Babcock International has secured a five year Maritime Training Systems Through-Life Availability & Support Service (MARTASS) contract with the Ministry of Defence.
A series of support packages, defined by the Maritime Combat System (MCS) and Maritime Training Acquisition Organisation (MTAO) teams within Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S), will be clustered into one contract for consolidated delivery by Babcock.
The company say that they will support training systems located across the Royal Navy and Defence establishments including Naval Bases and Air Stations.
“Through the contract, Babcock will deliver on-call engineering support, routine maintenance and the modernisation of legacy equipment to ensure the availability of the training equipment in the long-term. The contract will include provision of in-service support; spares and repairs; and technical refresh studies and insertions. Similarly, it will utilise capability upgrades and training studies throughout, always ensuring maximum benefit is applied to the customer with a keen focus on training needs.”
Jeff Lewis, Managing Director, Defence Systems Technology at Babcock said:
“Consolidating the existing customer training programmes ensures MARTASS offers a fit-for-purpose solution for the Ministry of Defence. This, coupled with Babcock’s proven training portfolio and rich defence support history, will ensure that we are ideally placed to deliver this contract.”
MARTASS follows a 10 year Training Equipment Support Services (T-ESS) contract delivered by Babcock and increases its portfolio of support, firmly cementing the company’s credentials in defence training.
Consolation prize perhaps for not getting the T31 project? 😉
Is that official, not sure if the type 31”s contract has been given yet!
So a few year ago, the command task area on the camp which the cell I ran utilised to test potential army officer candidates was looking a little shabby. (The army had previously decided to save money and used the Pioneers to refurbish them in the past and they had used internal house paint) So I approached the Babcock office (which was next to the QMs) stated my case and they said…yes we can refurbish the Command task as we have the contract to maintain that and the Assault course. Great, I thought, they asked for a breakdown of what needed to be done and I spent a good week taking pictures and consulting with my boss and the rest of the camp what required to be done. I handed in my paperwork , only to receive a reply a fortnight later from Babcock stating that whilst they had the contract to maintain the command task area. Painting was not part of it. We tried to press our case stating that the command task area had to have clear demarcation lines which was represented by green, red and yellow areas. They said no, whilst the higher ups argued, I rolled up my sleeves and using my own money used Hammer-right paint to redue one command task. That cost me around £40 in costs and around 3 days in work and as there were 16 other Command tasks which required attention, I called it a day after that.
We finally got RMAS to fund the costs of the refurbishment which was carried out by a civy painter and that job was completed last April. He charged the army a bloody fortune (I suggested that we speak to the RSM and get the mess to offer to paint the Command tasks, thus keeping the job in house, for a cheaper price and putting money into the army and not a civy contractor, I was shot down)
My point. contracts with companies such as Babcock should be inspected with a fine tooth comb by a lawyer who knows what he is doing rather than a military officer who hasn’t a scooby do on what he is looking at.
Could no one think of a word beginning with “s” to go on the front of that acronym?
The word could have actually been smart. The probably knew. Who is taking the proverbial here?
What language do these spokesmen/persons speak?it certainly isn’t English.