There was much in the way of runes to read after Port Glasgow shipyard Ferguson Marine lost out in the contest to build seven small, fully electric ferries for CalMac.

What appeared plain was that the decision by the Scottish Government’s Caledonian Maritime Assets Limited (CMAL) to award the contract to Poland’s Remontowa Shipbuilding was a bitter blow to Ferguson Marine, which had made it through to the final round of bidding.

However, there was much else to consider, when trying to contemplate what the future holds for a yard that currently employs 305 people.

In this regard, there was plenty to chew over in the statements from CMAL and Ferguson Marine on Monday.

CMAL, which last July said estimated costs for phase one of the small vessels replacement programme were around £175 million for the seven new ferries as well as port improvements and shore power upgrades, on Monday set out in detail the mechanism it used for assessing the bids.

It said “bids were robustly assessed against technical and financial criteria, with a 65%/35% weighting, respectively”.

CMAL also highlighted the fact that a contract for three more fully electric ferries will be awarded in phase two of the small vessels replacement programme, which will be procured through a separate competitive tender process later this year.

Ferguson Marine chief financial officer David Dishon appeared at pains to highlight the positives, such as they were.

It is worth contemplating all of this in the context of Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes’ announcement last July of a major investment in Ferguson Marine.

This statement seemed at the time to be framed in such a way as to cover the eventuality that Ferguson Marine did not win the phase one contract for the seven small ferries, focusing on bolstering the yard’s ability to bid competitively for work over the longer term.

Ms Forbes noted the planned £14.2m investment, over two years, would be focused on modernisation and improving productivity. And the Scottish Government highlighted its aim at that point of “building a sustainable future” for the yard.

Last July’s investment announcement appeared to almost set the scene for the yard - which has been owned by the Scottish Government since it was nationalised in 2019 - not winning the seven-ferry contract that comprised phase one of the small vessels replacement programme. A key takeaway seemed to be that the statement looked beyond that particular contract award.

Between then and Monday’s announcement, hopes had perhaps risen a little that Ferguson Marine might be successful in the tender process, especially with the yard having made it through to the final round.

This progress to the final stages was highlighted by Mr Dishon, quite rightly, as a positive.

However, there were five bids in total and ultimately Remontowa prevailed.

Of course, there has been much focus on major cost overruns and delays on Ferguson Marine’s building of the Glen Rosa and Glen Sannox ferries for CalMac, under a contract awarded by CMAL back in 2015.

And there has been plenty of politicking over this.

It is also crystal clear that there has been much friction between CMAL and Ferguson Marine over this contract. And it has been difficult from hearing various chatter not to form the opinion, rightly or wrongly, that there have been things that could have been done better on both sides.

Hopefully, bygones will be bygones, and both parties can move on from these difficulties.

When CMAL announced its intention to award the contract to Remontowa on Monday, it did not take the politicians long to wade in.

Conservative MSP Sue Webber declared: “This announcement is devastating for Ferguson Marine and could yet prove the death knell for the yard.”

She added: “It should be a given that a nationalised shipyard wins a Scottish Government contract. Yet it’s a measure of how badly the SNP have mismanaged Ferguson’s that ferries which should be built on the west coast of Scotland are instead to be made in Eastern Europe. The blame for this outrageous situation lies squarely with incompetent SNP ministers who have let down workers at the yard, and ferry passengers across Scotland, at every turn.”

Read more

It is difficult to know where to start with this statement from Ms Webber, who has previously referred to Ferguson Marine as having “become a drain on Scotland’s finances”.

The Conservatives have certainly not given the impression that they have been hugely in favour of Scottish Government ownership of Ferguson Marine. Furthermore, it seems somewhat remarkable that a Conservative MSP would declare it should be a “given that a nationalised shipyard wins a Scottish Government contract”.

The Scottish Conservatives would surely have been among the first to holler if the contract had been awarded to Ferguson Marine and something had gone wrong. And it is difficult to imagine the Tories would have been anything other than unhappy if there had been a direct award of the seven-ferry contract, rather than it going out to competitive tender.

Ms Forbes appeared to signal last July that a direct award was viewed by the Scottish Government as too much of a risk.

The Deputy First Minister said then: “Extensive analysis and legal advice confirm that a direct award of the small vessels phase one contract to FMPG (Ferguson Marine Port Glasgow) introduces substantial risks and uncertainties for the shipyard and the communities which rely on the lifeline vessels, due to the strict conditions imposed by the UK Subsidy Control Act.”

As law firm Slaughter and May notes, “the Subsidy Control Act represents a development of the UK subsidy control regime that came into effect at the end of 2020 as part of the implementation of the UK’s commitments in the EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement”.

In terms of what might have happened in an ideal world, free of such strictures, it was impossible to disagree with Scottish Engineering chief executive Paul Sheerin’s response to a request by The Herald for his views on Ferguson Marine ultimately losing out in the contest to build the seven small ferries.

Read more

Mr Sheerin said: “I honestly can’t understand [why] we do not assign the correct value of the investment in a community to bring well-paid, quality careers to an area where they are valued and essential. It feels like we are measuring the wrong criteria for social and economic value from such a major public contract.”

He had highlighted his belief back in December that the features of the contract for the seven small ferries would “be a great match for Ferguson Marine at this stage of their journey to being a stable, commercially competitive shipbuilder”.

Mr Sheerin noted then: “Keen observers have pointed out that the size of these vessels at 50 metres long is just one of the similarities to three small ferries previously built by Ferguson Marine, on time and to cost.”

Mr Dishon on Monday thanked CMAL for the “opportunity to bid for phase one” of the small vessels replacement programme and said Ferguson Marine looked forward to “finding out more about phase two in due course.”

Referring to the phase one contract, he declared: “Reaching the final round of bidding demonstrates the strength of our proposal and gives us renewed confidence in our ability to produce Clyde-built ships that are world class.”

However, Mr Dishon highlighted his belief that “although we priced it [the bid] competitively, we were up against extremely tough competition from competing yards outside the UK which benefit from significantly reduced operating costs and advanced capital investment programmes”.  

He added: “The weighting for price will therefore place all UK yards at a disadvantage.”

However, Mr Dishon declared the yard was pleased to see its bid “rated so highly on quality”.

This is hopefully an important positive as we look towards the phase two contract.

Mr Dishon also talked about remaining “optimistic about the future of the yard”, adding that “ongoing discussions with commercial partners continue to progress with promise”.

He observed the yard had also begun to plan the first phase of the £14.2m in capital investment from the Scottish Government. He said this would support Ferguson Marine in “making vital updates to the yard, its equipment and infrastructure”.

Hopefully, this investment will help establish a long-term future for the yard.

Mr Sheerin last December highlighted the importance of making decisions to support the last commercial (non-naval) shipbuilder on the Clyde, if we want to keep it.

He is absolutely right.

We must hope the best decisions are made, and that these lead to better news for the yard before too much longer, while obviously not underestimating the blow which losing the phase one contract constitutes and the challenges ahead.

And hopefully politicians on all sides might see their way to being supportive, although that may be a little too optimistic.