Alan Williams Makes Procurement Suggestion
- Thread starter Kirkhill
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 6,243
- Points
- 1,260
See: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49914/post-456710.html#msg456710
With all due respect to Mr. Williams (and he is a very smart fellow) even the PM cannot prevent or forbid inter-departmental turf wars - not for long, anyway. The cumbersome, indeed broken system we use now is, essentially, the excellent one put in place by C.D. Howe, circa 1942. The problems are:
• Nearly 65 years have passed and with each of them we have had less and less urgency for procurement and more and more requirements (government requirements) to get more and more benefits from each defence dollar spent. Getting real ‘bang for the buck’ is DND’s problem;
• Bureaucracies are, naturally, competitive and imperialistic – Mr. Williams is quite correct that there are too many competing departments and agencies but it is not clear to me that the PM can – or would want to – put a stop to that and keep it stopped. Supply & Services Canada (or whatever it is called this year) is the main culprit;
• Canadians are accustomed to the (entirely mistaken) idea that there really are regional and industrial benefits and offsets. Many politicians are, like their constituents, stupid enough to believe this, too. This is where Industry Canada enters the fray; and
• DND is a ‘whipping boy’ for every social-engineering programme and quota which comes down the pike so we have, usually, a half dozen or more departments and agencies looking over the shoulder of the project team.
I didn’t even mention the Treasury Board which can put up new, exciting hurdles for each and every project.
I remain convinced that the only way to break the cycle – and I agree it must be broken - is to create an arm’s length corporation to buy unique, operational military systems and equipment.
With all due respect to Mr. Williams (and he is a very smart fellow) even the PM cannot prevent or forbid inter-departmental turf wars - not for long, anyway. The cumbersome, indeed broken system we use now is, essentially, the excellent one put in place by C.D. Howe, circa 1942. The problems are:
• Nearly 65 years have passed and with each of them we have had less and less urgency for procurement and more and more requirements (government requirements) to get more and more benefits from each defence dollar spent. Getting real ‘bang for the buck’ is DND’s problem;
• Bureaucracies are, naturally, competitive and imperialistic – Mr. Williams is quite correct that there are too many competing departments and agencies but it is not clear to me that the PM can – or would want to – put a stop to that and keep it stopped. Supply & Services Canada (or whatever it is called this year) is the main culprit;
• Canadians are accustomed to the (entirely mistaken) idea that there really are regional and industrial benefits and offsets. Many politicians are, like their constituents, stupid enough to believe this, too. This is where Industry Canada enters the fray; and
• DND is a ‘whipping boy’ for every social-engineering programme and quota which comes down the pike so we have, usually, a half dozen or more departments and agencies looking over the shoulder of the project team.
I didn’t even mention the Treasury Board which can put up new, exciting hurdles for each and every project.
I remain convinced that the only way to break the cycle – and I agree it must be broken - is to create an arm’s length corporation to buy unique, operational military systems and equipment.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
It is the same in all government departments, not just DND.... Public Works and Government Services Canada is the procurement/contracting agency for all government departments for the most part, with a few exceptions Defence Construction Canada comes to mind. DND does the leg work discovering the actual requirements/SOW, etc and then issues a request for PWGSC to procure according to the requirements. (Having dealt with the process' while in service and after the fact on the civilian side) Just an attempt to clarify some of the mysteries of the procurement process.
Cheers
Rod
Cheers
Rod
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,354
- Points
- 1,040
It may be the same for all govt departments BUT IT SHOULDN'T BE !!! 
Soldiers, sailors and Airman have unique requirements that they place there lives on the line relying on the equipment.
Interesting that defence construction canada is exempt from this schmozzle. :rage:
Soldiers, sailors and Airman have unique requirements that they place there lives on the line relying on the equipment. Interesting that defence construction canada is exempt from this schmozzle. :rage:
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 410
I recall, years ago, during one of the interminable briefings on the seemingly endless development process for TCCCS, hearing the project officer brief that all the various Govt Depts were having a look at the project in terms of what was in it for them. Just to show how far this went, Indian Affairs wanted to know what was in TCCCS for First Nations people.
Sorry, Mr Williams: nine years is far too long. That would have been too long for WWII (by three years) and is certainly too long for today. We have recently shown that certain items can be purchased very quickly (M777 howitzer). All we need to do is extend that process (whatever it was...) to any other vital operational purchases. At the same time, we should not abuse it by trying to fast track every purchase in DND: that would just clog the system and undercut our argument.
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
The fact that 9-years is an acceptable turnaround time for ANY department shows just how brutally inefficient our bureaucracy is.
Mr Harper, it's time to clean up more than DND.
Matthew.
Mr Harper, it's time to clean up more than DND.
Matthew.
- Reaction score
- 6,243
- Points
- 1,260
When I served in DLR (before many of you were even born) we quesstimated five to seven years from Statement of Requirement (SOR) to initial delivery. That was, in my experience, a pretty good number and it held for e.g. the CP-140 long range patrol aircraft and the Cougar direct fire support vehicle.
When what became TCCCS was conceived it was called ACCS 85 – Army Command and Control System 1985. The ‘sponsor’ – then Col (later LGen) Jim Fox, then Director of Army Plans (or something like that) – proposed a larger project, including a computer based digital C2 ‘system’ and the requisite, integrated, digital signalling system. That was in the mid/late ‘70s, say 1975 for simplicity. By 1985 ACCS 85 was dead and a smaller, communications only TCCCS project was on ADM(Mat)’s desk with projected initial delivery in about 1990 – money was approved. I believe TCCCS initial delivery actually occurred in about 1995 – is that right? The point is that during the ‘80s and ‘90s we, civil and military leaders and bureaucrats alike – stretched the planned procurement timeframe from five to 20 years!
I advocate a corporate and, more important arm’s length (from cabinet/caucus) procurement agency such as exists, more or less, in Australia - http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/index.cfm . The DMO is accountable to parliament and is (as all crown corporations ought to be in Canada) audited by their equivalent to our Auditor General but it, like the UK’s Defence Procurement Agency - http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/MicroSite/DPA/WhatWeDo/ - is not under the control of the MND and cabinet; it has a board of directors who have responsibilities for its governance which protect the process from political interference and pork barrelling. I must point out that the UK backed away, in about 2000, from my really preferred model because defence procurement is too big, too important to be managed in a fair, efficient and effective manner. Government’s cannot bring themselves to be businesslike in the doing the people’s business. In fairness, some deeper integration (with the MOD) was required – for legal liability reasons, perhaps? – to integrate military people into the corporate structure.
When what became TCCCS was conceived it was called ACCS 85 – Army Command and Control System 1985. The ‘sponsor’ – then Col (later LGen) Jim Fox, then Director of Army Plans (or something like that) – proposed a larger project, including a computer based digital C2 ‘system’ and the requisite, integrated, digital signalling system. That was in the mid/late ‘70s, say 1975 for simplicity. By 1985 ACCS 85 was dead and a smaller, communications only TCCCS project was on ADM(Mat)’s desk with projected initial delivery in about 1990 – money was approved. I believe TCCCS initial delivery actually occurred in about 1995 – is that right? The point is that during the ‘80s and ‘90s we, civil and military leaders and bureaucrats alike – stretched the planned procurement timeframe from five to 20 years!
I advocate a corporate and, more important arm’s length (from cabinet/caucus) procurement agency such as exists, more or less, in Australia - http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/index.cfm . The DMO is accountable to parliament and is (as all crown corporations ought to be in Canada) audited by their equivalent to our Auditor General but it, like the UK’s Defence Procurement Agency - http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/MicroSite/DPA/WhatWeDo/ - is not under the control of the MND and cabinet; it has a board of directors who have responsibilities for its governance which protect the process from political interference and pork barrelling. I must point out that the UK backed away, in about 2000, from my really preferred model because defence procurement is too big, too important to be managed in a fair, efficient and effective manner. Government’s cannot bring themselves to be businesslike in the doing the people’s business. In fairness, some deeper integration (with the MOD) was required – for legal liability reasons, perhaps? – to integrate military people into the corporate structure.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Dealing with Govt at any time can be daunting. In this life, as opposed to my cadpat life, I have spent many weekends and evenings nuancing an RFP to fit the exact specifcations.
tlg You're surprised at two departments? As PBI pointed out many departments can get involved. And it's not just that a department is monolithic, it is not unusual for offices, bureaus and other sub units to end up at the table on a fairly simple matter, each one of course bringing their own slant to the project, each one capable of torpedoing a deal if they don't like what they see.
I had a friend who used to remark sardonically that DND was the finest bureaucracy that 1945 could ever have produced, too bad it had reached perfection and ceased to evolve. But such is the nature of bureaucracies. As Mr Campbell pointed out above the system is/was a very good one, after all CD Howe designed it.
I am sure this will end up on the front page of the Toronto Star sooner rather than later. A furor will erupt.
But let's be careful. To be sure, a lot of fackery is involved, but remember, these departments are spending huge sums of money, and implementing incredibly complex systems, sometimes 'go slow' is the best course of action. Yes, fastballs are required and the M777 is a prime example of using the fastball methodology.
The system probably needs tweaking, but expecting to be able to buy tanks and trucks by the hundreds or thousands over the course of a few months is not realistic. Is there stupidity, yup, but checks and balances ensure the dollar is well spent, and they take time to navigate..
We should careful not to rant on this. Like I say I've spent a lot of time trying to fulfil conditions on govt RFP's, I've made a fair amount of cash in the end when judged to be the winner, and as a taxpayer I'm content with that. ;D
Having said that, I think an arm's length agency, given 'marching orders' from important stake-holder departments is a reasonable evolution. For heaven's sake let's keep the deal by deal, project by project elements as far away from the cabinet table as possible. I would rather some faceless bureaucrat with twenty years experience nuancing a billion dollar deal than an MND (who may have been a druggist in Moose Jaw two years ago) nuancing it. Bureaucrats are professionals, give them a streamlined structure to work in and it will get done. Not a great deal of need to drop the standards or element or steps in the process.
A lot of people talk about rushing off to raise new battalions, IMHO, given the neglect of DND in the last 30 years or so, we would be better off to renovate these sorts of foundational issues than rushing off to raise a lot of new units or buy new gucci kit (quite a separate set of issues from tailoring existing units to a new world or replacing worn out kit mind you....)
After all isn't that what Mr Williams is saying?
Refine not revolutionize.
tlg You're surprised at two departments? As PBI pointed out many departments can get involved. And it's not just that a department is monolithic, it is not unusual for offices, bureaus and other sub units to end up at the table on a fairly simple matter, each one of course bringing their own slant to the project, each one capable of torpedoing a deal if they don't like what they see.
I had a friend who used to remark sardonically that DND was the finest bureaucracy that 1945 could ever have produced, too bad it had reached perfection and ceased to evolve. But such is the nature of bureaucracies. As Mr Campbell pointed out above the system is/was a very good one, after all CD Howe designed it.
I am sure this will end up on the front page of the Toronto Star sooner rather than later. A furor will erupt.
But let's be careful. To be sure, a lot of fackery is involved, but remember, these departments are spending huge sums of money, and implementing incredibly complex systems, sometimes 'go slow' is the best course of action. Yes, fastballs are required and the M777 is a prime example of using the fastball methodology.
The system probably needs tweaking, but expecting to be able to buy tanks and trucks by the hundreds or thousands over the course of a few months is not realistic. Is there stupidity, yup, but checks and balances ensure the dollar is well spent, and they take time to navigate..
We should careful not to rant on this. Like I say I've spent a lot of time trying to fulfil conditions on govt RFP's, I've made a fair amount of cash in the end when judged to be the winner, and as a taxpayer I'm content with that. ;D
Having said that, I think an arm's length agency, given 'marching orders' from important stake-holder departments is a reasonable evolution. For heaven's sake let's keep the deal by deal, project by project elements as far away from the cabinet table as possible. I would rather some faceless bureaucrat with twenty years experience nuancing a billion dollar deal than an MND (who may have been a druggist in Moose Jaw two years ago) nuancing it. Bureaucrats are professionals, give them a streamlined structure to work in and it will get done. Not a great deal of need to drop the standards or element or steps in the process.
A lot of people talk about rushing off to raise new battalions, IMHO, given the neglect of DND in the last 30 years or so, we would be better off to renovate these sorts of foundational issues than rushing off to raise a lot of new units or buy new gucci kit (quite a separate set of issues from tailoring existing units to a new world or replacing worn out kit mind you....)
After all isn't that what Mr Williams is saying?
Refine not revolutionize.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
geo's point is an interesting one.
Take for example the Dutch. A quick look at www.hazegray.org shows us the following
Nice even progression. Logical structure. About one ship a year.
Four destroyers, twelve frigates (haven't included the older L and Standard frigates here), four subs, AOR's, an LPD, minehunters.
How come we can't do that?
Take for example the Dutch. A quick look at www.hazegray.org shows us the following
- F805 Evertsen (De Zeven Provincien AD Destroyer) 2005 building
- F804 De Ruyter (De Zeven Provincien AD Destroyer) 2004 building
- F803 Tromp (De Zeven Provincien AD Destroyer) 2003 building
- F802 De Zeven Provincien (De Zeven Provincien AD Destroyer) 4/2002 Trials
- L 800 Rotterdam (Amphib Transport Dock) 1998
- F 828 Van Speijk (M Class frigate) 1995
- A 836 Amsterdam (AOR) 1995
- F 833 Van Nes (M Class frigate) 1994
- F 834 Van Galen (M Class frigate) 1994
- F 831 Van Amstel (M Class frigate) 1993
- F 832 Abraham Van Der Hulst (M Class frigate) 1993
- F 830 Tjerk Hiddes (M Class frigate) 1992
- F 827 Karel Doorman (M Class frigate) 1991
- F 829 Willem Van Der Zaan (M Class frigate) 1991
Nice even progression. Logical structure. About one ship a year.
Four destroyers, twelve frigates (haven't included the older L and Standard frigates here), four subs, AOR's, an LPD, minehunters.
How come we can't do that?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
No doubt it's been mentioned elsewhere, but I believe it bears repeating here that some of the best gear we are using out here in Afghanistan where short notice purchases, like the m777, RG-31 and the off the civi shelf AN/PRC 117F Tac Sat.
Some of the biggest POS gear I've personnaly used was the LSVW, and the TCCCS(which works only as advertised in a static climate controlled enviroment). The tragic sagas of both these procurements has been covered elsewhere.
Questions arise, such as what is so broken about our system that a rapid, bureaucracy circumventing aquirement produces such great gear when the 'proper' official and slow way gives us junk.
And what is being done to fix this, if anything.
Some of the biggest POS gear I've personnaly used was the LSVW, and the TCCCS(which works only as advertised in a static climate controlled enviroment). The tragic sagas of both these procurements has been covered elsewhere.
Questions arise, such as what is so broken about our system that a rapid, bureaucracy circumventing aquirement produces such great gear when the 'proper' official and slow way gives us junk.
And what is being done to fix this, if anything.
- Reaction score
- 10,616
- Points
- 1,160
Perhaps there is a difference between buying a single 1 Billion dollar ship, 1000 Million dollar vehicles and 1Billion 1 dollar rounds?
And still a greater difference if we are only talking about 100 vehicles at 100,000 dollars?
And still a greater difference if we are only talking about 100 vehicles at 100,000 dollars?
- Reaction score
- 35,146
- Points
- 1,090
It's easy to buy off the shelf, when the needs are immediately identified. "Let's get a towed 155 gun" isn't that difficult to translate into a signed contract. It's harder to look out several years, figure out what will be needed (both at that time and for several years or decades beyond), translate that into a statement of requirements for something that may not exist... and then have regional economic benefits become the driving factor (LSVW) or see currency fluctuations all but bankrupt the provider (TCCCS). Or have regimental politics influence the allocation of equipment (R22eR must get the same as RCR who must get the same as PPCLI). And then consider personnel - training and possible establishment changes to man the new equipment. And infrastructure to accommodate and train with it. And spares. And... all the other things that should be considered so the equipment will be usable, both immediately and in the long term.
The new kit coming online through UORs has no lifecycle plan; minimal spares; minimal training stocks; no infra plan for it back in Canada; no training plan... It looks good, but there's no concept of support. Fine for meeting short-term needs; but we'd be better off if we planned ahead.
The new kit coming online through UORs has no lifecycle plan; minimal spares; minimal training stocks; no infra plan for it back in Canada; no training plan... It looks good, but there's no concept of support. Fine for meeting short-term needs; but we'd be better off if we planned ahead.
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 410
biggest problem is always (ALWAYS) an economic issue of "economic benefits" to the various areas of the Country. When you make decisions by commitee and take 9 years to bring on line, "that's what you're going to get" When you buy "off the shelf" there are no economic benefits to the constituency UNLESS you have had some forethought and encourage our manufacturers to maintain R&D AND production facilities operating year after year.
We never buy one single ship - we buy em by the bunch.... so why not build em one at a time, one every year (or every other year). Between the building and refits, we could support a shipbuilding industry on both coasts........... IMHO
We never buy one single ship - we buy em by the bunch.... so why not build em one at a time, one every year (or every other year). Between the building and refits, we could support a shipbuilding industry on both coasts........... IMHO
- Reaction score
- 10,616
- Points
- 1,160
Agreed. Now can you get governments for the next twenty-five years to agree to adhere to a common policy? Also, are we williing to wait 9 to 15 years to build domestic production capability that can supply a new combat capability?
We should have a long-term commitment to ship building but we don't.
We should be able to build ships domestically to meet Canada's needs but we aren't.
(To drag this a little further on to the ship building topic it has occured to me that Canada's international freight requirements suggest that Canada needs to create a vessel that doesn't exist - one that is a combination bulk carrier and either RoRo or Container ship. We currently have vehicles and containers delivered from Asia that either continue on their merry way around the globe or else return empty to Asia to pick up more supplies. Meanwhile we bring in bulk ships in ballast to send them back to Asia full of coal, sulphur, ore, wheat etc. I couldn't help but wonder if their wasn't a place for Canada to build its own ships that can carry bulk loads below and containers as deck cargo or even as hold cargo. Then they could bring full containers in with our computers and return with coal and empty containers.) Mods - separate to another thread if this gains traction.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
geo said:
What you say is true, I now work in the marine industry on the west coast, the only problem with your idea of laying a keel on a yearly basis is getting the manpower to man the ships.... Currently the navy cannot fully man the ships they have.... Hence Huron being mothballed and then decommissioned.
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 410
Rodahn, you're looking at it from a now perspective......
DDHs are coming up to term & so are the support ships - all in allm that could account for new keels for the next 5 years and the laying up of the old girls..... Then there is the refit & later replacement of Frigattes and Maritime / Coast guard patrol vessels....
DDHs are coming up to term & so are the support ships - all in allm that could account for new keels for the next 5 years and the laying up of the old girls..... Then there is the refit & later replacement of Frigattes and Maritime / Coast guard patrol vessels....
Similar threads
