The Ministry of Defence has begun sounding out the market on a facilities management contract for its bases in the South Atlantic worth an estimated £500 million, covering British forces in both the Falkland Islands and on Ascension Island over a ten-year run, the department has said.
The Defence Infrastructure Organisation, the arm of the Ministry of Defence responsible for the military estate, published a preliminary market engagement notice on 9 June setting out its intention to procure facilities management and support services for British Forces South Atlantic Islands at MOD sites across the Falklands and Ascension.
The work covers both hard facilities management, the maintenance of buildings, infrastructure and engineering systems, and soft facilities management, the catering, cleaning and day-to-day support services that keep a base running.
The contract carries an estimated value of £500 million excluding VAT, rising to £600 million with VAT, and is expected to run for ten years from April 2030 to March 2037, with a possible extension to March 2040. The Defence Infrastructure Organisation says it is seeking a supplier capable of delivering the services across the MOD estate in the region, and has flagged the procurement as particularly suitable for small and medium-sized enterprises, while encouraging firms with experience of delivering facilities management in remote or complex environments to come forward.
As part of its early market engagement, the organisation is inviting suppliers to complete a short survey to capture expressions of interest and understand which elements of the work they might want to deliver, with responses due by the end of December and an initial supplier engagement meeting planned for early September. The procurement is being run under the defence and security special regime, with Crown Commercial Service supporting the process.
The Falkland Islands host one of the United Kingdom’s most significant permanent overseas garrisons, built up after the 1982 conflict and centred on RAF Mount Pleasant, the large air base east of Stanley that anchors the British military presence in the South Atlantic alongside naval and army elements committed to the defence of the islands. Ascension Island, far to the north in the mid-Atlantic, hosts RAF Ascension at Wideawake Airfield, a staging post that has long served as the essential stepping stone for British air and logistics movements between the United Kingdom and the Falklands, as well as supporting wider operations across the South Atlantic.
Sustaining bases of that kind thousands of miles from the United Kingdom, on small islands with limited local infrastructure and long supply chains, is a substantial undertaking, and the scale of the contract reflects the cost of keeping the South Atlantic garrison housed, fed, maintained and operational across a decade.
D.I.O.
Well It’s almost !
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting
following website—.,,…….,,.—>>PayAtHome1.COM
I love when the Government taxes contracts it awards. Gives out money with its left hand, takes it back with the right hand. The only point being that it artificially bigs up Defence spending. Very helpful when trying to meet NATO targets. Not so helpful actually providing defence.
Crooks the lot of them.
What taxes? Perhaps look at how VAT is applied before applying text to the internet.
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting
following website—.,.,.,.,.—>>> JobatHome1.Com
Two frigates worth, only over a decade, for a handful of bases. Support is expensive.
Do other countries get “ripped off”?
So Babcock (or Crapita???) go round the sites, and reckon they can do it for £350million. But MOD already said it was a £500 million contract. So… “Fair enuff guv, we’ll do it for £495 million. How’s that? Big discount just for you. And we’ll throw in free toilet rolls…”
Yet another contract that takes money, skills and experience out of the Armed Forces and hands them to a private contractor. More often than not, the taxpayer ends up paying more for less.
This is the consequence of outsourcing jobs that the military once carried out itself. Every contract awarded to a civilian company removes an opportunity for soldiers, sailors and airmen to retrain into new roles while remaining in service.
Take an infantry soldier who joined at 18. By their mid-thirties they may have completed multiple operational tours, want greater stability for their family, and no longer wish to spend months in the field on exercises. That does not mean their value to the Army has ended. Quite the opposite. With 15 to 20 years of experience, discipline and military knowledge, they are among the most valuable people the service possesses.
Rather than losing them, the military should be retraining them into estate management, maintenance, engineering support, logistics, facilities management and other garrison roles. The Armed Forces retain an experienced serviceman, the individual gains a new trade for life after service, and the taxpayer continues to benefit from the investment already made in their training.
The strategic argument is even stronger in places such as the Falkland Islands. A civilian contractor maintaining a military base cannot be expected to pick up a rifle and help defend it during a crisis. A trained soldier performing the same role can. If the security situation deteriorates, that individual can immediately return to military duties, reinforce defensive positions, train younger soldiers, or support operational requirements.
Outsourcing creates a false economy. Once experienced personnel leave, the military loses their knowledge and skills. In a national emergency they may be recalled, disrupting civilian employers who suddenly lose key members of staff, sometimes from industries that are themselves critical to national security. Keeping those people in uniform avoids that problem entirely.
The Armed Forces should be focused on retaining experience, not exporting it. Every soldier retained is one less recruit to train, one more skilled professional available in a crisis, and one more taxpayer-funded investment protected rather than wasted.
The military spends years and a considerable amount of money turning an 18-year-old recruit into an experienced soldier. When that person reaches their mid-thirties, the question should not be, “How do we replace them?” It should be, “How do we keep them?”
Historically, armed forces understood this. Experienced infantrymen, sailors and airmen often moved into instructional, logistical, administrative, engineering or support roles as they became older. The military retained their knowledge, leadership and operational experience, while the individual gained new skills and a more stable lifestyle.
The modern outsourcing model often breaks that cycle. The military loses experienced people, contractors gain the work, and the taxpayer then funds both the contract and the recruitment and training of replacements. In many cases it costs more overall.
The Falklands is an especially strong example because it is not simply an estate management issue. It is a military garrison in a strategically important location. Every person in uniform contributes to resilience during a crisis. A contractor repairing accommodation blocks or maintaining infrastructure cannot be expected to form a defensive position, reinforce a guard force, or train younger soldiers if the situation deteriorates. An ex-infantry sergeant working in facilities management on the same base can.
That is the distinction many policymakers miss. They see a maintenance contract. The military sees retained capability.
Could not agree with you more same short sighted systems we’ve had for the last 50 years, and don’t expect reform or the others to be any different
Ex-RoyalMarine
You make some very sound reasoning in your comment. Perhaps a copy to every MP would be valuable as they come from law, politics philosohy and economics and most will not understand the points you make. I made similar comments to MP’s regarding small nuclear reactors about 5 years ago and was asked to explain the physics in lay terms! It’s a long slog.