1-3 of 3 results for subject:Feuchter
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.179 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.001 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Feuchter
- We searched for
- subject_t:Feuchter OR subject_ses:34186
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
Publisher
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if the appointment of Mr Bill Finch as Product Development Manager at Feuchter went before the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments following his retirement as Contracts Branch Director of the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency. (Holding answer 7 July 2000).
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if the appointment of Mr Bill Finch as Product Development Manager at Feuchter went before the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments following his retirement as Contracts Branch Director of the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency. (Holding answer 7 July 2000).
Asked by
Iain Duncan Smith
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Spellar
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
4 July 2000
For answer on
26 July 2000
Answered on
26 July 2000
Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the appointment of Mr. Bill Finch as Product Development Manager at
Feuchter went before the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments following his retirement as Contracts Branch Director of the
Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency. [129731]
Mr. Spellar: [holding answer 7 July 2000]: Under the Cabinet Office rules on the acceptance of outside appointments by Crown
servants, only applications from officials at 3-Star/Deputy Under Secretary level and above are considered by the Prime Minister's
Advisory Committee. Mr. Finch's application to join Feuchter was approved under these rules by officials within the Ministry of
Defence.
Subjects
Civil servants; Business interests; Employment; Private sector; Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency; Feuchter
Date
26 July 2000
Reference
354 c674W; 129731
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what complaints have been made by the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency to Feuchter in relation to the fitness for purpose of the Mark II combat gloves they have delivered; what experience Feuchter had in the manufacture of gloves prior to being...
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what complaints have been made by the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency to Feuchter in relation to the fitness for purpose of the Mark II combat gloves they have delivered; what experience Feuchter had in the manufacture of gloves prior to being...
Asked by
Iain Duncan Smith
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Spellar
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
4 July 2000
For answer on
21 July 2000
Answered on
21 July 2000
Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what complaints have been made by the Defence Clothing and Textiles
Agency to Feuchter in relation to the fitness for purpose of the Mark II combat gloves they have delivered; [129727]
(2) what experience Feuchter had in the manufacture of gloves prior to being awarded the contract for manufacture of the Mark II
combat glove in 1998; [129726]
(3) how many Mark III combat gloves were manufactured in the UK by Feuchter; and how many Mark II combat gloves manufactured (a) by
Feuchter and (b) by other companies have been (i) held to be unusable and (ii) rejected as unfit for their purpose; [129728]
(4) how many gloves were manufactured by Zova before expert glove cutting training was given to its staff; [129730]
(5) pursuant to his answer of 19 June 2000, Official Report, column 30W, on visits to Zova, what capabilities for glove making, as
distinct from other leather working, this company demonstrated. [129729]
Mr. Spellar: [holding answer 7 July 2000]: The pre-production sample of Mark II Combat Gloves provided by Feuchter was found to be
unacceptable. Feuchter took the necessary action to improve their production process and, as a result, all gloves subsequently
delivered under the terms of the contract proved to be acceptable. No gloves manufactured by Feuchter were therefore formally
rejected under the terms of the contract. Following inspection by DCTA staff, a total of 3,260 pairs of Mark II Combat Gloves
manufactured by other companies were, however, rejected as being unfit for purpose.
Feuchter held five other DCTA contracts for the manufacture of mittens (extreme cold weather--inners, outers and liners), prior to
the award of the contact for the manufacture of Mark II Combat Gloves in 1998. For the duration of the contract for the manufacture
of the Mark II Combat Gloves; Feuchter sub-contracted the manufacturing operation to Zova in Poland; no gloves were manufactured in
the UK by Feuchter. During their visits to view the manufacturing operation, DCTA staff were satisfied that Zova possessed the
necessary capabilities for the manufacture of leather gloves, although a requirement for some additional training on the table
cutting operation was identified. Some 47,000 pairs of gloves had been manufactured by Zova before this additional training was
provided. No other leather working was being undertaken at the time of the visits, as Zova's manufacturing capacity was fully
committed to fulfilling DCTA contracts.
Subjects
Complaints; Contracts; Armed forces; Clothing; Standards; Uniforms; Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency; Feuchter
Date
21 July 2000
Reference
354 c336W; 129727;129726;129728;129730;129729
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, which companies, and from which countries, submitted bids for the contract for the Mark II Combat glove; for what reasons Feuchter was awarded the contract to supply the Mark II Combat glove; what is the value of the contract to supply the...
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, which companies, and from which countries, submitted bids for the contract for the Mark II Combat glove; for what reasons Feuchter was awarded the contract to supply the Mark II Combat glove; what is the value of the contract to supply the...
Asked by
Iain Duncan Smith
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Spellar
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
12 June 2000
For answer on
19 June 2000
Answered on
19 June 2000
Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which companies, and from which countries, submitted bids for the
contract for the Mark II Combat glove; [126216]
(2) for what reasons Feuchter was awarded the contract to supply the Mark II Combat glove; [126209]
(3) what is the value of the contract to supply the armed forces with the Mark II Combat glove; how many pairs have been ordered;
and from which companies; [126215]
(4) what visits personnel from his Department made to foreign factories and manufacturing outlets during the process of awarding
contracts for the Mark II Combat glove; [126213]
(5) what representations he has received about the quality and fit of the Mark II Combat glove. [126211]
Mr. Spellar: The current DCTA contract awarded to Feuchter for the supply of the Mark II Combat glove was placed in November 1998
(reference: STIA/1279) following competitive tender action. Complaint bids were received for the subject contracts from the
following companies: Feuchter Gmbh and Co KG, Bavaria, Germany Burfield and Co (Gloves) Ltd., Martock, Somerset, UK Vaughan Tapscott
Gloves, Torrington, Devon, UK Southcombe Brothers Ltd., Stock-Sub-Hamdon, Somerset, UK
DCTA's Quality of Product Support branch have made several visits to the companies tendering for the contracts for Mark II Combat
gloves. During the period May 1997 to April 1999, a total of three visits were made to Zova, the sub-contractor used by Feuchter.
One of these visits was specifically to scrutinise manufacturing processes for the Combat gloves. Records exist of visits to two
other firms involved in the tendering process for these contracts: three visits have been made to Burfield and Co (Gloves) Ltd.
since 1997, and two have been made to Southcombe Ltd.
The contract was split between the two lowest tenders: Feuchter Gmbh and Co KG for the quantity of 163,877 pairs, and Burfield and
Co (Gloves) Ltd., for the quantity of 41,800 pairs. While Burfield submitted the cheapest priced offer, their tender had stated that
they did not have the capacity to produce the full DCTA requirement in the timescale required. They were, however, given the
contract for the maximum quantity which their tender had specified, which was the 41,800 pairs. As Feuchter had submitted the next
lowest tender, and had stated that they had the capacity to meet DCTA's requirement, they were awarded the contract for the
remainder of the requirement.
The total value of current contracts for the Mark II Combat gloves is £5,198,384. The breakdown of values and quantities is as
follows:
Feuchter Gmbh and Co KG Total value: £4,108,804 Quantity: 171,977 pairs (Contract ST1A 1279)
Burfields and Co Total value: £1,089,580 Quantity: 48,300 pairs (Contract ST1A 1280)
Both contracts included an option for supply of a further 7,500 pairs of Mark II Combat gloves (total 15,000 pairs) for delivery in
Financial Year 2000-01 and therefore is a further option in the contracts for Financial Year 2001-02.
Although reports were received by DCTA of a little tightness of fit being experienced in the early stages of production of the Mark
II Combat gloves, no items necessitated rejection or return to place of manufacture. The reporting of defective items is facilitated
by Defect Reports, which are raised by users of products in the three Armed Services. There are no records of any Defect Reports
having been received for the Mark II Combat glove.
Subjects
Contracts; Armed forces; Companies; Applications; Clothing; Uniforms; Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency; Feuchter
Date
19 June 2000
Reference
352 c29-30W; 126216;126209;126215;126213;126211
House
House of Commons