1.6 In the past 50 years, there have been at least eight major defence reviews. We have reported on many occasions on the Department's programme of major projects and, since 2013, on the Equipment Plan, as well as individual programmes. Figure 2 on pages 20 and 21 summarises the factors affecting the performance of the Department's contracts and programmes identified in this report and illustrates how contract performance may be influenced by factors outside the immediate contractual relationship between the Department and its suppliers. Failure to bring equipment into service as expected means the Department must rely on ageing platforms and technology for longer than it anticipates, or manage gaps in military capability.7 For example, in our 2020 report Carrier Strike - Preparing for deployment, we reported that an 18-month delay in the Crowsnest radar system would affect Carrier Strike capabilities in its first two years (see paragraph 3.7).8
1.7 The Department's senior responsible owners (SROs) have regularly expressed concerns over aspects of the Department's delivery of equipment programmes and suppliers' performance. Figure 3 (page 22) shows that as at March 2021, among 19 of the 20 programmes we examined,9 SROs rated:
• delivery confidence as 'amber/red' or 'red' in eight;
• supplier engagement and delivery performance as 'amber/red' or 'red' in four, involving three prime suppliers. These programmes have been on contract for between 59 and 149 months; and
• programme skills and capabilities as 'amber/ red' or 'red' in five cases.
1.8 During 2020-21, the programmes we examined have been affected to varying degrees by the COVID-19 pandemic, mainly where suppliers are manufacturing equipment in industrial facilities with large numbers of workers on site. We have not discussed the extent to which COVID-19 has affected programme delivery in our report, as commercial negotiations are ongoing on the extent of the disruption and its financial consequences.
1.9 The Department is not alone in facing challenges with procuring defence equipment. The US Government Accountability Office has published many reports on defence equipment acquisitions. Its findings are consistent with a number of those in this report. For example, it has identified cost and schedule uncertainty when programmes are approved, compounded by incentives for the Department of Defense to be over-optimistic about delivery, and a lack of competition among suppliers.
____________________________________________________________________
7 The main milestones discussed in this report are in-service date, initial operating capability (IOC) and full operating capability (FOC).
• In-service date is the date on which a programme enters service.
• IOC is the minimum level at which the capability or service is usefully deployable.
• FOC is the level of military capability which is intended for a particular programme.
8 Comptroller and Auditor General, Carrier Strike - Preparing for deployment, Session 2019-2021, HC 374, National Audit Office, June 2020.
9 The Department ceased reporting on the Warrior vehicle upgrade programme following its cancellation (see Figure 8). As at December 2020, the SRO rated the programme's delivery confidence as 'amber/red', supplier engagement and performance as 'amber/red' and skills and capabilities as 'amber/green'.