Some points about the authorization: 1) how did it get through the mod`s dry Perm – were they on vacation, AWOL, bin Laden hunting, etc.; 2) which minister (if any) approved it – I felt that all acquisitions related to the consultation should be signed by a minister, either in the mod office or in the cabinet; 3) which, particularly within the Ministry of Finance (and/or the cabinet office), have counter-signed and/or approved the special award worth $12 million for advice… (Please limit your response to an A4 page if possible) It`s a relative success for a defense project, isn`t it? Scroll down the page for a version MS Word SINGLE TENDER ACTION FORM (exceptional circumstances) check the supply There are about 10 justifications for using this process. These include purchases in the raw materials market; cases where you have already spent money with this provider and this new contract is a small add-on to the original; Where compatibility issues with existing products involve undue competition; and if there is only one supplier on the market. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Find out how your comments are handled. I think Peter`s analysis and conclusion are entirely reasonable. That`s what happens when they have a doctor who runs the largest department in Whitehall. If I were the mischievous type, I would be inclined to get my member to ask the Chairman of the Conservative Party and Secretary of State in Cabinet, Mr. Francis Maude, in Parliament, how these expenditures are being challenged with the drastic reduction in costs that affects virtually everyone else.
… In the meantime, we are spending $3 billion on an aircraft carrier that cannot be used. Indeed, this seems strange, but in recent years there has been a new directive dealing with the awarding of defence contracts. Maybe there`s reasons there? I hope that some of the information contained in this directive can be included in future contributions. If you are paying attention to the 2009/81/EC directive, EU legislation applies to specific contracts in the areas of security and defence (military equipment and sensitive-angle security equipment). Is there anything? The reason MOD gave me in its response to freedom of information was ”urgent.” This is dealt with in section 14 a iv, which allows it: if (but only if absolutely necessary) for reasons of extreme urgency, which are attributable by events that are not attributable by the adjudicator power and which are unpredictable and unaccountable in …. (other procedures) …. cannot be filled. I recognize that if the value of the order exceeds the Olympics.
The Committee on Employment, Justice and Economic Affairs and Employment Policy found that the above reasons existed in the courts. And as we said last week, a 12-month negotiating program does not look like something so urgent that any normal competition can be ignored. This exit clause in the regulations is supposed to deal with the ”tsunami” situation if the government was clearly not expected to go through a long process before ordering a few tents or earthlings. It`s not designed to cover situations where a senior official says, ”I can`t go through a laborious process and I want a contract with my mates/that company I`ve worked with before /those nice people who took me to Wimbledon.”