評論
打印
Military reform
軍隊改革
No go, GOCO
“政府擁有、承包商運營”計劃被擱置
Why a bold plan to privatise military procurement fell apart
國防采購私有化的壯舉為何慘遭失敗
Can we turn this thing around?
這事行得通嗎？
AS U-TURNS go, it was not particularly painful; defence procurement is hardly a doorstep issue. Still, in terms of the scale of ambition thwarted it was a big one. On December 10th Britain's defence secretary, Philip Hammond, announced that one of the most radical outsourcing plans hatched by any government would not be going ahead.
事情的發展有了180度的轉彎。這并不是特別糟糕，畢竟國防采購的問題并非易事。突然中止這項計劃的確需要很大的勇氣。12月10日，英國國防大臣菲利普?哈蒙德宣布中止一項由政府制定的國防采辦方案，該方案曾飽受爭議。
Mr Hammond has been (successfully) trying to restore fiscal probity to the Ministry of Defence, long a pariah in Whitehall for its casual approach to the military equipment budget. He wants to root out the so-called “conspiracy of optimism”, in which officials, the armed forces and defence suppliers pretend that kit will be delivered much more cheaply than it in fact can be. After a cost-cutting defence review, Mr Hammond inherited a staggering 74 billion ($122 billion) of unfunded commitments from the last Labour government.
由于曾經隨意插手軍隊裝備預算，國防部在白廳（指英國政府）里的名聲一直不好。如今哈蒙德已經成功扭轉了這種局面，重塑了國防部的經濟誠信。他想徹底擊垮所謂的“樂觀主義的密謀”—政府官員、軍隊和國防供應商謊稱國防裝備采辦的成本將會降低。經過削減開支的國防審計之后，哈蒙德領導的國防部從上一屆勞動黨政府繼承了一項740億英鎊（1，220億美元）的資金缺口，這一數字令人震驚。
At present a 16,500-strong Bristol-based outfit called Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S), staffed mostly by former soldiers and civil servants, handles procurement. Mr Hammond argued that a radically different approach was needed. Responsibility for buying and maintaining Britain's military equipment should be handed to a GOCO, the acronym given to a new government-owned, contractor-operated organisation. In effect, Britain would have privatised defence procurement.
目前，國防裝備與保障局（DE&S）負責英國的國防采購。該組織位于布里斯托爾，有16,500名員工，其中大部分是退役的士兵、公務員。哈蒙德堅稱國防采購需要一種截然不同的方式。采購和維護英國國防裝備的任務應該移交給一個“政府擁有，承包商運營”的組織（簡稱GOCO）。實際上，這是將英國的國防采購私有化。
In July three American-led consortia had been lined up to bid for the contract. But by last month two had dropped out, fearing it would be impossible to make a decent return. That left just one bidder: a consortium that included Bechtel, PricewaterhouseCoopers and PA Consulting. Sources suggest that, despite having submitted a 1,200-page bid, this consortium too was thinking about pulling out.
七月份，由美國公司牽頭的3個財團參與了英國國防部國防裝備與保障局(DE&S)的私有化招標。但是到了上個月，已經有兩家財團放棄投標，因為他們擔心到時候無法獲利，得不償失。這樣就只剩下了最后一個投標者——由貝克特爾公司、普華永道以及英國博安咨詢集團和英國國防技術集團組成的財團。消息人士稱：“雖然提交了一份1,200頁的競標書，該財團也在考慮放棄投標。”
Without a credible commercial competition, Mr Hammond will revert to allowing a beefed-up DE&S to offer the salaries needed to attract people from the private sector with the kind of commercial, engineering and financial skills needed to handle big projects and negotiate complex contracts. This is unlikely to deliver the kind of “cultural change” that Mr Hammond had insisted was essential.
由于沒有一個可信的商業競爭組織，哈蒙德只能重新讓機構臃腫的國防裝備與保障局負責從私有部門中引進具有商業、工程以及財政知識的能夠承接重大項目、溝通重大合同的人才，并為他們提供薪水。這好像不能實現哈蒙德之前一直堅持認為很重要的“文化革新”。
Yet Francis Tusa, the editor of Defence Analysis, a newsletter, and a supporter of GOCO, reckons that for all Mr Hammond's apparent enthusiasm for it, he may not be entirely dismayed by what has happened. Bidders fell by the wayside because of the limited length of contract being offered (as little as three years according to a source) combined with the requirement for substantial upfront investment and the need for every pound of profit to come from savings over the previous system. Surely Mr Hammond could have sweetened the deal if he had really wanted it?
通訊簡報《防務分析》的主編弗朗西斯·圖薩是GOCO的支持者。他認為既然哈蒙德對改革投入了那么顯著的熱情，他不會對目前發生的事情徹底失望的。投標者半路退出是因為合同的期限太短（一位消息人士稱只有三年）、需要大量的預付資本，而且利潤只能來自于對原體制開支的節儉。如果哈蒙德真的想實現這項改革，他讓它變得誘人了嗎？
The proposed new system was the brainchild of Bernard Gray, a former journalist, political adviser and banker who was hired by the prime minister, David Cameron, to become head of defence materiel in late 2010, before Mr Hammond became defence secretary. Mr Hammond, said by some who have worked with him to be “a bit of a control freak”, concurs with much of the bullish Mr Gray's argument for the GOCO. But he was probably not thrilled by having to march in lock-step with him on such a contentious and politically risky policy. Mr Gray has been made chief executive of the rebooted DE&S.
新提出的體制是伯納德·格雷的點子。他曾經做過記者、政治顧問、銀行家，2010年下半年被首相大衛·卡梅倫任命為國防裝備與保障局局長，當時哈蒙德還不是國防大臣。跟哈蒙德一起工作的人說哈蒙德的控制欲比較強。他同意了格雷關于GOCO的頑固的爭執。然而他可能不太愿意同格雷陷在這個有爭議的政治冒險性的政策上。格雷被任命為重組后的DE&S首席執行官。
Others will be frankly relieved at the GOCO's demise. Its detractors both in Parliament and industry questioned how far a privately-operated entity could be trusted to serve national strategic goals. Even the Pentagon, no slouch when it comes to outsourcing, was worried that the Ministry of Defence might lose capabilities critical for the support of future missions. In 2011 America's Office of Federal Procurement Policy issued a “Policy Letter” warning departments about surrendering to contractors “inherently governmental functions”. The Pentagon was singled out for needing caution when it came to reliance on contractors.
其他人對GOCO的失敗表現的很輕松。議會里和工業界的貶低者們質疑讓一個私營組織為國家的戰略目標提供服務，人們能對其信任多久。五角大樓在面對英國的國防采辦問題時也不再坐視不管，它擔心國防部會失去支撐未來使命的關鍵能力。2011年美國聯邦采購政策辦公室發表了一篇“政策書函”，警告國防部不要將關鍵的政府職能轉交給承包商。五角大樓指出在依賴承包商的問題上要提高警惕。
Mr Hammond says that the GOCO plan is only on hold and could be brought back by a future Conservative government. By the time it is, the politically ambitious defence secretary will surely have moved to another billet.
哈蒙德說，GOCO模式只是被暫時擱置，可以在在下一屆保守黨政府中恢復這一模式。然而到到時候，這位雄心勃勃的國防大臣肯定已經擔任別的職務去了。 譯者：姜開鋒 校對：徐珍
譯文屬譯生譯世
