§ Sir Ian GilmourTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria have been used in the course of demountable rack off-loading pick-up systems/RTE procurements(a) for deciding whether to pursue trial equipments in preference to off-the-shelf equipments and (b) in deciding to whom to permit participation in the second round of procurement trials; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Sainsbury[holding answer 11 January 1988]: Following the initial DROPS evaluation trials in 1984–85, it was decided that the Department's production requirement for DROPS RTE equipment should be the subject of a full open competition to determine best value for money. As a consequence, the contract was awarded to Arbau Klaus in November 1987. Further RTE trials will be limited to pre-production evaluation and validation.
§ Sir Ian GilmourTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what respective numbers of the two types of demountable rack off-loading pick-up system trailer are now envisaged; what factors persuaded him of the advantages of a proliferation of types; to what extent the latter procurement is(a) to meet a new requirement not foreseen in 1982 and (b) to fulfil a role the previously selected trailers have proved unable to fulfil by virtue of not being manoeuvrable or operable by one man; and if he will make a statement;
(2) what recent announcements he has made to industry on forthcoming competition for a further substantial procurement of demountable rack off-loading pick-up system trailers; what will the relationship of such 904W procurement be to the original 1982 demountable rack off-loading pick-up low mobility requirements in respect of manoeuvrability and one-man operation; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Sainsbury[holding answer 11 January 1988]: As a result of the 1982–83 DROPS competition and subsequent trials, an order is already in hand to provide 295 trailers for the low mobility roles and requirements for DROPS operation in rear zones. A requirement for some 209 trailers has since been identified for the improved low mobility roles specific to DROPS support of the multi-launch rocket system. In addition to their timings the trailer requirements are distinct in calling for equipment of significantly different performance characteristics. No question of proliferation thus arises. The MLRS requirements were announced in the "Contracts Bulletin" on 28 October 1987 and were presented to interested firms at a conference on 29 November 1987. Tender invitations are now in the process of preparation.
§ Sir Ian GilmourTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence which companies and equipment were selected in 1983 for rail transfer equipment trials following the original demountable rack off-loading pick-up system/ CLOTS submissions from industry; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Sainsbury[holding answer 11 January 1988]: Ralph Blatchford and Co Ltd and EKA Ltd.
§ Sir Ian GilmourTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the off-the-shelf German rail transfer equipment now ordered meets the original specification published in the 1982 demountable rack off-loading pickup system/CLOTS tender documents; whether he has changed the specifications required; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Sainsbury[holding answer 11 January 1988]: The original performance requirements specified have not changed in significant regards although the engineering specifications for the supply of equipment are now more refined and detailed. The ordered equipments meet all essential requirements other than in regard to minimum clearance of overhead power cables and full ability to operate at different step heights.
§ Sir Ian GilmourTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been spent on equipment, development and trials of the aborted design of rail transfer equipment for demountable rack off-loading pickup systems; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Sainsbury[holding answer 11 January 1988]: Costs of providing and supporting RTE equipment for the 1984–85 DROPS trials were some £500,000. Trials costs cannot be separately identified.
§ Sir Ian GilmourTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decision he has reached on further use of the rail transfer equipment for demountable rack off-loading pick-up system flatracks selected in 1983 for trials; what consideration is being given to off-the-shelf German equipment used by the Army for concept trials in 1979–80; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. SainsburyNo final decision has been reached on the further use or disposal of the RTE trials equipment 905W evaluated in 1984–85. The Department is currently giving no procurement consideration to German equipment used in concept trials in 1979–80.
§ Sir Ian GilmourTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what estimate he has made of the likely costs resulting from the failure of the medium mobility demountable rack off-loading pick-up system truck to meet its specifications; and by whom these costs will ultimately be borne; and if he will make a statement;
(2) what effect the problems of the medium mobility demountable rack off-loading pick-up system truck will have on the in-service date of this equipment; and if he will make a statement;
(3) if redesign will be required to remedy serious instability of the medium mobility demountable rack off-loading pick-up system truck; and if he will make a statement;
(4) if he will make a statement on the failure of trials involving a cross-country demountable rack off-loading pick-up system truck turning over on hard level ground; whether any injuries resulted from this failure; and if he will make a statement;
(5) if he will provide further details on the failure of the demountable rack off-loading pick-up systems truck during trials at the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Sainsbury[holding answer 11 January 1988]: In the course of handling trials on 17 November at RARDE Chertsey a fully loaded medium mobility DROPS pre-production validation vehicle toppled over on to its side whilst executing a figure of eight manoeuvre on the slip bed, causing slight leg injuries to its civilian driver. The vehicle is one of 12 medium mobility and seven improved mobility vehicles commissioned for the trials: three medium mobility vehicles had previously completed the manoeuvre without mishap. Further examinations by the Department's project and engineering staff in association with the main contractor for the vehicles have indicated that the incident resulted from the fitting of a larger pattern of road wheel to provide enhanced off-road mobility in the vehicle for validation purposes.
In the normal way the trials experience is to result in a number of detailed modifications involving the fitting of smaller wheels and other minor engineering changes. Accurate estimates are not yet available but the Department's modification costs are not expected to be substantial and will be contained within the approved programme limits. Major redesign work will not be involved and the vehicles are continuing to undergo their validation trials. The incident is not expected to have any major adverse affect upon the continuation of the DROPS programme or the in-service date of the vehicles.
§ Sir Ian GilmourTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, in view of the closure of Scamell's plant at Watford and the departure of Multilift's chief design engineer, he is satisfied that sufficient design expertise will continue to be available to ensure that the redesign of the demountable rack off-loading pick-up system trucks will be successful; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Sainsbury[holding answer 11 January 1988]: There is no requirement to redesign DROPS equipment. Therefore, the question does not arise.
906W
§ Sir Ian GilmourTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence what lessons have been learnt from the procurement of DROPS; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Sainsbury[holding answer 11 January 1988]: DROPS procurement is still proceeding and will not be complete for some years. None the less the programme has demonstrated how the widest possible competitive approach to industry based upon a performance specification can achieve real value for money solutions and at the same time avoid unnecessary research and development costs for the taxpayer. It has also demonstrated the importance of full internal recording of all procurement assessment considerations and processes.