contract to build the carrier was won by VSEL, the Cumbria shipbuilder, in the face of ferocious resistance from Swan Hunter on Tyneside. VSEL bid pounds 71m less than Swan Hunter, whose failure to land the work forced the yard into receivership.

But Dr Malcolm McIntosh, head of defence procurement, admitted to MPs on the Commons Public Accounts Committee that three normal steps had been dispensed with in the helicopter tendering process.

Terry Davis MP said the decisions not to issue a 'Staff Requirement' to the two bidders telling them exactly what the Navy wanted the ship to do; not to hold a bidders' conference, where competitors are brought together with the MoD to discuss the contract; and not to formally consolidate the two bids to make a precise comparison, were the reasons why 'a lot of people think the award was not seen to be fair'.

Dr McIntosh was unable to say who had taken the decisions. However, he claimed that the scrapping of the three steps did not affect the outcome of the

competition.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in