# CAF looking seeks mass clothing distribution expertise



## The Bread Guy (9 Mar 2017)

I stand to be corrected, but ... 

This, from the public tendering site:


> ... This Request for Information is to inform the industry and obtain feedback about the Sustainment Business Case Analysis process that Canada is presently conducting for the replacement of the current Consolidated Clothing Contract (C3) for the Department of National Defence ...


From the Request for Information document (PDF):


> ... The C3 has provided a Managed Clothing Solution (MCS) to DND for the past 20 years. This contract supplies approximately 1,400 items of clothing for over 160,000 military and DND civilian users. This includes clothing items such as Regular and Reserve Force service dress uniforms (for all Environments), occupation-specific clothing items (such as for Firefighters, Military Police and civilian drivers), as well as, clothing for the Canadian Rangers, Junior Rangers and Cadet organizations. The orders are shipped directly to the members and to military Bases’ clothing stores (outlets) within set service schedules.
> 
> The DND achieves benefits from reduced warehousing and inventory handling costs, improved delivery timeframes and increased user satisfaction. The C3 includes design and engineering services which has allowed for the improvement of items on the contract to address evolving requirements. The C3 framework focuses the DND team on its core business and exploits industry’s expertise to optimize the performance of the DND supply chain. This contract has allowed the DND to find efficiencies in its business processes.
> 
> The C3 has been tendered competitively three times since its inception. The current contract, with the option years, will expire on January 31, 2018, at which time Canada has the intention to extend the contract to ensure that military personnel continue to have access to uniforms. This extension will provide Canada with sufficient time to develop a competitive procurement strategy informed by comprehensive industry engagement and the development of a Sustainment Business Case Analysis ...



_- OP edit to better reflect reason why RFI issued -_


----------



## Nfld Sapper (9 Mar 2017)

Looks more like a cya in case there are other players out there...


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Mar 2017)

Hopefully one of those players wins and puts @#$@#ing t-shirts, socks and boxers online. Not a fan of 2 hours waiting in line at clothing to get something that just as easily could be shipped.


----------



## Lightguns (9 Mar 2017)

The share holder must have retired..........


----------



## slayer/raptor (9 Mar 2017)

They're actually doing a full review with the goal of eventually having even CADPAT items (top, bottom) and boots being shipped out through a company LIKE logistik.


----------



## McG (9 Mar 2017)

It is neither the government seeking change, nor a "CYA" thing.  It is the filling of the legal requirement to seek competitive bids before entering into a large contract.  It happens all the time when long term contracts are set to expire and there are no remaining options to extend.  Logisticunicorps may win this again or someone else may win (and it is not uncommon that the "in-place contractor" grows complacent and fails to offer the most competitive proposal).


----------



## dapaterson (9 Mar 2017)

The question of socks, t-shirts and underwear is not the contractor's problem; it's up to DND/CAF to define what the contractor does.  If they aren't in scope, it's not the fault of the contractor...


----------



## MJP (9 Mar 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Hopefully one of those players wins and puts @#$@#ing t-shirts, socks and boxers online. Not a fan of 2 hours waiting in line at clothing to get something that just as easily could be shipped.



Annual entitlement of socks is already ordered online by the end user.  The other  two items aren't in the  contract for the user order side of the house, but they are ordered by clothing stores through Logistik Unicorp, so the stock already exists at LU.  The blame here is us because the contractor is fulfilling their requirements to us.

Also, what dapaterson said!


----------

