HC Deb 15 January 1997 vol 288 cc259-60W
Mr. Spellar

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the outsourcing of the operation of Sandhurst. [10875]

Mr. Soames

This is a matter for the chief executive of the Army Individual Training Organisation. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

Letter from C. L. Elliott to Mr. John Spellar, dated 15 January 1997: I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the outsourcing of the operation at Sandhurst as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Individual Training Organisation (AITO). A feasibility study was undertaken at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (RMAS) to identify the scope for involving the Private Sector in delivering activities undertaken there. The study reported at the end of April 1996 and concluded that a range of activities could usefully be exposed to competitive tendering. There were:

  • Domestic Services/Management
  • Equipment Support/Management
  • Estate Services/Management
  • Personnel Services/Management
  • Sports Facilities/Management
  • Stores Services/Management
  • Transport and Distribution/Management.
The total annual net cash value of these services is £7.9M (which includes current contracts valued at £3.03M) with some 227 civilians and 92 military personnel affected. The study concluded that best value for money would be achieved by market testing the services within the scope of the competition; as such an in-house bid team has been formed to mount a bid for the services. A detailed Statement of User Requirement is currently being developed and the aim is to issue an invitation to tender in March 1997 and to award a Service Level Agreement (to a successful in-house bid) or a contract to a winning contractor, in March 1998. You may also be aware of activities concerned with the running of the Joint Services Command and Staff College which is also located at Sandhurst. The College is not part of the ALTO and I cannot therefore comment on this.

Forward to