# Speeding Up Procurement



## Kirkhill (7 Sep 2006)

> Military to speed buying as Afghan conflict intensifies
> Canadian Press
> 
> HALIFAX — Canada's military will streamline a cumbersome buying system to ensure personnel are given modern equipment for the battle in Afghanistan, a senior bureaucrat promised Thursday.
> ...



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060907.wMilit0907/BNStory/National/home

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings Provision of the Copyright Act.

Particularly interesting in light of Mr. Martin's use of Alan Williams as a source of wisdom.

Also noteworthy is this:


> Advanced light-armoured weapon systems, which would allow infantry to destroy enemies up to 2.5 kilometres away;



Could you put Javelin or Spike-MR to use as a bunker buster over there?


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Sep 2006)

Combat creates an imperative unlike peacekeeping. Each country wants their troops to have the best equipment possible which is a good thing. This shakes up the bureaucracy to move purchases into high gear.
IEF/OEF has done this for the US Army. The pressure from the troops in the field and their families at home has revolutionized our fielding of high need equipment quickly. The Rapid Fielding Initiative has been awesome. While no one likes war it does serve the purpose of shaking up stodgy purchasing, training doctrine and ineffective leaders are replaced by smart hard chargers that helps improve the quality of the force. 

http://peosoldier.army.mil/rfi/history.asp


----------



## Chewie (7 Sep 2006)

nothing like a good old fashion gun fight to grease the wheels of industry...
bring it on the troops need the best hang the political backlash and cost

andy


----------



## geo (7 Sep 2006)

it baffles me to no end that, to date, no one has said BOO about rustling up an order for additional LAVs...... 
Based on the wear and tear the small inventory of LAVs is going thru, we won't have any over here to train on before deployment....... or are we going to start using Cougars and Grizzlies in Canada?


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Sep 2006)

The US Army has burned up so many vehicles in Iraq [useful service life] that we will have to buy new vehicles to replace the one's that cant be refurbished. The term we use is reset and that cost for the Army alone will be around $9 billion. In the case of the LAV new ones can be bought to replace destroyed vehicles the rest can be rebuilt.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Sep 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> it baffles me to no end that, to date, no one has said BOO about rustling up an order for additional LAVs......
> Based on the wear and tear the small inventory of LAVs is going thru, we won't have any over here to train on before deployment....... or are we going to start using Cougars and Grizzlies in Canada?



Actually geo, I did see an article to that effect just recently.  I am looking for it on-line.  I think it was in either the NP or the G&M on Saturday. IIRC it was talking about at least 100 more and possibly enough to round out the battalions.


----------



## C/10 (7 Sep 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Combat creates an imperative unlike peacekeeping.....



I agree. Event though we may not be a nation at war we are an army at war. Anything that speeds up the process of getting new gear to our guys is a good thing.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Sep 2006)

> Canada
> Army may buy 100 more LAVs
> The Canadian army is considering buying hundreds more of the light armoured vehicles that have become the workhorse of its battle group in southern Afghanis...



http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/archives_paper.html?pubdate=2006%2F09%2F05&x=38&y=13

It was in Tuesday's National Post.  Unfortunately I can only get this stub out of their archives.  The link below has a bit more of the article.



> The Canadian army is considering buying hundreds more of the light armoured vehicles that have become the workhorse of its battle group in southern Afghanistan, in part to replace troop carriers lost to enemy fire but also to give its soldiers sufficient numbers of the versatile Canadian-built LAV IIIs. Senior army officers, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the military is considering purchasing more than 100 additional LAV IIIs and Coyotes -- the armoured reconnaissance version of the 17-tonne vehicle. "It's under consideration," said one officer.



http://www.fuddle-duddle.net/story/3518/


----------



## big bad john (8 Sep 2006)

Negotiations are on going at this time.  Due to OPSEC I cannot discuss or comment on this further.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Sep 2006)

Mums the word BBJ.  ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Sep 2006)

big bad john said:
			
		

> Negotiations are on going at this time.  Due to OPSEC I cannot discuss or comment on this further.



I'd love to see the ROE for negotiating with industry. ;D


----------



## Infanteer (8 Sep 2006)

If we're going to buy more LAV's, would it not make sense to buy enough to phase out the Coyotes, so as to rationalize the fleet for both the Infantry and the Armoured Corps?

PS: When the hell was OPSEC extended to government procurement?  ;D


----------



## big bad john (8 Sep 2006)

I work in the defense industry and you would be surprised.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Sep 2006)

The water cooler is the DMZ ?


----------



## big bad john (8 Sep 2006)

LOL, No, but there are certain implications and decisions by people above my pay grade.


----------



## geo (8 Sep 2006)

Hmph....
just hope it doesn't take 10 yrs to order more AND get delivery.
Though they might be built in Oshawa, we aren't the only country placing orders and can't claim 1st dibbs.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Sep 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Hmph....
> just hope it doesn't take 10 yrs to order more AND get delivery.
> Though they might be built in Oshawa, we aren't the only country placing orders and can't claim 1st dibbs.



By the Lord Harry but your a hard man to please.....  ;D


----------



## geo (8 Sep 2006)

Been around too long.
( BTW Lord Harry is a good friend)


----------



## big bad john (5 Oct 2006)

http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/061004/cal/061004aw.htm

PUBLICATION:  Calgary Herald 
DATE:  2006.10.04 
EDITION:  Final 
SECTION:  The Editorial Page 
PAGE:  A14 
COLUMN:  Barry Cooper 
BYLINE:  Barry Cooper 
SOURCE:  Calgary Herald 
WORD COUNT:  735 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Long road back for our Forces

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last June, the Harper government began a military acquisition program to rebuild the Canadian forces, as ambitious as the Chretien government's was contemptuous and neglectful. 

Even before the recent change in direction, Canada had a military procurement problem of impressive dimensions. 

Three large government reports over the past five years have produced nearly 150 recommendations to deal with a major problem: buying things for the Forces takes too long, costs too much and is open to continuous political interference. 

Unfortunately, most Canadians see public policy, especially something as arcane as military procurement, as somebody else's business. Worse, the bureaucrats, both uniformed and civilian, who actually put the policy into practice, are determined never to share information with anyone, often including each other. 

The procurement mess is a legacy of recent Liberal governments. Never forget: the purpose of a military is to fight and win wars. If an army can't do that, it won't be any good for peacekeeping. If the Forces were incapable of providing military security in Afghanistan, Canadian reconstruction teams would be slaughtered by the same people against whom they are fighting. 

It is important to be clear about these home truths in order to see the procurement problem in all its glory. Because it takes more than 15 years actually to get a piece of equipment into service after Parliament has agreed to buy it, what the Government of Canada didn't do in 1991 hurts the Forces today. 

As Alan Williams, the author of a new, "view from the inside" book on Canadian defence procurement put it, what the Department of National Defence "buys today determines what the CF can do tomorrow, which in turn largely determines Canada's future defence and foreign policy options." 

Long before Canada sent troops to Afghanistan or the navy to the Persian Gulf, the problems associated with military equipment were well known to those who cared, both inside and outside the department and the Forces. 

The follies of the Sea King maritime helicopter even achieved the status of a public scandal. Williams explained how years of neglect have turned military procurement into a hot topic in Ottawa (relatively speaking) because of its sheer urgency. Everyone knew the chickens would eventually come home to roost. They are surely home now. 

Moreover, it is clear how it has come to pass. Political negligence played its part, but as with most problems in Ottawa, from Adscam to the latest bit of sophistry from the commissioner of the RCMP, at its core is the ethos of bureaucracy: incompetence combined with a refusal to see a problem, admit responsibility or to undertake remedial action. 

The same virus that transformed the Mounties from a competent federal police into a brass-heavy bureaucracy with more concern for its precious image than catching bad guys has also infected DND. 

In a normal world, the military would tell industry what they wanted their new equipment to do, and industry would go off and build it. Instead, DND issues lengthy and detailed technical instructions, which often are modified partway through. The Statement of Requirements, as it is called, for the light armoured vehicles currently in use runs to 760 pages. 

It is also difficult for normal people to understand why Canada cannot use the same stuff available, say, as the Netherlands or the U.K. The reasons are clear. First, alone in the western alliance, Canada requires (except under unusual circumstances) competitive acquisition of military goods and services. No off-the-shelf purchases for our troops! This ensures lengthy political and bureaucratic scrutiny prior to placing an actual order. 

Second, when a perfectly good piece of equipment is rejected, it is usually not because the product won't do the job, but because the "bid" of the company which makes it is found to be "non-compliant." 

The bid is bureaucratically defined; the product is an actual piece of equipment. Bureaucrats are comfortable only with bids. Third, not one but at least four departments along with two central agencies have turf-defending input into any major decision. 

No wonder the announced joint support ship will take 18 years to enter the fleet -- if everything goes according to schedule. 

The sorry procurement mess with which the Canadian Forces have had to deal has not made their job in Bosnia, the Gulf, or Afghanistan any easier. It is yet another reason, if one were needed, why Canadians should be no less amazed than grateful for their accomplishments on our behalf. 

Barry Cooper is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary and a Fellow of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.


----------



## warspite (5 Oct 2006)

big bad john said:
			
		

> http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/061004/cal/061004aw.htm
> In a normal world, the military would tell industry what they wanted their new equipment to do, and industry would go off and build it. Instead, DND issues lengthy and detailed technical instructions, which often are modified partway through.





> It is also difficult for normal people to understand why Canada cannot use the same stuff available, say, as the Netherlands or the U.K. The reasons are clear. First, alone in the western alliance, Canada requires (except under unusual circumstances) competitive acquisition of military goods and services. No off-the-shelf purchases for our troops! This ensures lengthy political and bureaucratic scrutiny prior to placing an actual order.


I know that this is a radical theory but can't the government just give the military a bunch of money, tell them to do their accounting and let them buy the best tools for the job as quickly as possible?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Oct 2006)

> As Alan Williams, the author of a new, "view from the inside" book on Canadian defence procurement put it, what the Department of National Defence "buys today determines what the CF can do tomorrow, which in turn largely determines Canada's future defence and foreign policy options."




They knew exactly what they were doing, ensuring they had a reason not to take part in oversea operations.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2006)

Just to add another fly to the ointment, look at this from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061005.DEFENCE05/TPStory/?query=daniel+leblanc 


> U.S. rules snag military equipment deals
> *Ottawa facing 'unmanageable problem,' senior procurement official declares*
> 
> DANIEL LEBLANC
> ...



The ‘problem’ is difficult but hardly unmanageable.

If we had a single, unified military (as opposed to DND) procurement agency – maybe a _public-private partnership_ operating somewhat beyond the day-by-day reach of the governing caucus – then it would be possible to skirt the Charter issue by making compliance with contractual requirements a condition for employment in specific, albeit changeable, positions within the organization, I think (he says, pointing to the empty place on the wall where a law degree does not hang).

Defence procurement is a complete bugger’s muddle and it needs quick, radical surgery.  Putting purely military procurement into a separate agency, a business agency, might help.  If we can have an _arm’s length_ agency to *sell* Canadian military hardware to foreigners -  http://www.ccc.ca/eng/home.cfm - why can we not have another _arm’s length_ agency to *buy* military hardware – from Canadian and foreign suppliers?  The only down-side would that members of the government caucus would not get to waste taxpayers’ hard earned money by _steering_ contract requirements to favour their own, local suppliers.  Imagine the many and varied drawbacks to honest, businesslike procurement; _quelle horreur_ – the government might have to make sound, practical spending decisions when using your money and mine, just like you and I.


----------



## GAP (5 Oct 2006)

Did not congress recently approve the purchases by Canada? There was a blurb about it, about 3-4 weeks ago. Is this the same thing, or is it additonal?


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Did not congress recently approve the purchases by Canada? There was a blurb about it, about 3-4 weeks ago. Is this the same thing, or is it additonal?



I think these are just some of the 'contractual requirements' - imposed by one agency after another - which come into play after Congress approves these sorts of deals (FMS, etc).  I have been away from the details of the procurement process for about 15 years so I am happy to be corrected.


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Oct 2006)

For some strange reason the current issue of Ottawa Life magazine (Vol. 9, Number 3) has a full page ad from Bombardier promoting a military version of the Dash-8 (actually now called the "Q series") for "Search and Rescue". "A Canadian made solution..." blah, blah, blah.

Q Series aircraft and military derivatives are built in Toronto; Bombardier is considered a Quebec company. What will a minority government, seeking a majority through more seats in Ontario and Quebec, do? If honestly trying to get the best fixed-wing SAR plane for the Air Force perhaps follow the policy of Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator--at least if the next federal election is not delayed too long. Otherwise a tough decision should be made.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Franko (5 Oct 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> If we're going to buy more LAV's, would it not make sense to buy enough to phase out the Coyotes, so as to rationalize the fleet for both the Infantry and the Armoured Corps?
> 
> PS: When the hell was OPSEC extended to government procurement?  ;D



Coyotes and LAVs are completely different beasts due to the surv op package we employ. Coyote is set up for it, LAV is not.

Regards


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Oct 2006)

Thank goodness we're well clear of the Airbus A400M--Airbus head says its schedule is on the edge.
http://eureferendum2.blogspot.com/2006/10/real-thing.html 



> Streiff is also saying that the A400M – the military airlifter - could suffer cost overruns or delays. "The timetable is exactly on the edge. It is a tense situation with a number of suppliers and internally. We are exactly on track but without any reserves [of time]," Strieff says...
> 
> Streiff is also saying that the A400M – the military airlifter - could suffer cost overruns or delays. "The timetable is exactly on the edge. It is a tense situation with a number of suppliers and internally. We are exactly on track but without any reserves [of time]," Strieff says...
> 
> That there is a potential problem seems to be confirmed by the speed with which Francois Lureau, head of France's DGA procurement agency, came rushing to the defence of the project, declaring that, "the key milestones have been respected and that deliveries are on track for 2009." That, of course, is not the point – the question is whether cost over-runs will force Airbus to pull the plug or slow down production...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Oct 2006)

>Advanced light-armoured weapon systems, which would allow infantry to destroy enemies up to 2.5 kilometres away;

How accurate are the old 106's?


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Oct 2006)

The 106 was accurate within its design limitations, but it was a low velocity weapon with an effective range of about a kilometre. Its armour penetration, at least for its HEAT round, was limited by its calibre. (There is a formula for the amount of armour a shaped charge can cut through, but I can't remember it off hand. It seems to me, however, that the thickness it can defeat was very close to its diameter, in this case 106mm or 4.1 inches.) HsAT also works best if it does not rotate and is not travelling that fast, hence the low velocity. The HEAT round had a rotating driving band, which allowed it to function as a fin stabilized projectile. The other round, which was another variety of HE, was spin-stabilized, but I recall little else about it. 

While light and agile compared to the 17-pounder which it replaced in postwar Canadian infantry battalons, it also is large and cumbersome when placed beside its replacement, the TOW. Now add in the lack of a source of spares and the lack of a production line for its ammunition, and it is a non-starter.

At several times over the years there have been suggestions that we resurrect the 106, but none progressed past the stages of early examination. The 106, after all, is nearly six decades old.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Oct 2006)

Thanks.  So the question is, if the capability sought (at 2.5km) is AP rather than AT, is there anything else cheaper, simpler, accurate, with a higher ROF and less complex ammo, than a missile system?


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Oct 2006)

>The 106, after all, is nearly six decades old.

Sure, but I've been (and continue to be) an advocate of inexpensive and proven equipment even if the tech is old.  I'd rather resurrect a production line for 1940's Willys jeeps than buy another expensive COTS truck for the LUVW slot, and I continue to wonder whether a 2006 version of the Bren carrier would be inexpensive and useful (but with increasing doubt because I see a glimmer of superiority of wheels over tracks in current modes of conflict).


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Oct 2006)

Brad,

I'm not trying to be confrontential (even after a glass too many of red plonk at dinner), but would you send Canadian soldiers into action mounted in half-tracks instead of LAVIIIs?

Best regards,

BAR


----------



## a78jumper (9 Oct 2006)

I wish them well speeding up the process. My time with what was then called DG Proc S/Initial Provisioning in the late 1980s was the beginning of the end as far as my time in the CF went. Posting trained military personnel there to be pretend civy servants was a crime; I escaped by going to the Sky Hawks for a year, which sure beat hitting my head against the wall on a daily basis. :dontpanic:


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Oct 2006)

>I'm not trying to be confrontential (even after a glass too many of red plonk at dinner), but would you send Canadian soldiers into action mounted in half-tracks instead of LAVIIIs?

Not if we're buying LAV IIIs all around.  If we're sending one battalion into action in LAV IIIs and another in LUVWs, I'd just as soon buy something in between, though.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Oct 2006)

BTW, something along the lines of an inexpensive and small armoured vehicle was something that popped into my mind back when the recce guys were debating basic mud recce versus surveillance and the over-engineering of the Coyote for the former.


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Oct 2006)

A flamethrower version of the LAV might be handy for all sorts of reasons. A RonsonLav


----------



## geo (12 Oct 2006)

Ronson LAV, interesting idea but, not sure of the frequency / need for such a comodity.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Oct 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Ronson LAV, interesting idea but, not sure of the frequency / need for such a comodity.



You have to admit that you wouldn't have to use it often, after the first few times the enemy will hoof it when they hear the LAV's and the effect on morale would be significant.


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Oct 2006)

makes cleaning up the garbage a lot easier too!


----------



## geo (12 Oct 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> You have to admit that you wouldn't have to use it often, after the first few times the enemy will hoof it when they hear the LAV's and the effect on morale would be significant.


Colin,
We haven't seen a need to deploy manportable ones........ vehicle portable ones are a long way back down the food chain.  With respect to morale; the chain guns on the LAVs is looking after that already - IMHO


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Oct 2006)

Does Canada even have man portable ones?


----------



## KevinB (12 Oct 2006)

Nope,

Flamethrowers - esp man portable dont due well with incoming fire...

Since we don't use Napalm I'd guess we'd shudder at using a flamethrower


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Oct 2006)

Geo
I know that it will never happen, our public would never condone it, but one can't help remembering the effectiveness they had in dealing with dug in fanatical nutbars in the last world war.


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Oct 2006)

I'm currently reading a book about Iwo Jima and how useful they were with the job there.  And yes, it appears that having to be the poor guy using one was fraught with danger from any number of causes, not the least of which was frequent leaks from the tanks down the hose to the nozzle.


----------



## GAP (12 Oct 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Nope,
> 
> Flamethrowers - esp man portable dont due well with incoming fire...
> 
> Since we don't use Napalm I'd guess we'd shudder at using a flamethrower



No, but you could use a powder CS. We used to dust tunnels with the stuff, I shudder just remembering getting that stuff on you.


----------



## KevinB (12 Oct 2006)

I powdered a Barrack Block with it once  ;D


----------



## geo (12 Oct 2006)

In WW2, the Germans had the Sappers handle the Flamethrowers at the beinning.... later, they had labour / penal battalions that would be taged as storm troopers..... Nice huh?

GAPs idea of CS powder being blown into caves, houses and nooks & crannies - I LIKE!


----------



## Old Guy (12 Oct 2006)

Jeez.  Napalm?  Flamethrowers?

What's next?  Arc Light Strikes?  

Don't you guys know we're conducting a kinder, gentler form of warfare?

  
jim


----------



## GAP (12 Oct 2006)

I think they were still using Arc Strikes in 2001


----------



## Infanteer (12 Oct 2006)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Coyotes and LAVs are completely different beasts due to the surv op package we employ. Coyote is set up for it, LAV is not.
> 
> Regards



I don't think it would be a stretch to move the Surveillance package into the larger LAVIII, would it?  Isn't this what the Americans are doing with the RSTA Squadrons (although with a different surveillance package)?


----------



## deh (21 Oct 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I powdered a Barrack Block with it once  ;D



Oddly enough, I had the privilege of having a 1VP type as my fire team partner on my mod 6 INF this summer.  When I asked him if he knew who you were that was the first story he told...


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jan 2007)

Here is more, again citing former DND ADM(Mat) Alan Williams, from today’s (10 Jan 07) _Globe and Mail_, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070110.wxdefence10/BNStory/National/home 


> Military procurement under fire
> *Purchasing process lacks oversight, ex-bureaucrat says*
> 
> DANIEL LEBLANC
> ...



I agree with Mr. Williams on two points:

1.	It is, indeed, the responsibility of the *civilian* administration to decide how much of everything – money, men and materiel – and what sort of everything the CDS will be given in order to accomplish the tasks assigned by the government of the day.  The CDS can beg and plead and explain and bluster and threaten but, at the end of the dsay, a civilians decide; and

2.	There ought to be _“a body that would be responsible for major purchases from DND”_ – but I am certain that he and I would disagree on how it ought to work.

Everything else Mr. Williams says, according to Daniel Leblanc, anyway, is unadulterated rubbish.

The military has *not* “grabbed control of the procurement process from the hands of the department's civilian branch.”  It may be that some military *operational requirements* have constrained the level to which politicians and bureaucrats can muddy the procurement system to achieve political pork-barreling ends and it may be that Gen. Hillier’s _public diplomacy_ has persuaded ministers and the PCO of the urgency of some procurement actions.  Neither equates to _grabbing control_ of the process.

"These de facto sole-sourced contracts,” as Williams describes them, show only that DND’s operational and support system were allowed to rust out thanks to a combination of bureaucratic ineptitude – over which Mr. Williams presided – and M. Chrétien’s Trudeau_istic_ political mischief.

If Gen. Hillier’s ‘civilian counterparts aren't exercising appropriate oversight these days’ then they have only themselves and their political masters to blame.  But, I do not believe that any such failure exists.  Kevin Lynch, the Clerk of the Privy Council, the most senior civil servant in the country, has (perhaps by silence) approved everything DND has done.  That is, as it must be, good enough for every bureaucrat in Canada.  Civilian oversight is alive and well – it is just that decades of neglect have some home to roost and Canada must now face the fact that there are limited choices when suitable kit is required on an urgent basis.

When Mr. Williams says: "There is no strong civilian authority in place to question or to challenge this," he is really saying, _“I don’t have my old job with the big office and all the power lunches any more.”_  I, for one, say: *”Thank heavens!”*

There is a need for major reform to the national military procurement system.  It is a totally ineffective and inefficient system which, habitually, takes too long to acquire the equipment DND needs and then pays too much for it.  There are too many cooks; that’s why the broth is so often spoilt.

DND’s military equipment should be procured by an ‘arms length’ body.

If Canada can sell its military hardware through such an arms length agency - http://www.ccc.ca/eng/home.cfm then there is no reason why we cannot use a similar, sister agency to buy military hardware.

We need to get military procurement away from all of DND, Public Works and Government Services, Treasury Board, Industry Canada and a half dozen other government departments and agencies which, routinely, are involved in procurement decisions – almost always slowing the process and adding costs.  We need a system in which:

•	The military defines its operational requirements – in *performance* terms;

•	DND civilians confirm the military’ requirements meet approved defence policy objectives and, working with the military staff, secure financial resources from the government;

•	Cabinet and parliament approve the requirements and budgets;

•	The Treasury Board allocates the funds; and

•	The ‘arms length’ works in the market to find, select and purchase equipment and facilities which meet DND’s requirements within the approved budget.


----------



## geo (10 Jan 2007)

Considering the acquisition process has been developed into an administrative masterpice lasting years and years, it is about time someone did a little bit of a shake up.  We the members of the CF do not & should not have to look up at the "gods of administration" while the acquisition process is stretched to the breaking point.

Lets even out the playing field and form just one team?


----------



## warspite (10 Jan 2007)

> Alan Williams, the retired assistant deputy minister for procurement


Is it just me or does this guy sound like some bitter person complaining now that he's not in charge?


----------



## HDE (11 Jan 2007)

His views would be a little more useful if he'd spent his time in a system that didn't seem to have such a dubious record of achievement.  It seems a bit like a losing coach being asked for the secret to his victories.  I think the larger issue should be what can/should be done to make the whole process work better.


----------



## mjohnston39 (11 Jan 2007)

> Mr. Williams is sounding the alarm as the government is buying $13-billion in aircraft through processes that a number of critics said are uncompetitive, with only one company in the running for each purchase.
> 
> "These de facto sole-sourced contracts show there is something wrong in the overall procurement system," Mr. Williams said.
> 
> ...



Again lack of due diligence and half-truths by the MSM , McCallum was trying to sole source new trucks back in 2003, before Gen. Hillier was CDS, and IIRC, the Liberals were loooking at sole sourcing the 130J prioir to the last election...


http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=8d166c3e-aa30-40d1-ada5-72dc41c4f7a8&k=25695



> David ********
> CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jan 2007)

What would be really funny is if anyone's covert negotiations were thrown out by the results of the last federal election.  One would expect them to stall until the channels could be re-established.  Too bad we already had an Airbus Affair.  I think there's a plot for a fiction novel in here somewhere.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jan 2007)

This is a very pertinent letter to the editor from today’s (13 Jan 07) _Globe and Mail_, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070113.LETTERS13-3/TPStory?cid=al_gam_globeedge 


> Military acquisitions
> 
> *WARD ELCOCK
> Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence*
> ...



This is a very vigorous slap in face for Mr. Williams.  I think you can rest assured that this letter was approved at the very highest level of government – the Privy Council Office.  Don’t expect to thumb through copies of Mr. Williams’ book from the  bookshelves in senior bureaucrats’ outer offices/waiting rooms while you’re waiting to visit on of Ottawa’s _great and good_.

I hope Mr. Williams isn’t planning of being a lobbyist – this just ensured he will not be welcome in the offices of many people who matter.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Jan 2007)

An enjoyable read Edward.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jan 2007)

Just so we all know that it’s _business as usual_ in the defence procurement business, I offer this, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, from today’s (19 Jan 07) _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070119.wxboeing19/BNStory/National/home 


> Quebec quarrel delays military aircraft delivery
> *Boeing pressed to spend in province*
> 
> DANIEL LEBLANC
> ...



Let us remember, first, that _national unity_, which, for many Québecers means _fiscal federalism_ at its ‘finest,’ has been a major issue in Canadian social, domestic, economic and trade, foreign and defence policies for generations.

This does, however, illustrate why an _arms length_ procurement agency would save the government from this sort of bad press.  No matter how this ends up, Gilles Duceppe and the BQ win: if Fortier ‘wins’ then Duceppe says: “We, the _Bloc_, made him do it; you need us in Ottawa to keep Québec ministers’ feet to the fire – to bring the ‘goodies’ home, _chez nous_.”  If Fortier loses then Duceppe says: “See!  Told you so!  Federalism doesn’t work; we don’t get our _fair_ share.  Vote BQ and let’s get out of Canada.”


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jan 2007)

And what share of the industry in each of those regions COMPETES with Boeing?

Pratt and Whitney is a potential supplier, as are Dowty and CAE.  Bombardier is a pure competitor.


----------



## geo (20 Jan 2007)

Bombardier is a pure competitor only if Boeing decides to go into the small regional jet business.  If it continues making the 737s then it  isn't competition..........


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Jan 2007)

A certain journalist is at it again:

Buying below the radar
While in Opposition, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor was disgusted over the lack of competition in military procurement. Now, the tables are turned, and critics say civilian oversight and accountability have disappeared from the process of buying costly military equipment
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=56e15adb-492c-4c30-a396-ec001609217e

Though I would agree that _de facto_ sole-sourcing the C-27J would not be proper.

Forces deny picking rescue plane before competition
Report suggests military set requirements for $1.3B deal so only one aircraft could win
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=19275bda-5cc9-4d7b-aa1d-fe14f0976b4b

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## HDE (20 Jan 2007)

It seems you'd have to be pretty flexible in your requirements to include the Dash-8 as a contender.  I believe both of the other potential candidates have a ramp, unlike the Bombardier offering.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Jan 2007)

When I talk about Bombardier and Boeing competing I mean that they are both competing for the dollars that are currently on offer to fly Canadians from point a to b.  The same with Alenia and CASA, LM and Airbus.  The requirements aren't in the picture as far as they are concerned. They are just interested in securing the cash.  It is the salesman's job to convince you to spend the money with them by showing you how many neat things you could do with their particular gear.

Unlike cars there aren't a number of aircraft all built to the same spec by different manufacturers.  Because so few aircraft actually get built, in comparison to the number of cars and trucks built, then each manufacturer ends up only producing one or two models that fit somewhere on the broad spectrum of needs.  This has happened because of the increasing price of the aircraft and the decreasing number of customers.  When Canada bought the F18,  the options available at the time were the F14, F15, F16, F18 (F17 had lost out in a previous US competition) and the Tornado.  Currently, broadly speaking we have the Super F18, the Typhoon, the Rafale and the JAS-39 and then the F22 in a field of its own.  And shortly there will only be the F35 manufactured by as an option.  

Same thing happened in the Heavy Lift Business - 3 or 4 companies competed for that contract - only one company won.  All the rest have folded, been absorbed or limited there product range to one segment of the spectrum.  Now those that are left are reduced to trying to convince the customers that their one product will do everything they need if only they will adjust there procedures, make compromises and reduce expectations.....

Word from an experience Capital Sales salesman.

Cheers.


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Jan 2007)

A related post at "The Torch":
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/01/hatchet-job.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (21 Jan 2007)

HDE said:
			
		

> It seems you'd have to be pretty flexible in your requirements to include the Dash-8 as a contender.  I believe both of the other potential candidates have a ramp, unlike the Bombardier offering.




I just want to make the observation that one of the best SAR aircraft of it's time, the Albatross, did not have a ramp. I was on 413 Squadron with this aircraft. It had great range, all up weight, lots of avionics and was vastly superior to the Buff that replaced it. Mind you this is from an east coast perspective.

And might I add it came with an APU.  ;D

Amazing what you get when you have a purpose designed aircraft.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Jan 2007)

Here is more grist for the mill in the form of an editorial from today’s (24 Jan 07) _Globe and Mail_, reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070124.EBOEING24/TPStory/Opinion/editorials 


> The monkey wrenches in the Boeing contract
> 
> In opposition, the federal Conservatives resolutely denounced any attempt to play politics with defence procurement or to sole-source contracts. In office, they have reversed that position, insisting that defence firms provide regional benefits in return for contracts that Ottawa has effectively sole-sourced to them. Public Works Minister Michael Fortier in particular has declared that he will not sign a contract to buy four Boeing C-17 cargo aircraft unless Quebec receives a greater share of the contract's proposed regional benefits.
> 
> ...



There were/are very good and valid reasons foe sole sourcing the C-17, C-130J and _Chinook_ contracts: all three are based on solid, approved *military operational* requirements and, thanks to a decade of policy vandalism by former Prime Minister jean Chrétien and the Liberal Party of Canada, all three are too urgent to allow for the delays which competition from non-yet-ready-to-fly ‘competitors’ would demand.

There are no good reasons for Sen. Fortier’s actions.

*If* Sen. Fortier’s actions threaten to delay the timely delivery of the urgently needed aircraft then Defence Minister O’Connor  and Prime Minister Harper, *if they care even one tiny bit about anything other than partisan politics in Québec*, must toss Sen. Fortier’s *demands* on to the political dung heap where they belong.

It may be that Sen. Fortier is, simply, trumpeting the Conservative’s commitment to Québec, etc, etc, etc, and no real delay will be imposed and no real damage will be done.  If so, fair enough, politics is politics, after all and vote buying from a careless, uninformed Canadian populace is older than the country itself.  But, see above.


----------



## geo (24 Jan 2007)

As I have said elsewhere, if there is a risk of delaying or fouling the contract, the PM has to put his pants on and wade in on the issue and exercise his authority.


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Jan 2007)

Meanwhile, back at the Liberals and the C-130J--flippity floppity (as with MrO'Connor when Defence critic and then MND) (reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act):

Where do the Liberals stand on defence procurement?
Douglas Bland, _National Post_, January 24
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=68447c70-aabe-4b08-9a80-1fe8e6cdbaeb



> When the House of Commons convenes in January, the standing committee on national defence will begin detailed hearings on defence-procurement policies. The hearings will provide the Liberal party an opportunity to implement its pre-election promise to help rebuild the Canadian Forces, reform the defence-procurement process and expedite long-delayed major equipment contracts.
> 
> But now that the Liberals are sitting in opposition, that promise appears to have been an exercise in optics rather than policy.
> 
> ...



As for Mr O'Connor in December, 2005 (even big on regional benefits):

DEFENCE POLICY: CONSERVATIVES THE NEW LIBERALS
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/005351.html

Our politicians: _plus c'est la meme chose_.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (24 Jan 2007)

My email to PM



> Mr Harper, I am proud of you. For the last year you have kept the troopies in line and things have worked out. Now you've gone and let them play and look what happens. You have that digbat in Public Works and the other one in Foreign Affairs making you and the party looking very, very LIBERAL. Shut them down, award the damn contract and get on with it!!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Jan 2007)

January 26, 2007 

Just plane nonsenseC-17 shafting of West baseless story 
By TOM BRODBECK



Michel Fortier is not blocking any contract for the building of the C-17, Vic Toews says. (SUN FILES) 
There are few stories that evoke as much anger among Winnipeggers -- indeed Western Canadians -- as the CF-18 ripoff of the 1980s. 

That's when then-prime minister Brian Mulroney short-changed Manitobans by handing a lucrative CF-18 fighter jet contract to a Montreal firm instead of awarding it to Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg, even though Bristol had a superior bid at a lower cost. 

The contract -- sent to Montreal purely for political reasons -- is considered one of the greatest federal snubs of Western Canada in recent history, surpassed only by former prime minister Pierre Trudeau's despised and short-lived National Energy Program. 

If you want to get Manitobans cheesed off at the federal government, tell them Ottawa is about to pull another CF-18 on them. 

Which is exactly what Premier Gary Doer and some of his media supporters decided to do this week -- as the federal Conservatives decide how to divvy up billions in military contracts. 

The story is that federal Public Works Minister Michel Fortier is "reportedly" blocking a contract with Boeing to build C-17 cargo planes unless Quebec gets most of the work. 

Which would mean Boeing in Winnipeg would get less work. Or no work at all, just like in 1986 when Winnipeg got screwed. 

It's a riveting media story -- Eastern Canada giving it to the West again. 

The villain: Prime Minister Stephen Harper shamelessly wooing Quebec voters in a desperate bid to win a majority government. 

And the hero: Gary Doer, defending Manitoba's best interest by demanding the Tories not engage in "pork- barrel politics" like Mulroney did. 

Shame there's no evidence to substantiate the story. 

"(Fortier) is not blocking any contract on this issue," Treasury Board president and Manitoba MP Vic Toews told the Sun. "The issue that somehow one region will be treated unfairly over another is simply not correct." 

NO MEMOS, QUOTES 

Here's the problem with the story: 

Fortier denies he said Quebec should get a greater share of the C-17 contracts. There are no quotes from him or his officials suggesting otherwise. There are no leaked memos, no letters, nothing. 

Just a media "report" alleging he's "reportedly" doing it (that's media-speak for we don't really know but we'll say it anyway), regurgitated by other media and splashed on the front page like a cow's breakfast at dinner time. 

"It's more political mischief than anything," Toews told the Sun. "The stories that are being circulated have absolutely no basis in fact." 

Yeah, but why let facts get in the way of a good story? 

The federal government is negotiating the purchase of four C-17 planes, the first phase of a $17-billion spending spree on military equipment over the next few years. 

Nothing's been finalized so we don't know where those contracts are going. 

But Winnipeg's aerospace industry will almost certainly get a piece of the $17 billion up for grabs. 

I don't doubt for a moment that Ottawa wants to spread out the economic benefits from the $17 billion to all regions of the country. I'd prefer the contracts go to the best bidder at the best price regardless of region. But that's politics. 

To claim, though, that Winnipeg may be on the verge of another CF-18-like debacle -- when there's no evidence at all to back it up -- is pretty weak. 

To attribute statements to someone without knowing what they said -- if anything at all -- is even worse. 

It's a hell of a good yarn, though. 
http://winnipegsun.com/News/Manitoba/2007/01/26/pf-3451986.html


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Jan 2007)

1) Michael Fortier, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, in a letter to the _Ottawa Sun _today:
http://ottsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Letters/2007/01/26/3452230-sun.html



> There has been recent media speculation regarding the outcome of negotiations taking place between the Government of Canada and Boeing for the procurement of strategic airlift.
> 
> No contract has been signed, which explains why no announcement has been made.
> 
> ...



2) Bid change eliminated competitor for military contract, documents show 
Mike Blanchfield, CanWest News Service, January 26
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=bd65cd42-957e-46dd-ba1c-88c172aabe1c&k=40203&p=1



> Just weeks before the Conservative government announced its controversial plan to buy $3.4 billion worth of Boeing long-range military transports without a competitive bidding process, the military changed a key requirement that eliminated the only competitor - the Airbus Military consortium.
> 
> Documents obtained by the Ottawa Citizen show on June 13, 2006, Defence Department planners were under the impression two planes could satisfy its requirements for long-range airlift: the Boeing C-17 and the Airbus A400.
> 
> ...



I wonder why the reporter did not ask someone if the greater weight requirement might be needed to carry our Leopard tanks, which by the end of June, 2006, it was pretty likely the army would be keeping.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/07/army-wants-to-keep-leopards-ditch-mgs.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo (26 Jan 2007)

we have to remember that the A400 is supposed to compete with the CC130 NOT the C17.

A long time ago, in a land far far away, we were looking to replace our Hercules fleet with CC130Js OR A400s but this was a time when we were using Hercs for Tactical AND strategic air movements.

Having decided that we would be interested in a strategic movement platform such as the C17, cargo capacity would obviously get jacked up..... Airbus is completely out in the cold on this contract - they don`t have a product to fit this requrement.  They should be sent packing until such time as they have done their homework AND have a platform that is already in the air ... instead of vaporware.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Jan 2007)

Well the Liberals and Vaporware is a natural fit isn't it?  :


----------



## geo (26 Jan 2007)

Remember.... the CF18 deal with Bombardier was done by Brian Mulroney & the Conservatives...........


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Jan 2007)

A much fuller article in _Le Devoir_ makes it clear that this was about strategic, not tactical, lift--but also ignores the Leopard matter.
http://www.ledevoir.com/2007/01/26/128767.html

Query: Would in fact the 39,000 kg allow Leopards--or merely exclude the A400M (since the decision to keep the tanks had not officially been made)?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo (26 Jan 2007)

Hmmm.... the Leo1 is in the books at 42.5Tons (not sure if US or UK)
US Ton = 38.600Kg

The CC130s and the A400s have limited capacity for those extremely long hauls (Trenton to Kandahar)... not enough bang for the buck and consequently, when deploying DART or anyone else, too many flights with smallish aircraft signifies prematurely wearing out CC130s OR wearing out our welcome with our friends.


----------



## Long in the tooth (27 Jan 2007)

Articles in Janes and The Economist have pointed out that Airbus has serious legal and financial problems aside from technical issues.  Airbus is an artificial construct, a 'private' company created by the French government so that the aerospace industry would not be subsumed by the British (BAE) and/or Germans.

If I were a civilian company I would hardly even consider doing business with such a shady and shaky firm.

But Mr Fortier?  Well, it is only tax money after all.


----------



## GAP (27 Jan 2007)

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> But Mr Fortier?  Well, it is only tax money after all.



What are you talking about?  ???


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Jan 2007)

Andrew Coyne weighs in with a column in the _National Post_ today (URL is for the piece on his blog).

Harper's C-17 quagmire
http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/01/harpers-c-17-quagmire.php



> “Canada’s New Government” is creating a fine mess for itself out of the C-17 contract, a deepening imbroglio that more and more has the whiff of a very old-fashioned sort of scandal. The ingredients are familiar from past such messes, which seem to attach themselves to the procurement process like zebra mussels to a sewer pipe: questionable contract specs, possible bid-rigging, political interference by regionally-minded ministers, and at the bottom of it all, the usual stone dumb economics. It has raised some very dark memories, and it is not going to go away. If anything, it is going to get worse.
> 
> The military’s requirements were straightforward enough: some long-range transport planes, of a kind that might permit Canadian soldiers and equipment to be airlifted into faraway combat zones without, as in the recent past, having to hitch a ride with the Americans. But rather than follow the process that common sense, not to say government procurement rules, might suggest, that is of entertaining competing bids, then choosing the one that offered the most bang for the fewest bucks, the process has been shrowded in intrigue and politics.
> 
> ...



While I agree with him on industrial offsets, when seeing dirty work with the C-17 procurement (along with much of our hysterical media) he just shows that he too is severely ignorant of things military.  Pity.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## ArmyRick (27 Jan 2007)

We need C17s. Bottom line.


----------



## geo (28 Jan 2007)

Considering that we have contracts coming up for C17, CH47, CC130 & C27s..... plenty of time to do cartweels and acrobatics in the backrooms of gov't.

Let's get the C17 contract going now - talk about the plusses & minuses later.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (24 Apr 2007)

*First Air Force pilots certified on the C-17 Globemaster*

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/newsroom/news_e.asp?cat=114&id=3015

"It's like a CC-130 [Hercules] on steroids," says pilot Major Jean Maisonneuve. It carries four times the payload, flies 40 percent faster and can fly twice as far.

And Maj Maisonneuve and Maj Jeremy Reynolds are the first Canadian Air Force pilots certified on the C-17 Globemaster III.

Maj Maisonneuve, chief check pilot at 429 Transport Squadron at 8 Wing Trenton, says the aircraft offers much in the way of tactical and operational capabilities. First, it has phenomenal stopping power.

Traveling at 209 kilometres per hour, it can come to a full stop on a runway measuring between 609 and 914 metres-that's at a weight of 200 tons. To compare, Maj Maisonneuve says that's about one-third the size of a runway found at a major Canadian airport. 

For both Majors Maisonneuve and Reynolds, their certification was a bit of déjà vu. In fact, both were on exchange with the US Air Force (USAF) in the early 2000s and flew the C-17 in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Maj Maisonneuve has about 2 000 hours on the C-17. He describes the aircraft as "tactically sound", meaning it can carry all that payload long distances and can still land in austere locations. He tells of landing safely in Afghanistan on a short field using night vision goggles and no lights. "It's good for me. It's comforting for my wife and anyone who has a friend or family member going into theatre," he says.

Of the certification, which took place at Altus Air Force Base located in Oklahoma, there were three weeks of intense computer-based systems training, coupled with four weeks in the simulator and a final three weeks' training on the flight line.

The computer training is critical because there are more than 20 computers onboard the C-17 and, consequently, a smaller crew. In fact, the degree and kind of automation has removed the need for a navigator and a flight engineer. That also means, explains Maj Maisonneuve, the pilots must be able to troubleshoot and re-set certain computers themselves.  "Sometimes you have to employ the Microsoft fix; control, alt, delete," he says wryly.

MORE ON LINK


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Apr 2007)

Most excellent news, this contract and the Leo's is making my head spin in a good way!!!


----------



## Mike Baker (24 Apr 2007)

I like the sound of this  ;D


----------



## geo (24 Apr 2007)

Pinch me!

(Ouch!)... OK, I'm not dreaming


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Apr 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Pinch me!
> 
> (Ouch!)... OK, I'm not dreaming



For those of us that survived the "Long March" it really does seem like a dream! Don't you dare wake me until the equipment is the ground!!


----------



## MikeL (31 Jul 2013)

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07/30/buying-canadian-services-equipment-will-short-change-military-defence-officials-warn/


> Buying Canadian services, equipment will short-change military, defence officials warn
> Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News | 13/07/30 | Last Updated: 13/07/30 8:20 PM ET
> 
> OTTAWA — A struggle is raging behind the scenes as the needs of Canada’s military smack up against the Conservative government’s desire to turn billions of dollars in planned defence spending into jobs and economic benefits.
> ...


----------

