Prev: Re: Re: Mission Creep - Was Re: The new US Army APC the Stinger Next: Re: Re: Mission Creep - Was Re: The new US Army APC the Stinger

Re: Re: Mission Creep

From: Derk Groeneveld <derk@c...>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 20:08:51 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: Re: Mission Creep



On Thu, 4 Jul 2002 KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:

> > Is it part of neccessary development (to be paid by the contractor)
> or a
> > change request (to be paid by the buyer) ?
> >
> > Change requests are always paid by the buyer.
>
> >From my experience (not in defence, but it can hardly be different
> there), unless you have written everything down to the last nail in
the
> contract, it's very easy to get into disputes of the kind: 'We can't
> use it without X. X is obviously covered by original requirements' (to
> be paid by the contractor) 'No, X was not specified. It is a change
> request' (to be paid by the buyer).

This sounds eerily familiar.. And I am in the defence market :)

Cheers,

Prev: Re: Re: Mission Creep - Was Re: The new US Army APC the Stinger Next: Re: Re: Mission Creep - Was Re: The new US Army APC the Stinger