C20 Semi-aut Sniper System

[Fabius]

True, and I do see strategic value in that, just sometimes the results are unfortunate. At times I think it would be nice for it to be a GoC owned contractor operated facility.
People do seem happy with the C20 overall though which is good.

 

[dapaterson]

GoCo has its own range of problems too. In theory, contractors with right if first refusal have more incentive to seek out additional revenue streams than GoGo or GoCo enterprises.

 

[KevinB]

True, and I do see strategic value in that, just sometimes the results are unfortunate. At times I think it would be nice for it to be a GoC owned contractor operated facility.
People do seem happy with the C20 overall though which is good.

Admittedly when you compare it to an AR-10, you can't do much worse

I am not a fan of private industry, especially foreign private industry, (now in this case CZ, a Czech company), owning ones domestic Arsenal.

I think the way the weapons of the 80's trial was done correctly -- the CAF holds a competition - and the winner is built by the National Arsenal - ideally again a GOC entity. If you don't want it to be a sole GOC entity, then do it the way that we run Lake City ammunition plant, have a competition and the winner runs it for X years, but the government etc owns all the tooling, production and technical Data.

 

[Dale Denton]

This is off topic, but we should be doing the above across the board with hygienic products, PPE, vaccine/medications to munitions, fleets of vehicles to rifles. Canadian workers making licenced and proven designs in Canada.

If Colt Canada or CZ chose to close its doors, it would be prudent to take it over or have a 50% stake in a new venture. A Canadian Naval Group but army-centric.

 

[Navy_Pete]

GoCo has its own range of problems too. In theory, contractors with right if first refusal have more incentive to seek out additional revenue streams than GoGo or GoCo enterprises.

I lack faith that we have actual contract mechanisms to prevent the right of first refusal from being abused (for example, by taking some work on but continually bumping it, or never actually quoting or rejecting the work, preventing it from going elsewhere), or the fortitude to apply them even if they exist. Some GoCo setups are working great, others not so much.

I scream into an internal void of despair every time I hear a PSPC rep talk about 'fair and transparent processes' (or whatever the procurement lingo of the day is) because it seems to proceed capitulating on some kind of contractual right we should be able to exercise. Sure, we just pay for that substandard equipment that doesn't meet the spec because little Jimmy Co says it's fine, no reason why it isn't as good as the much more expensive bid that actually meets the various shock and other Legitimate Operational Requirements we have, or generally accept poor work quality for various political or other non-technical reasons.

Given that DND is theoretically clients of PSPC, drives me crazy we can't fire crappy procurement officers, lawyers etc when they autocratically start taking decisions that directly impact projects that they have no actual responsibility to deliver or be responsible for the schedule or budget. Have only seen it happen once, and was because they added some specific SACC clauses against both the project manager objections and bidder recommendations (from the RFI) and a critical procurement failed because no one would bid on it because of that specific SACC. Cost us millions to scramble to keep things running and had to get an emergency extension to an existing support contract that it was supposed to have replaced. In that case I think it went up to at least the DG level (possibly higher) to get all our work pulled away from that team.