# COMMENTARY: Canada’s military procurement legacy somehow gets even stupider



## dimsum (13 Dec 2018)

Spoiler alert - it's about pistols.



> If you’re feeling particularly lazy today, you can basically get the full benefit of this column by just finishing the next fragment of a sentence: the Canadian government is epically screwing up yet another military procurement and we should all be ashamed of ourselves for letting it happen.
> 
> Seriously. That’s it. If you’re slammed for time, you can move on. The rest of what’s about to follow is just maddening detail.



https://globalnews.ca/news/4753482/canada-military-pistols/?fbclid=IwAR0RymH-MQAa6Dc8cPHsO7TqMKQTb5FVbPt7YkW-6SWQvVK0ZPqh0aOig8c


----------



## MilEME09 (13 Dec 2018)

To me the 10 year thing on all these major procurement's screams the GoC doesn't want to do any major projects in it's mandate, pistols should be an easy one to trial and select a winner, heck im sure deliveries would be quick too! this is a lack of political will to get it done, combined with an bureaucracy designed to keep people employed rather then get work done.


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Dec 2018)

Maddeningly hilarious article lol


----------



## dimsum (13 Dec 2018)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> To me the 10 year thing on all these major procurement's screams the GoC doesn't want to do any major projects in it's mandate, pistols should be an easy one to trial and select a winner, heck im sure deliveries would be quick too! this is a lack of political will to get it done, combined with an bureaucracy designed to keep people employed rather then get work done.



Well, it took some body bags and media shaming to get the Iltis taken out of Afghanistan and replaced with actual armoured vehicles on roads known to be rigged with bombs...


----------



## Furniture (13 Dec 2018)

It's good to see Canadian media turning their attention to the failure of a procurement system we have, maybe Canadians will start to pay attention.


----------



## dimsum (13 Dec 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> It's good to see Canadian media turning their attention to the failure of a procurement system we have, maybe Canadians will start to pay attention.



Starting?  Matt Gurney, amongst others, have done that for years.  It's usually buried somewhere on Page 45 but it's there.


----------



## FSTO (13 Dec 2018)

I was told yesterday by one of the civilians in our project that the reason why all Departments have to get their projects approved at TB is to slow down the spending of money. There is zero consideration toward capability and needs (this is why the status of water and housing at reserves are such a shyte show) its all about slowing down the flow of money.


----------



## medicineman (13 Dec 2018)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> ... this is a lack of political will to get it done, combined with an bureaucracy designed to keep people employed rather then get work done.



This...oh, and the thing where it has to be made in Canada by the highest (read only) bidder.  This should be easy - call H&K, FN, Sig Sauer, Glock, Colt Canada and maybe Barretta and say  "What is your most popular military and police sidearm?  How much for off the shelf 25K worth?  Meet us on range "X" in Gagetown in two weeks with 20 of your recommendations and enough ammo/mags to sink a ship.  Lastly, are you willing to allow a Canadian firm (preferably in Quebec) to maintain these under license or is there a Canadian subsidiary that these can be bought from, just to keep the GoC happy?"  The CAF then needs to CFTPO the range, range staff, and a number of small arms experts from the various branches that will be using these things, and put the weapons through their paces.  At End Ex, compare notes and issue recommendations; contracts could be done within a few weeks after.  


Of course, the government will buy the gun that wasn't recommended, because Colt Canada or Bombardier will get a license for it, redevelop/Canadianize it over a few years, then eventually get them out, at greater expense.  Meanwhile, the people at the pointy end are still using BHP's with re-re-re-re-rebored barrels that might launch the bullet generally forward with enough speed to tickle someone on impact.

MM


----------



## FSTO (13 Dec 2018)

The RCN has been using Sig Sauer pistols for years (since before 9-11). What has the RCAF been using? Is this just an Army problem?


----------



## garb811 (13 Dec 2018)

The process for the replacement didn't "start" in 2016, it _*restarted*_ in 2016. We went down this road in the 2008-2009 time frame as part of SARP 2, to the point of having a RFP out for final review by the pistol stakeholders if I recall correctly. Reason I remember it so vividly is because I was laughing at the combat arms insistence that a lanyard ring had to be included on the pistol...


----------



## garb811 (13 Dec 2018)

FSTO said:
			
		

> The RCN has been using Sig Sauer pistols for years (since before 9-11). What has the RCAF been using? Is this just an Army problem?


It was a problem because Sig stopped making the P225 at one point which caused difficulty with procuring spare parts. Since then, Sig has recommenced making the P225 so I don't think that issue is as pressing.

It does make sense to go to one "fleet" of pistols though, rather than the Browning/P225/P226/... mashup that is out there now. If that happens, it is better to replace the P225 because at this point the earliest models are approaching the 25+ year mark, not to mention the "low" mag capacity.


----------



## medicineman (13 Dec 2018)

FSTO said:
			
		

> The RCN has been using Sig Sauer pistols for years (since before 9-11). What has the RCAF been using? Is this just an Army problem?



I think it's largely an Army thing...I went to Haiti in 2004 with my BHP being older than Dirt's Great Grand-Parents...I was happy I never had a jam with it and it struck the target I pointed it at on the range.  I was just as happy I never got into a fight with it though - I was concerned I'd need to throw it at someone if I wanted to cause maximal damage...

MM


----------



## dimsum (13 Dec 2018)

FSTO said:
			
		

> The RCN has been using Sig Sauer pistols for years (since before 9-11). What has the RCAF been using? Is this just an Army problem?



I *believe* the fighter folks use something else (Sig?) but the rest use BHPs.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Dec 2018)

If you're worried about the browning not shooting when you want it to just load 9 rounds in the magazine. 

Adding two dots of whiteout to the rear sight makes great homeade nightsights  ;D


----------



## Loachman (13 Dec 2018)

Best comment so far:

Paul Meyer

Some nice folks nearby to us did a LOT of testing and came up with the Sig Sauer P320 as their preferred option. It comes in 9mm and .45. As a plus, the pistol comes in about 42 total varieties, so the Liberals can supply a dfferent version to each gender of soldier.


----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Dec 2018)

Are there any current procurement stories that are good news. What has worked out on time, in quantity and quality.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Dec 2018)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Are there any current procurement stories that are good news. What has worked out on time, in quantity and quality.



Gender Employment Advisors?


----------



## dangerboy (13 Dec 2018)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Are there any current procurement stories that are good news. What has worked out on time, in quantity and quality.



The C19 Rifle (Ranger Rifle replacement) can be considered a success.


----------



## medicineman (13 Dec 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If you're worried about the browning not shooting when you want it to just load 9 rounds in the magazine.
> 
> Adding two dots of whiteout to the rear sight makes great homeade nightsights  ;D



I loaded 10...because I was usually only given 2 mags and 20 rounds anyway.  It fired fine like that.  

Dimsum - IIRC, the fighter jocks got P226's bought for them for Gulf War 1...they still holding those over?

MM


----------



## garb811 (13 Dec 2018)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I loaded 10...because I was usually only given 2 mags and 20 rounds anyway.  It fired fine like that.
> 
> Dimsum - IIRC, the fighter jocks got P226's bought for them for Gulf War 1...they still holding those over?
> 
> MM


P225s were initially bought for pilots and MP plainclothes pers to replace the .38 special Colts in that time frame with more being bought as time went on. I was told the decision to go with the 225 over the 226 was specifically due to the smaller size of the grip from the single stack as opposed to the 226s double stack.

P226s entered the system later for other folks...


----------



## brihard (13 Dec 2018)

RCMP is also looking to replace their service pistol, the obsolescent S&W 5946. Both use 9mm. Both organizations are due for a ground up rethink on what characteristics are required for a duty sidearm (mechanical, safety, etc etc). There are a small number of pistol models popular for both police and military use. I see no compelling reason why a joint procurement couldn’t be at least considered to take advantage of economies of scale.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Dec 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I see no compelling reason why a joint procurement couldn’t be at least considered to take advantage of economies of scale.



Like just buy the US solution:

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-service-branches-buying-army-modular-handgun-system-2018-3

After all, it's a pistol.... not a fighter jet or something insanely expensive like that.


----------



## Haggis (13 Dec 2018)

The CBSA is the only agency in North America currently using the Beretta PX4 Storm.  Those pistols are getting old and are no longer supported under contract by Beretta.   If they were to jump on the federal procurement bandwagon with other agencies that would make a sizable purchase for Canada likely resulting in a very good price.  

Glocks and Sig Sauers are quite popular with CBSA officers for personal use.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Dec 2018)

We can't even get DND procurement right, so the solution is to make it inter-agency rife with competing priorities and bureaucratic empire building? Remember, the service pistol replacement isn't a 10 year project; we released a statement of requirement I believe about 8 years ago that was so poorly worded (and designed for only a single manufacturer), it had to be pulled and the project started from scratch. It'll be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20 years before we get a contract signed that's going to replace pistols we needed replaced 30 years prior.

It's also not an "Army" problem, unless people disown the RCAF and RCN pers who carry secondary weapons on CJOC deployments that are not Maritime/ATF-centric.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Dec 2018)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I was told yesterday by one of the civilians in our project that the reason why all Departments have to get their projects approved at TB is to slow down the spending of money. There is zero consideration toward capability and needs (this is why the status of water and housing at reserves are such a shyte show) its all about slowing down the flow of money.



In fact, all departments undergo an assessment of their ability to do things, on a scale of 1-4.  The higher your score, the better you are.  This is refreshed every few years.

Each project going forward is also assessed on a scale of 1-4 for complexity and risk.  Normally, a project score at or below your departmental score means your minister can approve it.  However, the TB ministers reserve the right to call forward files within your authority level.

The more shenanigans a department pulls, the lower their score, so the more often they will have to go forward to the TB ministers.  For a while DND's score was down to 2, meaning lots of things were being pushed up.  Add to that the fact that CAF compensation and benefits (less military judges) are set by the TB ministers and you end up with lots of files going to TB from DND.


Frequently DND files go astray when someone tries to channel a something to a preferred supplier, when there's rapid rotation in military project staff, when someone who knows nothing of the processes decides they can do things "faster", or when someone fails to do an adequate environmental scan.  If you're buying small arms, you're very likely going through the Munitions Supply Program.  Learn it and understand it, otherwise you'll waste a lot of time and effort and come back and redo the work.

Lots of external factors that cause problems as well, but Pogo Possum best described the fundamental problem with buying stuff for the CAF.


----------



## CBH99 (13 Dec 2018)

I know I'm probably just venting here more than anything, so I have a feeling this post will be rhetorical...

But why not arm all federal agencies with the same sidearm?  RCMP & CBSA I imagine could use the same sidearm, why not CAF also?


Streamline supplies, parts, contracts, ammo, etc etc.  Keep it simple.  (Or if the CAF really needs to go down it's own road on this one, which I'm sure there are plenty of valid arguments for, why not keep the pistol uniform across the CAF and go with the Navy's Sig?)


----------



## dapaterson (13 Dec 2018)

The theory of all of government doing the same is very sound for all the reasons you mentioned.

The practice of departments trying to work together is something akin to a three stooges movie, where all three want their own way (even if it is the same), all three want to be in charge, all three want the other two to pay...

Having been peripherally involved in at least four interdepartmental initiatives with a fair number of zeroes at the end of them, the unfortunately reality is that sometimes, the juice isn't worth the squeeze...


Or, to put it another way: Putting all the CAF in the same uniform has the same logic of savings and simplicity.  How did that work out?


----------



## blacktriangle (13 Dec 2018)

Pretty sad when three generations of my family have carried the BHP...


----------



## dimsum (13 Dec 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The theory of all of government doing the same is very sound for all the reasons you mentioned.
> 
> The practice of departments trying to work together is something akin to a three stooges movie, where all three want their own way (even if it is the same), all three want to be in charge, all three want the other two to pay...
> 
> ...



I don't know if the example of Unification is completely in line with what you said before that though.  I wasn't there (obviously) but I thought a lot of the backlash was due to service traditions (especially the Navy).  

I think the pistol thing is more like the boots issue - the 3 services know they need boots, but have various contracts based on the service.  Why, for instance, couldn't the RCAF get the Navy boots?  They are safety toed (forget for a second that not all RCAF folks need that feature...) and from most reports they are comfortable and functional unlike the CEMS ones that the RCAF ended up with.  

But I digress.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Dec 2018)

Merely pointing out that "it's cheaper if everyone is the same" rarely works out well.

Likely a similar story for boots.  If I adopt your boot, I don't get "leading change" on my PER.  I have often observed that we need to rewrite that as "leading _effective_ change"...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Dec 2018)

Buy 1,000 G17`s as part of field testing, issue them to the most operational unit. Send a few gun mechs to get the armourer course, they train the others. The Manual of arms can be lifted from the Brits. Cost is likely to be under $500,000. Next year repeat the 1,000 buy and repeat every year.

The other option is say: `We want a polymer pistol that has been accepted by a NATO army within the last 10 years. Make will be decided on price and availability to supply 5,000 a year for the next 4 years, with the contract split in 4 payments upon delivery of each batch. That narrows the field to about 3 guns and likley it will be the G17, as they can beat everyone on price.


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 Dec 2018)

Contract splitting?


----------



## armyvern (14 Dec 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Gender Employment Advisors?



GENADs - Gender Advisors. NATO.

I am one.  And, it has nothing to do with "employment" advising or "women" advising. Rather, it's about the 75% of the world who are not fighting age.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Dec 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Contract splitting?



Whatever we do don`t hold a competition, just base the buy off of what either the US or the UK did.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Dec 2018)

Is the strategic imperative to get the CAF pistols, or to sustain a Canadian small arms industry?  A valid question, that has implications for timelines and cost.  If we want CAF pistols that sustain Cdn industry, the equation gets more complex - not all vendors will license their IP.

And once we start talking about large dollar figures (including ammo, tooling and spares) there's a possibility that regardless of the low complexity, the TB ministers might want to 
steer contracts to favoured suppliers assert their authority over procurements.


----------



## brihard (14 Dec 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Whatever we do don`t hold a competition, just base the buy off of what either the US or the UK did.



They absolutey have to. There’s nothing exigent here that justifies not, and there are several good options on the market. Whatever they end up doing, a competition will have to be a part of it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Dec 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> They absolutey have to. There’s nothing exigent here that justifies not, and there are several good options on the market. Whatever they end up doing, a competition will have to be a part of it.



Depends quite a bit on how they word the requirements and how much balls they have to go through with it. The good news is even 25,000 is a smallish buy in the scheme of things, and less likley to be challenged. To give you an idea, the French police contract was for 500,000 Sig 2022.


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Dec 2018)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Are there any current procurement stories that are good news. What has worked out on time, in quantity and quality.


Bump. It can’t be all bad news and sarcasm. Defence expenditures 2008-2018 are greater than 250billion [2018 dollars]. 
What about the Chinook? outlier?


----------



## dimsum (17 Dec 2018)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Bump. It can’t be all bad news and sarcasm. Defence expenditures 2008-2018 are greater than 250billion [2018 dollars].
> What about the Chinook? outlier?



C-17?  C-130J?  M777?


----------



## QM (18 Dec 2018)

There are hundreds of projects in the pipeline across all the Level 1's. New equipment is constantly being delivered. I'm not pimping for our procurement system but although it is painfully slow and insanely intricate, it does constantly deliver new equipment. All we ever read about is the negative aspects of procurement, told through the story of a half dozen major projects.  Personally I pin that to an ill-informed media and even a media that is strongly anti-military. The storyline about failed procurement is merely one of a half-dozen or so storylines that each represent micro attacks against DND and the CAF. Is YOUR day to day experience as awful as the media makes it out to be?

Anyhow, they tell us about the big ticket items that go wrong, but we never read about the big ticket items that go right, or the medium and small programs that go extremely well (extremely well within the context of a ponderous, byzantine government procurement system). The link below provides only a small snapshot of some of the current initiatives that you've probably never heard of. If you want to know more, find someone in DLR or DAR or DMR or CJOC Force Development and just ask them for a list of what projects are in the hopper. Or, find your way on DWAN to the Capability Investment Database (CID - it is somewhere in the VCDS' pages), and you will be able to read in horrifying detail, the hundreds of current projects - the official ones that have registration numbers and everything - for equipment as well as infrastructure. 

But this site will probably be interesting enough reading for you. The link here is public; it is where DND directs industry to turn when it wants a quick summary of what we are buying, projects that should spend money in the next 5 years or so, give or take (lol). 

http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/index.asp


----------



## FSTO (18 Dec 2018)

Log Offr said:
			
		

> There are hundreds of projects in the pipeline across all the Level 1's. New equipment is constantly being delivered. I'm not pimping for our procurement system but although it is painfully slow and insanely intricate, it does constantly deliver new equipment. All we ever read about is the negative aspects of procurement, told through the story of a half dozen major projects.  Personally I pin that to an ill-informed media and even a media that is strongly anti-military. The storyline about failed procurement is merely one of a half-dozen or so storylines that each represent micro attacks against DND and the CAF. Is YOUR day to day experience as awful as the media makes it out to be?
> 
> Anyhow, they tell us about the big ticket items that go wrong, but we never read about the big ticket items that go right, or the medium and small programs that go extremely well (extremely well within the context of a ponderous, byzantine government procurement system). The link below provides only a small snapshot of some of the current initiatives that you've probably never heard of. If you want to know more, find someone in DLR or DAR or DMR or CJOC Force Development and just ask them for a list of what projects are in the hopper. Or, find your way on DWAN to the Capability Investment Database (CID - it is somewhere in the VCDS' pages), and you will be able to read in horrifying detail, the hundreds of current projects - the official ones that have registration numbers and everything - for equipment as well as infrastructure.
> 
> ...


BTW it's DNR (Naval vice Maritime) now.
For those on the DWAN here is the link to the CID page:
http://cid-bic.forces.mil.ca/cid/intro_e.asp

(there is supposed to be a replacement coming due to the database not being supported anymore but I don't know when)


----------



## brihard (18 Dec 2018)

Log Offr said:
			
		

> There are hundreds of projects in the pipeline across all the Level 1's. New equipment is constantly being delivered. I'm not pimping for our procurement system but although it is painfully slow and insanely intricate, it does constantly deliver new equipment. All we ever read about is the negative aspects of procurement, told through the story of a half dozen major projects.  Personally I pin that to an ill-informed media and even a media that is strongly anti-military. The storyline about failed procurement is merely one of a half-dozen or so storylines that each represent micro attacks against DND and the CAF. Is YOUR day to day experience as awful as the media makes it out to be?
> 
> Anyhow, they tell us about the big ticket items that go wrong, but we never read about the big ticket items that go right, or the medium and small programs that go extremely well (extremely well within the context of a ponderous, byzantine government procurement system). The link below provides only a small snapshot of some of the current initiatives that you've probably never heard of. If you want to know more, find someone in DLR or DAR or DMR or CJOC Force Development and just ask them for a list of what projects are in the hopper. Or, find your way on DWAN to the Capability Investment Database (CID - it is somewhere in the VCDS' pages), and you will be able to read in horrifying detail, the hundreds of current projects - the official ones that have registration numbers and everything - for equipment as well as infrastructure.
> 
> ...



The 'system' only gets so much of a pat on the ass for doing its job and fulfilling its basic function. Major foulups are still major foulups, and absurdities are still absurdities. There is nothing so inherently complex about a pistol that even under our bureaucracy of buying it should take a number of years to replace it. If we struggle to replace one of our simplest and most rudimentary small arms - something armies and police services do by the droves every year across the western world - then something is wrong, and I suspect there is a profound lack of 'ownership' of this program by whoever's it is to own.


----------



## dimsum (18 Dec 2018)

Good to know that the RPAS program (formerly JUSTAS) is looking at only being about 15 years late, and that I'll retire before the Aurora replacement is expected to come online.  

I mean, the 'Kings lasted 55 years; surely the Auroras can do it as well.


----------



## Furniture (18 Dec 2018)

Log Offr said:
			
		

> Anyhow, they tell us about the big ticket items that go wrong, but we never read about the big ticket items that go right, or the medium and small programs that go extremely well (extremely well within the context of a ponderous, byzantine government procurement system).



The ponderous, and byzantine system is what the fuss is about. That a procurement system usually happens to _eventually_ deliver things isn't something to be proud of. 

Ships, aircraft, tanks, etc. people expect to be long procurement processes(not generations long though). Buying boots, and pistols shouldn't be a decades long processes, and the media is rightly pointing that out.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Dec 2018)

There are no shortages of examples in these pages suggesting that it's not a "media is picking on us" problem;  these are troops making these statements (you know, serving members -- 'our best assets; we love them' TM ).  

Yes, I'm well aware that troops bitch, but perhaps their perspective just isn't as sunny as in some cubicles.  But I guess working with equipment older than their parents, sometimes they lose focus on the excel/powerpoint.


Edit: typo


----------



## dimsum (18 Dec 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> There are no shortages of examples in these pages suggesting that it's not a "media is picking on us" problem;  these are troops making these statements (you know, serving members -- 'our best assets; we love them' TM ).
> 
> Yes, I'm well aware that troops bitch, but perhaps their perspective just isn't as sunny as in some cubicles.  But I guess working with equipment older than their parents grandparents, sometimes they lose focused on the excel/powerpoint.



FTFY, at least for the Sea King.  That's not even an unrealistic concept if people had kids in their mid-20s.  

Honest question:  Do people in DAR/DLR/DNR see the workarounds/minor miracles being performed so that said equipment is at least serviceable 50% of the time, or the amount of deferred defects or operational restrictions that are imposed to keep those things working?  The amount of spares that we (don't) have?  Or is it purely "we have x out of y things serviceable", not "we have x out of y things serviceable, but z out of x can't do 70% of the stuff we need to b/c q things are missing or robbed to keep another thing working"?  At what point do we just put our foot down and say that despite our "can do attitude", which I'm surprised hasn't bit us in the ass fatally in the past few decades, we just can't anymore?


----------



## QV (18 Dec 2018)

Lets be honest about this, this pistol project is probably far less complicated than boots.  The CAF could go out and buy 25,000 Glock 17s or something similar with some spare parts and be just fine for many years to come.  All the churn and grunt over this study and that study and this test and that test is completely wasted effort.  But that is why it takes ten years to have a sidearm replaced.


----------



## NavyShooter (18 Dec 2018)

The last time a Browning High Power pistol was manufactured for the Canadian Armed Forces at the John Inglis Plant in Toronto was 1945.

Those pistols are all at least 73 years old.  Any magazine that is stamped with "JI" on the base is also 73 years old.  

There is not a single currently serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces who was born when the last of those pistols was manufactured.  

The pistol replacement project was originally scheduled to see a new pistol in the hands of our troops in 2015.  https://army.ca/forums/threads/102435.0.html

The thread there (dating from 2011) describes some of the criteria for pistol selection:



> I've been doing some research on NATO member pistols, and I think there are a few likely candidates, but they all seem to be disqualified on a few minor points.
> GSP Requirements (condensed):
> 1. Full Size, DAO Trigger
> 2. Current NATO Service + 2 years
> ...



Kevin Boland submitted the following evaluation of available pistols that would meet the selection criteria: https://army.ca/forums/threads/102435/post-1177165.html#msg1177165



> Color me confused but I don't actually see a pistol that meets the criteria anywhere?
> Several Federal Entities down here issue Glock's and Smith&Wesson M&P guns - but in either .40S&W or .45ACP.
> Hk seems to have the only truly ambo mag release - with their dual lever.  But the USP is a brick, and a poor contender to their new designs.
> 
> ...



The long, drawn out process that failed in 2011 to deliver a pistol by 2015 is now going to be drawn out for another 8 years...to 2026...?  So, now we'll have had this pistol replacement project on the go for 15 years.

Seems pretty silly to me.  On the other hand, one of my comments in the other thread I've referenced details the comparison to the JSS ship replacement...which will be going on 15 years as well soon...soooooo....not too far off.

Personal opinion - having owned or fired many of the above pistols over the years.  Buy 15,000 Glock 17's, issue them, call it done.  

But what do I know...this is just another example of our broken supply chain.  LogOffr, I will politely disagree with you.

NS


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Dec 2018)

Sounds like a Centenary replacement of the HP is looming. Think of all the spin for the PR people when the replacement is announced in Quebec City.


----------



## MJP (18 Dec 2018)

QV said:
			
		

> Lets be honest about this, this pistol project is probably far less complicated than boots.  The CAF could go out and buy 25,000 Glock 17s or something similar with some spare parts and be just fine for many years to come.  All the churn and grunt over this study and that study and this test and that test is completely wasted effort.  But that is why it takes ten years to have a sidearm replaced.



Its also because we want to own have the IP rights signed over to Canadian industry, something most big arms manufacturers balk at.  Especially considering the relatively low amounts we are buying.  We need to get our heads out of our asses and buy things like that off the shelf and not worry about propping up a non-exsistent home industry.


----------



## garb811 (18 Dec 2018)

And the problem isn't just confined to centrally managed projects. I know of one local procurement project that is worth a max of $50k that has failed three years in a row, and on the road to the fourth, simply because of the amount of time and effort it takes to get stuff through the system and onto the Buy and Sell site. This year a single number was changed in the SOW and although the process was started back in April, it still took 7 months to get it up on the site. The last word from the contracting office was that even though there were no compliant bidders the first time around and the SOW needed to be "tweaked" again, they were happy with the progress this year because they were two months ahead of last year in getting it up on the site for the first time...


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Dec 2018)

Or, alternately, Canadians could build novel things that other people want to buy.

Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and the Netherlands are not designing solely to meet their own requirements.  In fact, often there is no domestic requirement beyond what would classified as a pilot scale launch.


----------



## MJP (18 Dec 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> And the problem isn't just confined to centrally managed projects. I know of one local procurement project that is worth a max of $50k that has failed three years in a row, and on the road to the fourth, simply because of the amount of time and effort it takes to get stuff through the system and onto the Buy and Sell site. This year a single number was changed in the SOW and although the process was started back in April, it still took 7 months to get it up on the site. The last word from the contracting office was that even though there were no compliant bidders the first time around and the SOW needed to be "tweaked" again, they were happy with the progress this year because they were two months ahead of last year in getting it up on the site for the first time...



I find that is often the timeline issue a misunderstanding of who is responsible for what than anything else.  In the case of uncompliant bidders we are usually the problem in that we are asking for unicorn, or have in some way slanted the SOW in a way that industry can't fulfill.  Not saying that is the case here, but have worked in and around that low-level procurement for a number of years and the process isn't that difficult.  Once we walk technical authorities through the process and assist in the development of SOW/SOR to meet PSPC and industry guidelines they are generally successful.  Now if your procurement office on base/wing is useless and not helping it slows down the process and usually makes PSPC not want to work with them.

Not saying the process is not the issue but my general experience is that if you understand the process, timelines and who is resp for what, small buys (up to $250K) are relatively simple.  Even higher under $2M for certain things are not an issue if you engage the right people.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Dec 2018)

or renovating an armoury and not budgeting for the communication systems within, then blocking the tenants from coming back in as there is no funds to do the comms stuff.


----------



## Navy_Pete (18 Dec 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> And the problem isn't just confined to centrally managed projects. I know of one local procurement project that is worth a max of $50k that has failed three years in a row, and on the road to the fourth, simply because of the amount of time and effort it takes to get stuff through the system and onto the Buy and Sell site. This year a single number was changed in the SOW and although the process was started back in April, it still took 7 months to get it up on the site. The last word from the contracting office was that even though there were no compliant bidders the first time around and the SOW needed to be "tweaked" again, they were happy with the progress this year because they were two months ahead of last year in getting it up on the site for the first time...



On the flip side, I was involved in a project to replace all the generators on the frigates, and provide 20 years of in service support (maintenance, spares and training). Took about three years to get the industry engagement done, do up the RFP, bid eval and contract award. That was with a delay to implement the new 'Value Proposition' during the pilot phase, and installations are rolling through the fleet.

Took a lot of dedicated effort from team (I was only tagged in for a year around the end of the RFP/contract award, so take no real credit), but basically rolled through all the approval gates and other reviews as per the ideal case.  Kind of an outlier for a project at that dollar value, but normally if you have people that know how the system works that have capacity to push it, you can easily do that with low dollar value procurements.  If you don't know what you are doing, or don't have time to do it, really can't blame the system.


----------



## NavyShooter (18 Dec 2018)

One of the problems with the concept of the pistol project being 'made in Canada' is the relatively tiny market that the CAF is, and with the government's generally negative attitude towards civilian firearms ownership, the likelihood of civilian market sales is small.  So, the only buyer will effectively be the CAF, and our market share is smaller than many police departments in the USA...

We should accept that, buy off the shelf, and go from there.  

NS


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Dec 2018)

That would require PSPC and TB to have just a small amount of common sense in their rules.


----------



## Baz (19 Dec 2018)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> ... normally if you have people that know how the system works that have capacity to push it, you can easily do that with low dollar value procurements.  If you don't know what you are doing, or don't have time to do it, really can't blame the system.



This may be part of the problem???

It's a common heard thing from log, admin, and IT people in DND.  You need to understand how the "system" works.  If everyone knew that the system would respond (sort of).

In a project I worked on not only did I need to understand tactics and tasks, plus the software that enabled them, and then the (flight rated) hardware they ran on.  And then to get any of the parts I needed I needed to understand the procurement rules and how to use them to get what was needed.  Then I had to understand the IT rules in order to share required information.

The point is we seem to be putting all of the burden of implementing change on the tactical edge; if they don't take the time to understand everything that must be done then it couldn't have been important enough in the first place.  This doesn't include the major programs, but all of them suffer from BRUF (big requirement up front, it's not a good thing).

In some cases this results in motivated people finding it so hard to accomplish anything they either give up trying or go to an organization where that type of motivation is supported.


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Dec 2018)

Or get posted out.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Dec 2018)

Baz said:
			
		

> This may be part of the problem???
> 
> It's a common heard thing from log, admin, and IT people in DND.  You need to understand how the "system" works.  If everyone knew that the system would respond (sort of).
> 
> ...



I have been more involved in infrastructure projects than procurement projects over my career and the "system" we (the Govt of Canada- not just limited to DND) have is truly awful. I have seen antiquated domestic water systems that regularly expose CF members and their families to boil water advisories go unreplaced because it didnt seem important enough to the battalions of decisionmakers, all the way up to Ottawa, who are all empowered to say no, but nobody is allowed to say yes. I have considerable sympathy for any First Nation trying to navigate the same system. I have seen major and expensive stocks of materiel exposed to dangerous levels of degradation, because bureaucrats argued against spending a comparative pitance of the value of the stock on proper storage facilities.  I have seen lowest bidder contracters being awarded contracts by Ottawa bid evaluation "experts" even in the face of objections of the local SMEs who warned the work would be sub-standard and would cost DND more in long run to fix (we were right, every single time).

This is the result we are getting with our current system that is (supposedly) designed to prevent all of these bad things from happening, but does not. I would say the problem is the system- not the people in the system


----------



## MJP (19 Dec 2018)

Baz said:
			
		

> This may be part of the problem???
> 
> It's a common heard thing from log, admin, and IT people in DND.  You need to understand how the "system" works.  If everyone knew that the system would respond (sort of).
> 
> ...



That is actually a good point and will revisit how we do business to make sure we aren't burdening folks with knowing our aspect overly much and front loading them with timelines and what we need from them.  Generally, though the biggest issues encountered is someone identifies a need and requirement but they figure because they have identified it, it is up to everyone else to make it happen.  Again this is at the low end of the procurement spectrum.  Project staff are a whole other beast!     

Anedoctal but early in my Log career I did up a SOW for an organization I worked for, and I was certainly not the technical expert in what they required.  Long story short we missed a few key requirements even after their SMEs had reviewed it and got something at the end of the day that was less than optimal.  They were very disinterested in doing the hard work at the front end and while I felt bad at the time, it now makes it easier for me to be a bit harder on folks and tell them what they need to do.  My community can certainly do better in guiding people through the process that is for sure and something again I will take onboard.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Dec 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> This is the result we are getting with our current system that is (supposedly) designed to prevent all of these bad things from happening, but does not. I would say the problem is the system- not the people in the system



I was talking to a guy a couple of weeks ago who was in a fairly senior role in GM until he quit and changed his career/ life. I asked him why he left and he said 'the bureaucracy was awful. I couldn't get anything done.' The CAF, it seems, is in good company.

Here's an interesting article from a private sector guy. I'd say alot of these principles apply anywhere: 

How to Deal with the Worst Organizational Bureaucracy

'At the end of the day, rules and policies are there because they make it possible for business to run smoothly. They may be frustrating, but they’re not going anywhere. But by adjusting the way you deal with the bureaucracy, you’ll be able to more easily navigate the waters—and you’ll make a big difference in your everyday work life.'

https://www.themuse.com/advice/how-to-deal-with-the-worst-organizational-bureaucracy


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Dec 2018)

> Now if your procurement office on base/wing is useless





> if you have people that know how the system works





> You need to understand how the "system" works



How much "churn" is there in the system?  How many people are there in the chain and how long do they stay in position?


----------



## Baz (19 Dec 2018)

MJP said:
			
		

> That is actually a good point and will revisit how we do business to make sure we aren't burdening folks with knowing our aspect overly much and front loading them with timelines and what we need from them.  Generally, though the biggest issues encountered is someone identifies a need and requirement but they figure because they have identified it, it is up to everyone else to make it happen.  Again this is at the low end of the procurement spectrum.  Project staff are a whole other beast!
> 
> Anedoctal but early in my Log career I did up a SOW for an organization I worked for, and I was certainly not the technical expert in what they required.  Long story short we missed a few key requirements even after their SMEs had reviewed it and got something at the end of the day that was less than optimal.  They were very disinterested in doing the hard work at the front end and while I felt bad at the time, it now makes it easier for me to be a bit harder on folks and tell them what they need to do.  My community can certainly do better in guiding people through the process that is for sure and something again I will take onboard.



And that is the paradox.

The tactical edge in the communities in DND I have been exposed to are not particularly good at feeding back into the system.  Amongst many people there is a feeling that "if I tell someone it is a problem (or how to make it better) than it is their problem."  A reluctance to take ownership...

As an illustration, in that same project I would get stopped in the hallway by an operator who would tell me about some issue.  When I asked if they had written it up (which the requirement to do so was in fact a Wing order) they would say that they've told me, and expect that was good enough.

I'm not suggesting we don't need process; I'm suggesting the processes should support what is needed to get done, not the existence of the organizations of those that run them.  What this means is that when someone says they need something, the process responds with "ok, we'll help you define what that is, and then work with you to deliver that."

However, as most things, wishing for what should be won't make it so.  Maybe what is missing in the conversation is how and why did the procurement system end up like it is?  Is it a reluctance to take risk within the procurement system?  Is that reluctance supported by not understanding that inefficient ptocurement processes are probably creating opertional and tactical risk?  Human behaviour would say the reason organizations are behaving how they are is because they are being rewarded to do so; what is that reward and do we have any means of changing it?

I don't have any answers to those questions; I'm sure there are lots of people who might have some insight though...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Dec 2018)

How I would start my draft of pistol contract:

Only pistols accepted into service of NATO Ally for their general service pistol in the last 15 years will be considered
Each pistol supplied in a plastic lockable case with 5 mags, cleaning rod and instruction manual in French/English.
Order may consist of a single purchase of 25,000 pistols or yearly purchases of batches of 5,000 up to a total of 25,000
Pistols to be be delivered on this date XXXX or if in batches on this date XXXX of every year following the awarding of the contract.
In addition to the pistols the contract will include the following:
One Level 2 holster per pistol capable of being attached by the following method, XXXX 20,000 in OD green and 5,000 in Coyote Brown. Holsters to be delivered with the pistols. 
One Dual magazine pouch per pistol with protective flap capable of being attached by the following method, XXXX 20,000 in OD green and 5,000 in Coyote Brown. Holsters to be delivered with the pistols.
500 spare barrels, 1,000 spare parts kits, 200 armourers tool kits, 1,000 spare magazines, 200 armourers manuals
Training team to train up to 200 armourers to instructor level. Training to commence 6 months after awarding of the contract at the places and times of DND choosing.

Competition will be awarded based on combination of price, availability and support for the product.


----------



## Navy_Pete (19 Dec 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I was talking to a guy a couple of weeks ago who was in a fairly senior role in GM until he quit and changed his career/ life. I asked him why he left and he said 'the bureaucracy was awful. I couldn't get anything done.' The CAF, it seems, is in good company.
> 
> Here's an interesting article from a private sector guy. I'd say alot of these principles apply anywhere:
> 
> ...



That's key.  I hate the system, but realized a long time ago I can't fight city hall.  I try and learn how to get things done within it, while volunteering suggestions for improvement at every town hall, survey, etc.

Got lucky though and got to see learn under a group with 15-20+ years of experience each.  They knew what worked, where the grey was, and how to bash the square peg through when needed.  People like that need to be given the chance to mentor, but we do smart things like overwork them (so they don't have time to mentor) and not bring in any replacements until after they retire (even if we know they are leaving in a few years).

Some of those key jobs you really need a stable civvy to have that knowledge; it's okay to mix in some military folks but some of these positions need far longer than a posting to build up the contacts/experience required to get the job done.


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Dec 2018)

Processes should not be the end: it is a mean to an end.  

Often, organizations will pride themselves in following a process to a T but the end result is atrocious.  I see processes as guidelines that should be adhered to:  when the process gets in the way to a successful result, it should be accepted (and encouraged) to navigate around the process, with proper justification.


----------



## blacktriangle (19 Dec 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Processes should not be the end: it is a mean to an end.
> 
> Often, organizations will pride themselves in following a process to a T but the end result is atrocious.  I see processes as guidelines that should be adhered to:  when the process gets in the way to a successful result, it should be accepted (and encouraged) to navigate around the process, with proper justification.



Hey Max, 

Let's say you or one of your guys/gals went down in enemy territory. Wouldn't you rather have something akin to a C8?


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Dec 2018)

Honestly?  I don’t think my 1 weapon of any kind will make a difference against a section or platoon. I would rather invest in capabilities that will prevent this from happening in the first place.


----------



## blacktriangle (19 Dec 2018)

For sure, and I want that for you guys too. 

I'm thinking more along the lines of going down on the first couple rotos of IMPACT etc. I remember reading that some US pilots are now starting to get modified carbines as part of their survival kits. I know you're probably screwed regardless, but I think they owe our servicemen and women a fighting chance.


----------



## Haggis (20 Dec 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Often, organizations will pride themselves in following a process to a T but the end result is atrocious.  I see processes as guidelines that should be adhered to:  when the process gets in the way to a successful result, it should be accepted (and encouraged) to navigate around the process, with proper justification.


 In procurement and other activities through which public money is spent, the process is often constrained by laws and regulations making workarounds illegal.  Unfortunately, the adherence to process is what protects people from prosecution regardless of the outcome of the process.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 Dec 2018)

True enough, Haggis. 

But here's the rub: Governments by a political party that has a clear majority in Parliament can change laws as easily as you can change a diaper (yeah! It does stink just the same, but can and sometimes has to be done  ;D). So if the process as constrained by law doesn't work, then change the damn process by introducing a bill in parliament and pushing it through to fix what's wrong with the damn thing. But don't blame it on being somehow "constrained" by law.

Reality is that various governments did not change the process in the past because they like that process and the useless civil service work associated with it and the capacity for pork barrelling.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Dec 2018)

Very true, i have seen and experienced major policy shift caused by re-writing Act (which are currently getting rewritten and likely again when the government changes) People tend to think law is written in stone, it's not and can be changed with political will.


----------



## Navy_Pete (20 Dec 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Processes should not be the end: it is a mean to an end.
> 
> Often, organizations will pride themselves in following a process to a T but the end result is atrocious.  I see processes as guidelines that should be adhered to:  when the process gets in the way to a successful result, it should be accepted (and encouraged) to navigate around the process, with proper justification.



The process actually has a number of workarounds built in, but needs you to do some work to properly justify that it, with a lot of latitude built in for real emergencies. But it also takes the approach that 'your lack of planning doesn't constitute an emergency on my part' so not building in enough time for the bid to be posted, TB approval etc is generally a personal problem.

You have to know it really well to understand what you can do and when, as well the willingness to take on some risk at times to get things done. You can't figure out where all the grey is without a fair bit of experience though, so frequent postings in/out are real problems.

Having said that, writing impossible RFPs, trying to single source things that fail the test, putting in clauses that make companies not want to bid and all kinds of other things that can happen on our end that are completely our own fault, but are blamed on the system.  It can be a challenge to get things contracted to start with, but we frequently make a dogs breakfast of it in the drafting phase, so take peoples' complaints about the procurement system with a grain of salt.

Most of what we do is actually policy driven (vice legislation) so you don't even need to go through parliament.  It flows down from TB/PSPC/DND policy, which in my experience is a lot less transparent than legislation and has more politics involved to get changed.  Goes back to little internal empires and my desire for some (figurative) Genghis Khan style oversight/streamlining on the procurement process.  The general concept is actually pretty straightforward, it's all the many layers of overlapping oversight and hoops to jump through, where far too many people with no skin in the game have the ability to say no or maybe later. There are also far too many middlemen in the process that do nothing but review/reword as gatekeepers, so by the time a submission gets to TBS, it says different things than the original draft (and not necessarily accurate).


----------

