DOCSLIB.ORG

STATEMENT of REQUIREMENTS for the Supply of Upholstery and Soft

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

UPHOLSTERY AND SOFT FURNISHINGS STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS – MEDGS/0011 STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS for the supply of Upholstery and Soft Furnishings UPHOLSTERY AND SOFT FURNISHINGS STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS – MEDGS/0011 CONTENTS Section Title 1. Introduction 2. Quality, Defects and Non Conformance 3. Prices 4. Logistics 5. Development 6. Management 7. Key Performance Indicator 8. One Off Special Item or Service Requests 9. Electronic Catalogue Annexes A Distribution Addresses B Authorised Demanders B1 Delivery Addresses C Delivery Addresses D Deliveries Into Defence Storage And Distribution Agency Bicester and Donnington (DSDA) E One Off Special Items or Services F Key Performance Indicators G Procedure for P2P Demand Orders H Procedure for Non-P2P Demand Orders i UPHOLSTERY AND SOFT FURNISHINGS STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS – MEDGS/0011 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This Statement of Requirements (StOR) sets out the Medical and General Supplies team's (M&GS) requirements for the supply of Textiles, Upholstery and soft furnishings requirements. 1.2 The Contractor shall supply the Articles and Services detailed in the SOR, as they are ordered by authorised Demanding Authorities listed at Annex B of this StOR and in the Master Database. The majority of demands under this Contract will be direct for the customers detailed in the Master Database. Demands for stock into the main delivery points will form the lesser part of the contract. As well as timely delivery of the Articles to the Authority, the Contractor must endeavour to achieve reductions in Article and Service prices throughout the course of the Contract. 2. QUALITY, DEFECTS AND NON-CONFORMANCE Quality Assurance 2.1 The Contractor shall operate a Quality Management System certified to ISO 9001:2000 and the following requirements shall apply to work under the Contract: 2.1.1 AQAP 2120 Edition 2 [NATO QA Requirements for Production], implemented in accordance with the guidelines stated in AQAP 2009 Edition 2 [NATO Guidance on use of AQAP 2000 Series] 2.2 The Contractor shall also comply with the following standards in the execution of the Contract: 2.2.1 DEF STAN 05-61 Part 1 Issue 4 dated 26/04/04 – Quality Assurance Procedural Requirements. 2.2.2 AQAP 2105 (Edn 1) 2.3 The Authority’s Quality Assurance Representative shall be as shown at Box 7 of the Appendix to the Contract (DEFFORM 111). Quality monitoring may be undertaken by the Authority should risk analysis identify areas of concern. 2.4 The Contractor shall ensure the quality of the Articles and Services to be supplied, through implementation of a Quality Plan (QP). The QP must be developed and finalised by the Contractor, and agreed with the Authority no later than 4 weeks from Contract award. The Authority’s agreement to the Contractor’s QP shall not be construed as acceptance of any Authority liability for the accuracy, suitability or applicability of the Plan but shall merely represent acknowledgement of the Contractor’s commitment to implement its provisions. Once agreed, the QP shall form part of a Contract Management Plan (paragraph 6.2 below refers) and shall only be amended by mutual agreement between the Contractor and the Authority. If the QP refers to the Contractor’s Quality Manual or other standing quality procedures, changes to these other documents (that are specific to the QP) shall be notified to the Authority and introduced only by mutual consent. UPHOLSTERY AND SOFT FURNISHINGS STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS – MEDGS/0011 Retention of Quality Control/Inspection Records 2.5 Unless otherwise directed in the Contract, the Contractor shall retain the Quality Control/Inspection Records or such of those records as may be agreed by the QAR for a period of four years from completion of all work and shall make them accessible to the Authority on request. At the end of this retention period, the Contractor shall seek advice from the QAR regarding the disposal/continued retention of the Quality Control/Inspection Records, and the Contractor shall not dispose of such records without the written authority of the QAR. 2.6 Exceptionally, when requested by the Contractor, the QAR may authorise earlier disposal in writing. Safety Management 2.7 All Articles supplied must comply with the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and any subordinate legislation. 2.8 The Contractor shall provide additional technical data relating to safety for any new/additional Articles added to the Contract where requested by the Authority. The Authority shall have the right to use, and reproduce for its own use, any documentation or manuals supplied. Provision of Articles 2.9 The Contractor shall provide: 2.9.1 Each Article, when demanded, shall be delivered to the Authority in accordance with the specification identified against the line item on the SOR, and to the description detailed in the appropriate column. The description and specification detailed in the SOR are the definitive requirements. In the event of any inconsistency between the SOR and any other publication (e.g. ISIS), then the SOR shall take precedence. Prior to the operational date, the Contractor shall submit samples of each flooring product, in all the required colours, to the Authority's technical manager for approval. Alternative Specifications 2.10 If at any time during the Contract Period, the Contractor proposes to change or delete any Line Item(s), then prior approval in writing must be sought from the Authority. 2.11 In the event that the Contractor cannot meet a specification, the Contractor shall propose alternatives of the same quality and robustness that meet the fit, form and function criteria specified. Additionally, if the Contractor proposes to change the formulation of a Line Item, the Contractor is to arrange for and finance the provision of a Product Conformity Certification ("PCC"). The PCC is to confirm that the proposed alternative or change in formulation will not affect the performance, fit, form and function of the offered Line Item in comparison with its predecessor. If the Contractor proposes to use an alternative item, or change the formulation of a Line Item details shall be communicated to the Authority in writing in order that approval for use may be obtained. Following approval, the Contractor shall provide an updated specification for the Line Item for use by any UK Government Department. UPHOLSTERY AND SOFT FURNISHINGS STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS – MEDGS/0011 Additionally, the Contractor shall provide to the Authority all information necessary for the purposes of NATO codification. If required, the Contractor shall provide a sample free of charge for assessment prior to acceptance by the Authority. Where an alternative Article has been technically fully accepted by the Authority, codified and a fair price agreed, the Contractor shall have such Articles readily available for delivery within the contracted delivery timeframes. Defects and Non Conformance 2.12 A Defect Report (DR) will be raised by the Account Manager, his nominated representative or the Authorised Demander and forwarded for action to the Contractor as a result of an Article or Service failure. Defect reports raised by Authorised Demanders will be copied to the Account Manager for information purposes only. 2.13 The Contractor shall complete and return Part 2 of the Defect Report within 3 Working Days of receipt. A full investigation of the contents of the defect report shall be completed within 20 Working Days of receipt. However, defect reports with Health and Safety implications shall be acknowledged immediately and fully investigated within 5 Working Days. The investigation will not be considered complete until the Contractor has completed and returned Part 3 of the defect report, detailing its findings, actions taken and any subsequent recommendations. 2.14 A copy of the completed Part 3 of the defect report shall be forwarded to the Account Manager and the Authorised Demander who raised the Defect Report (where applicable). 2.15 Corrective action for failures in Articles or Services found to be the responsibility of the Contractor as a result of any defect report investigation shall be put into action immediately upon agreement with the Account Manager or the Authorised Demander as appropriate. Where a Defect or Non-Conformance report is found to have no foundation, then the Contractor shall not be responsible for the associated investigation costs. 2.16 Where the Contractor and an Authorised Demander cannot reach agreement on a Defect Report, it shall be forwarded to the Account Manager for arbitration. 2.17 Packaging defects shall be treated in accordance with the reporting procedure for Defect Reports on Articles and Services. 2.18 DRs will be submitted on Form S2022 for the Sea Environment, RAF Form 760 for the Air Environment and Form AFG8627 for the Land Environment, and will be issued by the relevant Demand Authority (see Annex B hereto). On receipt of a DR, the Contractor shall investigate the problem responding within 5 working days and either rectify the defect or provide a replacement Article at its own expense. Marking 2.19 All Articles shall be marked and packaged to Retail Trade Standard as specified by DEFCON 129 (Edn 07/08). All costs for the packaging of Articles shall be included in the Line Item Unit Price of the Article. UPHOLSTERY AND SOFT FURNISHINGS STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS – MEDGS/0011 Concessions 2.20 On no account shall the Contractor supply an alternative Article in response to a demand order, unless agreed in accordance with paragraph 2.11 above. 2.21 When the Authority has accepted an alternative Article as a suitable replacement, agreed a fair and reasonable price for its supply, and the alternative Article has been allocated a NATO Stock Number (NSN), the Contractor may supply the Article to the Authority. Denominations of Quantity 2.22 The Denomination of Quantity (DofQ) for each Article is specified in the SOR.
Recommended publications
  • Covid-19 - Royal Navy Staff Contact List Surname Forename L&D Hub Role Contact No

    Covid-19 - Royal Navy Staff Contact List Surname Forename L&D Hub Role Contact No

    COVID-19 - ROYAL NAVY STAFF CONTACT LIST SURNAME FORENAME L&D HUB ROLE CONTACT NO. CONTACT EMAIL ARNOLD-BHATTI KHALIDA HMNB PORTSMOUTH eLA Work mob: 07513 483808 ASTON JIM 43 CDO RM CLYDE LT RN / OIC/ERO [email protected] Mil: 93255 6911, ATKINSON GARTH HMNB CLYDE LT CDR, RN [email protected] Civ: 01436 674321 Ext 6911 BAKER IAN RNAS Yeovilton Coord Contact Via TSM Contact via Pam Fisher BALLS SARA LDO APPS LT CDR, RN [email protected] BANKS TERRIE RNAS Yeovilton NRIO 07500 976770 Contact via Pam Fisher BEADNELL ROBERT HMNB PORTSMOUTH LT CDR, RN / OIC 07527 927699 BENNETT ZONA RNAS Yeovilton Coord Contact via Pam Fisher Contact via Pam Fisher BRADSHAW NICK 30 CDO RM, STONEHOUSE TUTOR 07376 335930 BRICE KAREN CTCRM IT Manager 07795 434832 Mil: 93781 2147 BRICKSTOCK STEPHEN RNAS CULDROSE OIC / ERO Civ: 01326 552147 [email protected] Mob: 07411 563346 BUTLER RACHEL HMNB DEVONPORT [email protected] CARPENTER NEIL 30 CDO RM, STONEHOUSE Co-ord / ELA 01752 217498 CHEAL ANDY LDO HQ CDR, RN 07976 455653 [email protected] CLARKE ELAINE RNAS CULDROSE Tutor 07962 118941 Contact via primary POC - OiC Steve Brickstock CLARKE SOPHIE RNAS CULDROSE EDO contact via OiC Contact via primary POC - OiC Steve Brickstock COLEMAN LAURA HMNB CLYDE [email protected] CRAWFORD COLJN NCHQ / HMS COLLINGWOOD RN ELC Scheme Manager [email protected] Mil: 9375 41509 DENWOOD MARTIN HMS RALEIGH OIC/ERO [email protected] Civ: 01752 811509 DRINKALL KATHRYN RNAS Yeovilton LT CDR, RN ASSIGNED TO COVID-19 [email protected] EASTERBROOK LEIGH 30 CDO RM, STONEHOUSE Co-ord/Reset/GCSEs 07770 618001 EWEN HAYLEY HMNB PORTSMOUTH Nelson Co-ord 02392 526420 1 09/04/20 SURNAME FORENAME L&D HUB ROLE CONTACT NO.
  • The Referendum on Separation for Scotland

    The Referendum on Separation for Scotland

    House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee The Referendum on Separation for Scotland Written evidence Only those submissions written specifically for the Committee and accepted by the Committee as evidence for the inquiry into the referendum on separation for Scotland are included. List of written evidence Page 1 Professor Bernard Ryan, Law School, University of Kent 1 2 Francis Tusa, Editor, Defence Analysis 8 3 Professor Jo Shaw, University of Edinburgh 14 4 Dr Phillips O’Brien, Scottish Centre for War Studies, University of Glasgow 21 5 Electoral Commission 24 6 Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, Secretary of State for Scotland 28 7 Ministry of Defence 29 8 Brian Buchan, Chief Executive, Scottish Engineering 46 9 Babcock 47 Written evidence from Professor Bernard Ryan, Law School, University of Kent Introduction If Scotland were to become independent, its relationship with the United Kingdom would have to be defined in the fields of nationality law and immigration law and policy. This note offers a summary of the relationship between the Irish state1 and the United Kingdom in those fields, and some thoughts on possible implications for Scottish independence. 1. Nationality Law 1.1 The Irish case A new nationality The nationality law of a new state must necessarily provide for two matters: an initial population of nationals on the date of independence, and the acquisition and loss of nationality on an ongoing basis. In the case of the Irish state, the initial population was defined by Article 3 of the Irish Free State Constitution of 1922. Article 3 conferred Irish Free State citizenship upon a person if they were domiciled in the “area of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State” on the date the state was founded (6 December 1922), provided (a) they had been resident in that area for the previous seven years, or (b) they or one of their parents had been born in “Ireland”.2 A full framework of nationality law, covering all aspects of acquisition and loss of nationality, was not then adopted until the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1935.
  • Whistl Allsort Customer Guide/February 2021 V1.1

    Whistl Allsort Customer Guide/February 2021 V1.1

    AllSort Customer Guide v1.1 Table of Contents 1.0 AllSort Overview ......................................................................................................................................3 1.1 Who it suits .....................................................................................................................................................3 1.2 Minimum volumes ...........................................................................................................................................3 1.3 Included services † ..........................................................................................................................................3 1.4 Collections ......................................................................................................................................................3 1.5 Presentation ...................................................................................................................................................4 1.6 AllSort service summary by format .................................................................................................................4 1.7 Force Majeure Events.....................................................................................................................................4 2.0 AllSort National (UK) Items .................................................................................................................5 2.1 Description † ...................................................................................................................................................5
  • Gunline-Dec-08.Pdf

    Gunline-Dec-08.Pdf

    Gunline Dec08.qxd:Gunline 15/12/08 16:16 Page 1 Gunline - The First Point of Contact Published by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service December 2008 www.rfa.mod.uk COMBINED SERVICES CULINARY CHALLENGE 2008 he eighth Combined Services creativity, workmanship, composition TCulinary Challenge took place at and presentation, including taste. A 90% Sandown Park in October and was + score is awarded a gold medal, 75% + yet again an extremely successful a silver medal, 65% + a bronze medal event. Well attended by both and 55% + is awarded a certificate of supporters and competitors; HRH merit. The best in class is awarded a The Countess of Wessex (Patron of further trophy. There were 15 Blue the Craft Guild of Chefs) attended Riband events from which the inter- and presented medals on the last day. service Champions trophy is awarded. The Royal Naval team included This year the RAF won the trophy. competitors from RN, RM, RFA, There was a variety of events, a one Aramark and Sodexho and this year course dish for chefs to prepare, flambé picked up an impressive total of 6 dishes for the stewards to master and gold medals, 10 best in class awards, combination events such as cook and 16 silver medals, 14 bronze medals serve with chef and steward working and 22 certificates of merit. together. It can get very nerve racking The organisation, training, with a camera crew filming your every preparation and co-ordination were move and the audience being very close; demanding and required a huge the junior and novice competitors did amount of time and effort from all.
  • Devonport Royal Dockyard (Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd and HM Naval Base Devonport)

    Devonport Royal Dockyard (Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd and HM Naval Base Devonport)

    Title of document Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) Quarterly Site Report for Devonport Royal Dockyard (Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd and HM Naval Base Devonport) Report for period 1 July to 30 September 2015 Foreword This report is issued as part of ONR's commitment to make information about inspection and regulatory activities relating to the above sites available to the public. Reports are distributed quarterly to members for the Local Liaison Committee and are also available on the ONR website (http://www.onr.org.uk/llc/). Site inspectors from ONR usually attend Devonport Local Liaison Committee meetings and will respond to any questions raised there. Any person wishing to inquire about matters covered by this report should contact ONR. Template Ref: ONR-DOC-TEMP-008 Revision 3 Page 1 of 8 Quarterly Site Report for Devonport – QTR 3 2015 TRIM Ref: 2015/XXXXXX TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INSPECTIONS .................................................................................................................... 3 2 ROUTINE MATTERS .......................................................................................................... 3 3 NON-ROUTINE MATTERS ................................................................................................. 7 4 REGULATORY ACTIVITY ................................................................................................... 7 5 NEWS FROM ONR ............................................................................................................. 8 6 CONTACTS ........................................................................................................................
  • Part 4: Conclusions and Recommendations & Appendices

    Part 4: Conclusions and Recommendations & Appendices

    Twentieth Century Naval Dockyards Devonport and Portsmouth: Characterisation Report PART FOUR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The final focus of this report is to develop the local, national and international contexts of the two dockyards to highlight specific areas of future research. Future discussion of Devonport and Portsmouth as distinct designed landscapes would coherently organise the many strands identified in this report. The Museum of London Archaeology Portsmouth Harbour Hinterland Project carried out for Heritage England (2015) is a promising step in this direction. It is emphasised that this study is just a start. By delivering the aim and objectives, it has indicated areas of further fruitful research. Project aim: to characterise the development of the active naval dockyards at Devonport and Portsmouth, and the facilities within the dockyard boundaries at their maximum extent during the twentieth century, through library, archival and field surveys, presented and analysed in a published report, with a database of documentary and building reports. This has been delivered through Parts 1-4 and Appendices 2-4. Project objectives 1 To provide an overview of the twentieth century development of English naval dockyards, related to historical precedent, national foreign policy and naval strategy. 2 To address the main chronological development phases to accommodate new types of vessels and technologies of the naval dockyards at Devonport and Portsmouth. 3 To identify the major twentieth century naval technological revolutions which affected British naval dockyards. 4 To relate the main chronological phases to topographic development of the yards and changing technological and strategic needs, and identify other significant factors. 5 To distinguish which buildings are typical of the twentieth century naval dockyards and/or of unique interest.
  • Appendix 1 – the Evolution of HMS Dorsetshire

    Appendix 1 – the Evolution of HMS Dorsetshire

    Appendix 1 – The Evolution of HMS Dorsetshire This image and the one on the next page show Dorsetshire in 1930, during builder’s trials1 Dorsetshire in July 19312 Dorsetshire in 1932.At this time her secondary and tertiary armament is still very light, just four single 4-inch guns abreast the forward funnels and four single 2-pdr pompoms abreast the bridge3 This 1948 model, shown to better advantage on the next page, depicts Dorsetshire under refit in 1937 in No. 14 Dock at Portsmouth Dockyard. The twin 4-inch mountings are in place abreast the funnels, as are the octuple 2-pounder pom poms aft of the torpedo tubes.4 Dorsetshire in dock at Singapore after her 1937 refit.5 This image and the one on the next page show how difficult it was for her to engage aircraft attacking from directly ahead. The arrows highlight her guns as follows: blue = twin 4-inch red = quad .5-inch green = octuple 2-pdr pom poms Dorsetshire in 19416 Three shots of Dorsetshire in 1941. The painting of the aft funnel and part of the hull in a light colour was meant to make her appear to be a single-funnelled vessel – a sloop, according to one source. The paint scheme was possibly first applied at Simonstown between 16 and 20 March, since this was apparently Dorsetshire’s only docking between December 1940 and June-July 1941. The top image was taken at Cape Town, possibly between 21 and 23 April 1941. The centre image was presumably taken prior to the June-July refit, since the ship sports what seems to have been the original version of this paint scheme.
  • Naval Dockyards Society

    Naval Dockyards Society

    20TH CENTURY NAVAL DOCKYARDS: DEVONPORT AND PORTSMOUTH CHARACTERISATION REPORT Naval Dockyards Society Devonport Dockyard Portsmouth Dockyard Title page picture acknowledgements Top left: Devonport HM Dockyard 1951 (TNA, WORK 69/19), courtesy The National Archives. Top right: J270/09/64. Photograph of Outmuster at Portsmouth Unicorn Gate (23 Oct 1964). Reproduced by permission of Historic England. Bottom left: Devonport NAAFI (TNA, CM 20/80 September 1979), courtesy The National Archives. Bottom right: Portsmouth Round Tower (1843–48, 1868, 3/262) from the north, with the adjoining rich red brick Offices (1979, 3/261). A. Coats 2013. Reproduced with the permission of the MoD. Commissioned by The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England of 1 Waterhouse Square, 138-142 Holborn, London, EC1N 2ST, ‘English Heritage’, known after 1 April 2015 as Historic England. Part of the NATIONAL HERITAGE PROTECTION COMMISSIONS PROGRAMME PROJECT NAME: 20th Century Naval Dockyards Devonport and Portsmouth (4A3.203) Project Number 6265 dated 7 December 2012 Fund Name: ARCH Contractor: 9865 Naval Dockyards Society, 44 Lindley Avenue, Southsea, PO4 9NU Jonathan Coad Project adviser Dr Ann Coats Editor, project manager and Portsmouth researcher Dr David Davies Editor and reviewer, project executive and Portsmouth researcher Dr David Evans Devonport researcher David Jenkins Project finance officer Professor Ray Riley Portsmouth researcher Sponsored by the National Museum of the Royal Navy Published by The Naval Dockyards Society 44 Lindley Avenue, Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO4 9NU, England navaldockyards.org First published 2015 Copyright © The Naval Dockyards Society 2015 The Contractor grants to English Heritage a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, perpetual, irrevocable and royalty-free licence to use, copy, reproduce, adapt, modify, enhance, create derivative works and/or commercially exploit the Materials for any purpose required by Historic England.
  • Ship Shape As We Embark Upon a Project to Replace THV Patricia, We Take a Look at the Project Set-Up, Fact-Finding Missions and Progress So Far AUTUMN 2019 | ISSUE 31

    Ship Shape As We Embark Upon a Project to Replace THV Patricia, We Take a Look at the Project Set-Up, Fact-Finding Missions and Progress So Far AUTUMN 2019 | ISSUE 31

    The Trinity House journal // Autumn 2019 // Issue 31 Ship shape As we embark upon a project to replace THV Patricia, we take a look at the project set-up, fact-finding missions and progress so far AUTUMN 2019 | ISSUE 31 9 10 1 Welcome from Deputy Master, Captain Ian McNaught 13 2-4 Six-month review 5 News in brief 6 Coming events 7-8 Appointments/obituaries 9 27 Staff profile 10-12 THV Patricia replacement 13-14 Royal Sovereign decommissioning 15 Lundy North modernisation 16-17 Portland Bill upgrade 18 38 Swansea Buoy Yard lift 19-21 World Marine AtoN Day 22-24 Investments on the way IALA and the inception of an IGO Welcome to another edition of Flash; our staff have been hard at work driving forward 25 a number of projects with a great deal of progress to show for it. Many thanks are due IALA AtoN Manager course to everyone who contributed news and features to the issue, as always. Multi-skilled project teams have been working on two significant projects: one to 26-31 procure a vessel to replace the 1982-built THV Patricia, and another to manage the Charity update safe removal of the now-deteriorating Royal Sovereign Lighthouse. Elsewhere it was great to see the twin successes of Maritime Safety Week and 32-35 World Marine Aids to Navigation Day—both on 1 July—as our maritime partners at Partner profile: UK the Department for Transport and IALA further commit themselves to raising the Hydrographic Office profile of the national and global maritime sector.
  • Portsmouth Dockyard in the Twentieth Century1

    Portsmouth Dockyard in the Twentieth Century1

    PART THREE PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY1 3.1 INTRODUCTION The twentieth century topography of Portsmouth Dockyard can be related first to the geology and geography of Portsea Island and secondly to the technological development of warships and their need for appropriately sized and furnished docks and basins. In 2013, Portsmouth Naval Base covered 300 acres of land, with 62 acres of basin, 17 dry docks and locks, 900 buildings and 3 miles of waterfront (Bannister, 10 June 2013a). The Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust (Heritage Area) footprint is 11.25 acres (4.56 hectares) which equates to 4.23% of the land area of the Naval Base or 3.5% of the total Naval Base footprint including the Basins (Duncan, 2013). From 8 or 9 acres in 1520–40 (Oppenheim, 1988, pp. 88-9), the dockyard was increased to 10 acres in 1658, to 95 acres in 1790, and gained 20 acres in 1843 for the steam basin and 180 acres by 1865 for the 1867 extension (Colson, 1881, p. 118). Surveyor Sir Baldwin Wake Walker warned the Admiralty in 1855 and again in 1858 that the harbour mouth needed dredging, as those [ships] of the largest Class could not in the present state of its Channel go out of Harbour, even in the event of a Blockade, in a condition to meet the Enemy, inasmuch as the insufficiency of Water renders it impossible for them to go out of Harbour with all their Guns, Coals, Ammunition and Stores on board. He noted further in 1858 that the harbour itself “is so blocked up by mud that there is barely sufficient space to moor the comparatively small Force at present there,” urging annual dredging to allow the larger current ships to moor there.
  • Security Breaches at UK Navy Bases January 2013 to 4 March 2015

    Security Breaches at UK Navy Bases January 2013 to 4 March 2015

    Navy Command FOI Section Navy Command Headquarters MP 1-4, Leach Buildi ng Ministry Whale Is land ' PORTSMOUTH of Defence P02 8BY Telephone [MOD]: 2015-03565 Facsimile [MOD]: E-mail: 29 May 20 15 D Release of Information Thank you for your correspondence dated 5 March 2015 requesting information on security breaches from January 2013 to 4 March 2015 at the following bases giving the date and general circumstance of each breach : HMS Nelson , Portsmouth HMS Excellent, Whale Island , Portsmouth HMS King Alfred , Whale Island , Portsmouth Portsmouth Naval Base HMS Temeraire, Portsmouth HMS Collingwood, Fareham Defence Munitions Gosport HMS Su ltan, Gosport Fort Blockhouse , Gosport Baker Barracks, Thorney Island Your enquiry has been considered to be a request for information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I can confirm that the Department holds the information you requested and is attached at Annex A to this letter. If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about any aspect of the handling of your request, then you should contact me in the first instance. If informal resolution is not possible and you are still dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent internal review by contacting the Information Rights Compliance team, 1st Floor, MOD Main Bui lding , Wh itehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mai l CIO-FOI-IR@mod .uk). Please note that any request for an internal review must be made within 40 working days of the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution lias come to an end. If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act.
  • Gunline Winter07.Qxd

    Gunline Winter07.Qxd

    Gunline - The First Point of Contact Published by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service December 2007 www.rfa.mod.uk Roving the South Atlantic Building Belize his year a lot of focus has been drawn on the South Atlantic 25 years ago, but of course the RFA has maintained a presence there almost continuously ever since. TToday the RFA is still working hard patrolling the Falklands and other Islands to stay As Wave Ruler returns to Devonport after her 18 in touch with the remote local communities and maintain a UK presence around the Islands. month deployment, we look back at what has been one As this year’s commemorations closed, it was time to get back to work. Captain Paul Minter of the most successful deployments in APT(N) history. provides an insight into life there in 2007….. See pages 14 & 15 See pages 2 & 3 Inside this Issue... All at sea Jim Davidson on board HRH visits the Bays RFA Association Airwolf flys from Page 8 Mounts Bay Page 6 Remembering in 2007 Mounts Bay Page 5 Page 13 Page 15 2 - Gunline From the Commodore… The Challenges of Trust and Communication After 18 Months - 21 Ports For those of you who missed my last article I want to highlight a couple of paragraphs and use these to develop a theme for this article. For those of you who gained the immense enjoyment of reading the last article, I make no apology for reminding you of these important words: 15 Homes Rebuilt.... WAVE The Navy Board endorsed: “the immediate development and implementation of the evolved RFA which will provide a more integrated and effective organisation and he Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship Wave Ruler returns to the UK after the most reassure the long term employment of the RFA.” successful deployment on counter drugs operations in recent history.