<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>defenceconsultations.org.uk</title>
	<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk</link>
	<description>Defence Consultation Papers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:58:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	<!-- generator="WordPress/3.1" -->

	<item>
		<title>About the Independent Review of Single Source Pricing Regulations</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The Minister for Defence Equipment Support and Technology announced an Independent Review of Single Source Pricing Regulations on 26 January 2011. see http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/ModAnnouncesReviewOfSingleSupplierContracts.htm. The Minister has appointed Lord Currie of Marylebone to chair the review of regulations to be used by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) when pricing work procured under single source conditions. Lord [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/about-the-independent-review-of-single-source-pricing-regulations/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=about-the-independent-review-of-single-source-pricing-regulations</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Independent Review of Single Source Pricing Regulations &#8211; Consultation Details</title>
		<description><![CDATA[TOPIC OF CONSULTATION Consultation is invited on Lord Currie’s recommendations to provide value for money for the taxpayer, foster a culture of efficiency within the defence industry, and provide a fair return for industry. SCOPE OF CONSULTATION The review covers the single source pricing regulations used by the MOD. Please note that this does not [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/independent-review-of-single-source-pricing-regulations-consultation-details/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=independent-review-of-single-source-pricing-regulations-consultation-details</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Single Source Pricing Regulations &#8211; PDF Document</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Provided below is a link to the Single Source Pricing Regulations Document. This document should be used in accompaniment to the Key and Ancillary Recommendations on this site. Single Source Pricing Regulations Document (PDF) . For further information please view the Single Source Pricing Regulations &#8211; Consultation Details post or visit the Single Source Pricing MOD web [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/single-source-pricing-regulations-pdf-document/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=single-source-pricing-regulations-pdf-document</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Key Recommendation 1:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Open book accounting (as defined in the report, see Annex E, paragraph E.152) should be mandated on all single source contracts as a supplement to the Equality of Information provisions that exist under the current single source arrangements.]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/key-recommendation-1/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=key-recommendation-1</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Key Recommendation 2:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[All contracts above a threshold value of £50m should be reported on regularly by the contractor, using a standardised format, with annual certification by the contractor’s Board.]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/key-recommendation-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=key-recommendation-2</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Key Recommendation 3:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[DEFCON 648A should be modified from what is currently an overly protective regime to one that more strongly encourages contractors to reduce their cost base. We propose that the current 5% threshold, above which MOD receives automatic sharing, should be increased to 10% or 15%. We also recommend that the 75% MOD sharing arrangement might [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/key-recommendation-3/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=key-recommendation-3</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Key Recommendation 4:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[An Overhead Report should be submitted annually by all contractors with aggregate single source contracts in excess of £100m total value. The report should have two distinct sections: Forward Planning, detailing planned overhead expenditure that will impact the prices of single source contracts; and Overhead Recovery, detailing under/over recovery of overheads on single source work [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/key-recommendation-4/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=key-recommendation-4</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Key Recommendation 5:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The implicit starting point for the contract profit allowance should be a ‘risk free’ profit rate. Commercial leads should have to justify and movement away from the ‘risk free’ rate using an assessment of the contractor’s risk. The MOD should develop guidance for commercial negotiators to follow in assessing the extent of the allowance that [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/key-recommendation-5/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=key-recommendation-5</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Key Recommendation 6:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The Single Source Regulations Office (SSRO) should provide an independent review of the realism of budgets allocated to single source contracts to provide assurance to the MOD that single source contracts are in financial control.]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/key-recommendation-6/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=key-recommendation-6</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Key Recommendation 7:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The Review Board should be replaced by a SSRO with a remit to scrutinise single source defence procurement. The SSRO would define and maintain a framework that encourages efficiency and value for money in MOD single source procurement. It should be an independent Non-Departmental Public Body, sponsored by the MOD. After appropriate consultation, the SSRO [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/key-recommendation-7/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=key-recommendation-7</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Key Recommendation 8:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Single source contracts in excess of £5m in value but less than £50m should be exempt from a number of SSPR reporting requirements, for example, Quarterly Contract Reports. Below £5m, no specific SSPR reporting should be required, minimising the administrative burden for SMEs.]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/key-recommendation-8/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=key-recommendation-8</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Key Recommendation 9:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Contractors with single source contracts totalling above £100m in value should produce an annual statement on their contracting with SMEs. It should explain how relationships with SMEs are managed and the processes that the prime contractors have in place to support and foster SMEs in their role as subcontractors.]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/key-recommendation-9/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=key-recommendation-9</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Ancillary Recommendation 10:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The current adjustment to the profit allowance for intercompany trading should be removed, and contractors should be required to record costs charged to the MOD at their original cost to the group.]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/ancillary-recommendation-10/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ancillary-recommendation-10</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Ancillary Recommendation 11:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The GACs should include the general provision that costs charged to the MOD should be both necessary and reasonable. This should be included in the contractors’ annual board certification (key recommendation 2).]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/ancillary-recommendation-11/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ancillary-recommendation-11</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Ancillary Recommendation 12:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[There are clear situations where certain constructs are not appropriate. There is limited guidance on this in MOD commercial policy. We recommend that the MOD should establish clear rules on the permitted commercial constructs in various situations, and that for large contracts the chosen model should be independently reviewed prior to contract signing.]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/ancillary-recommendation-12/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ancillary-recommendation-12</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Ancillary Recommendation 13:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[TCIF should be fixed to a 50/50 share between the MOD and contractors, mitigating the misuse of TCIF to meet unrealistic budgetary constraints, and balancing the incentivisation of efficiency with the benefit of value for money for the taxpayer.]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/ancillary-recommendation-13/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ancillary-recommendation-13</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Ancillary Recommendation 14:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Review of the commercial construct, and the quantification of the risk that the MOD takes on, should be included in the independent commercial due diligence.]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/ancillary-recommendation-14/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ancillary-recommendation-14</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Ancillary Recommendation 15:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[In the specific area of concept, assessment, and design contracts, the MOD should reconsider its policy on not using cost-plus contracts. Use of cost-plus should be coupled with strong MOD oversight, supported by the contract, to ensure quality and mitigate the risk of waste.]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/ancillary-recommendation-15/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ancillary-recommendation-15</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Ancillary Recommendation 16:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Long term capacity and capability contracts should be used sparingly and be under particularly close scrutiny. They should only be entered into if a strong case can be made that the strategic capability requirement will remain under all likely future scenarios for the full duration of the arrangement.]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/ancillary-recommendation-16/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ancillary-recommendation-16</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Ancillary Recommendation 17:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The open book and Equality of Information provisions recommended in Part 1 should extend to rates agreements.]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/ancillary-recommendation-17/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ancillary-recommendation-17</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Ancillary Recommendation 18:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[If the MOD wishes to retain the current single source overhead recovery approach, it should continue strengthening the CAAS resource engaged in rates agreements and TCIF reconciliations.]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/ancillary-recommendation-18/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ancillary-recommendation-18</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Ancillary Recommendation 19:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Large contracts should be subject to independent commercial due diligence and legal review prior to contract signing. There should also be an evaluation of the financial risk taken on by the MOD. The MOD should ensure that a realistic provision for this risk has been made within the department’s budget.]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/ancillary-recommendation-19/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ancillary-recommendation-19</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Ancillary Recommendation 20:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Any technical change (or batch of changes) above a certain materiality level is subject to a separate investment appraisal, regardless of whether or not the project is still within its overall approval threshold.]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/ancillary-recommendation-20/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ancillary-recommendation-20</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Ancillary Recommendation 21:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[For single source contracts below £5m in value, a simplified flat-rate level of profit should be applied.]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/ancillary-recommendation-21/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ancillary-recommendation-21</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Ancillary Recommendation 22:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[SSPR requirements should be flowed down from the first tier to the second tier of single source contractors.]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/ancillary-recommendation-22/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ancillary-recommendation-22</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Ancillary Recommendation 23:</title>
		<description><![CDATA[As in the French system, export potential should be formally considered as part of the MOD capability requirement specification process.]]></description>
		<link>http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/2011/10/10/ancillary-recommendation-23/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ancillary-recommendation-23</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>

