Canadian Military/Defence procurement process (Mega Thread)

[ballz]

Australian Defence Procurement Policy Manual (DPPM).

Thanks.

Not required. There is no shortage of analyses (and outright, but informed, rants) on causes and solutions.

One of the better ones is available via Amazon.ca for as little a $7.69: 
Kim Richard Nossal, Charlie Foxtrot: Fixing Defence Procurement in Canada  (2016).

Knowing and addressing what's wrong has never been the problem;  the stumbling block has persistently been...... well, go to the Amazon site, click on LOOK INSIDE!, and read the available parts of the conclusion (p.166-169).  You'll see that it's nothing new. 

What is required is the government of the day -- regardless of party  -- to make hard decisions, accepting that some constituencies will be unhappy. 

And good luck getting that to happen.


Fine print:  The author is a friend;  I did not, however, get paid for recommending this book. 

Thanks. I'll be picking that up.

 

[Kirkhill]

USMC "short-circuiting" the system - Apparently joining the US Army and the USAF.

Marines stand up rapid capabilities office

By: Mark Pomerleau, January 23, 2017

The Marine Corps is following in the footsteps of the Air Force and Army before it, though more subtly, in establishing a rapid capabilities office, C4ISRNET has learned.

Officially launched in December of 2016 and housed at the Warfighting Lab at Quantico, Virginia, the new office was created to “accelerate prototyping, demonstration, experimentation, and limited equipping of emerging capabilities.” The ultimate goal is increasing the operating force’s survivability and lethality as well as informing future force requirements and investment planning, officials said in a statement. “The Marine Corps RCO seeks to reduce the time between requirement identification and delivery of warfighting capabilities to the operating forces.”

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Robert Neller “directed the establishment of the Marine Corps Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO) to accelerate the identification, assessment and development of emergent capabilities that will inform future requirements and enterprise investment planning for the acquisition process,” Masco Settles, the RCO’s deputy director, told C4ISRNET via email. The office’s initial mission set will include unmanned logistics transport platforms, sea-based expeditionary fires and ship-to-shore maneuver exploration and experimentation (S2ME2), Settles added.

The Army RCO, which was unveiled in a much more public fashion by outgoing secretary Eric Fanning in August, is currently focusing on delivering the ability to operate in electronic warfare-contested or GPS-denied environments, as well as trying to accelerate the Army’s capabilities in cyber.

In line with other similar efforts across the joint force, the Marine RCO will have a prototyping component. “The RCO will lead and build collaborative partnerships with a variety of organizations in the joint, naval, Marine Corps and commercial sectors to maximize resources and to provide venues to rapidly conduct operational assessments of relevant capability prototypes,” Settles said.

The RCO will draw upon several other Marine Corps and DoD components such as Marine Corps Systems Command, Department of Defense Joint Test and Evaluation Program, Defense Innovation Unit-Experimental, Strategic Capabilities Office, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity, Program Executive Office Land Systems and Marine Corps Special Operations Command.

Moreover, the RCO has been chartered in partnership with the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, Test & Evaluation and the Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration to lead the S2ME2 task force. This task force will look to improve on how Naval forces conduct future amphibious operations in contested littoral operating environments.

Officials have previously expressed how unmanned technologies can assist in amphibious assault challenges, acting as the first wave off a ship.

The Marines are planning for a technical assessment in April 2017 at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California, followed by an operational assessment in the Fall of 2017 at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, for the task force.

Settles noted the RCO will have acquisition and funding authorities leveraging strategic partnerships and legal authorities as to allow it to learn through rapid prototyping assessments, all to enhance equipping the force in a timely and efficient manner.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Very cutting commentary and not the least bit unfair, to be frank.  Shared under the fair dealing provisions of the copyright act.

John Robson: We defeated the Nazis in less time than it takes to order a combat knapsack
John Robson | March 7, 2017 11:26 AM ET
Aha! Progress at last on the fighter plane file. At least progress as defined in the public sector. And they get away with it because they wear us down.

According to Monday’s National Post, “The Liberal government plans to request bids for a new fleet of fighter jets as early as 2019.” Hey, that’s only about two years. Whoosh. Talk about supersonic. Finally.

Until you realize they’re promising to take two years to ask people to send them tentative descriptions of something they might eventually build if the government eventually says yes to it. Realistically, we might get whatever emerges from this process when? In the next decade? The next century? After the next election?

There’s the rub. Politically speaking, the announcement is perfectly timed. It tends to neutralize criticism of the Liberals for (a) pledging an open competition with a predetermined outcome; (b) doing nothing while our armed forces fall to rusty bits; and (c) recklessly wasting money.

Remember this story? “The Conservative government will be able to go into the next federal election saying it is delivering on its shipbuilding plan, although the program faces delays and increased budgets.” (Ottawa Citizen, January 2015.) Plus ca change.

The Liberals may still be rigging the competition, doing nothing useful and wasting money, of course. Even on the costly “interim” Super Hornets of limited military value, the Post says “the government expects a deal in place by the end of 2017 or early 2018”.

Again, it sounds brisk and businesslike until you realize they plan to take about a year to sign off on already-chosen “off-the-shelf” airplanes in service since … wait for it… a long time … 1999. What exactly are we pondering?

Don’t say up-to-date interoperable avionics. The Australian Air Force flies dozens of Super Hornets and the U.S. Navy has literally hundreds. They probably have modern computers in them.

I sometimes wonder if anybody in our Department of National Defence knows the Second World War took just under six years from the invasion of Poland to the surrender of Japan, from cavalry and biplanes to jet fighters and nuclear bombs. In that time Canada went from six obsolete tanks and soldiers manoeuvring with sticks going “Bang” at one another to the fourth-most powerful nation in the world.

The First World War only took four and a quarter years, from the invasion of Belgium to the armistice/surrender of November 1918, and from pilots firing revolvers at one another over cavalry regiments to 200 horsepower fighters with synchronized machine guns above clashing tanks. And progress is far more rapid today; there was no such thing as a “tablet” before 2010 and there’s hardly a child alive in the West today who isn’t more familiar with one than with hopscotch or sunlight.

The problem is, we’re numb by now, after the Sea King saga, those used British subs or three years spent not developing a “combat bra.” In 2004 the Post wrote breathlessly of new military supply ships being “launched in 2015.” Eleven years later, we sometimes rent one from Chile. Yawn.

When our destroyers rusted out, a Navy press release boasted “Royal Canadian Navy Begins Transition to the Future Fleet.” Yeah. Land-based. We also spent almost a dozen years trying to buy military knapsacks and wound up with a “CF Small Pack Load Carriage System.” One shudders to think of the manpower expended on that appalling name alone, never mind the cost premium over off-the-shelf packs people just climb mountains with.

Now you may object that knapsacks and bras are more familiar than “fifth-generation” fighters. True. But this file did not just suddenly land on the desks of interested parties.

The issue of replacing Canada’s aging CF-18 Hornets, in use since 1983, has been on the radar since Chrétien’s first term. Canada first became involved in the “Joint Strike Fighter” program that led to the F-35 in 1997, 20 years ago. About as long as it took to get from the First World War to the Second. What on earth does the government not know today about the operational requirements for a new fighter plane, or the capacities of various contenders, that it will know in two years?

Bupkis. Yet according to something called Public Services and Procurement Canada, “Planning for the competition is already underway and we anticipate a request for proposals will be issued in 2019.” Planning for the competition will take as long as from the Fall of France to El Alamein. Or from now to Liberal re-election. Whatever.

What the government really just announced is that the procurement logjam is tentatively planned to break after the next election maybe, a bit, conceptually in the early stages, with superb gear they can’t name at prices they can’t estimate on a timeline they can’t lay out.

Don’t applaud. It just encourages them.

National Post

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-robson-we-defeated-the-nazis-in-less-time-than-it-takes-to-order-a-combat-knapsack

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Folks can say what they want...I like it.  We need more people to say it like it is, and right now *its* usually a bit of a clusterfuck.  There is more GAFF about *everyone completing GBA+!!!!* than there is to things like combat capabilities, operational effectiveness, and other boring topics like that.

All this  :blah: from some of the talking heads now about commitments, deployments 'with real meaning', etc.  Yup, the government is full of great ideas.  Now, try to go into a Wing Clothing supply and get a common size flightsuit.  There aren't any, because there is no money for them.  But, hey, that's not important.  All they do is protect flyers from fire and stuff if the SHTF. 

Now...lets talk army combat boots.  No?  Cyclone helicopters then?  No?  Then let's talk about the next DEU change.  You know...the important stuff for our military.  :

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Clothing that is already standard issue is easy to fix, I see government tossing money at problems all the time. Have the government free up some funds from their magic pots (they do exist) Go back find the old contracts, copy them and re-issue to be filled asap. Makes a wee bit of the problem disappear and pumps money into Canadian businesses. Now for the boots, one would imagine it is easy, but apparently that is beyond them. Find a NATO partner that has good boots, get them to do the contract and ship us the boots and pay them. When the Canadian companies complain, dump buckets of complaints and failed boots in front of the press and say "This is why, you failed again and again". 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Clothing that is already standard issue is easy to fix

okay...how?

Have the government free up some funds from their magic pots (they do exist)

Andddddddddddddddddd...now I see why there is still a shortage of things like flight suits and NCDs, at least IVO my postal code.

 

[Rifleman62]

Want boots for the jungle (Africa)?

US Army unveils new jungle boot, steps up efforts to combat trench foot
Published March 07, 2017 FoxNews.com


These boots are made for walking…in the jungle.

On Monday, the US Army updated plans for its Jungle Combat Boot (JCB), a boot that it hopes will tackle trench foot, among other things.

Traditional issue footwear works well in sand, asphalt and high heat, but falls short in humid, wet conditions, which can lead to trench foot, according to the US Army. And, soldiers on the ground in jungle-like conditions are subjected to obstacles such as vines, which can snag their boots, and sharp objects, that can sideline foot patrols.

The JCB is designed to account for these obstacles by incorporating features that include a low heel to prevent snags and ballistic fabric-like layers under the soldiers’ feet. In addition, the JCB has extra drainage holes for water, an insert for water drainage and speed laces for faster putting on and taking off of the boots. The JCB also contains a lining that helps it to breathe and dry faster, according to the US Army. 

In order to design a useful boot, the US Army said it worked with soldiers.

"We take what soldiers want and need, we boil that down to the salient characteristics, hand that over to our science and technology up at Natick; they work with us and industry, the manufacturing base, to come up with this product," said Capt. Daniel Ferenczy, the assistant product manager for Soldier Clothing and Individual Equipment, on the US Army's website.

Soldiers with the 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii will be the first to test out the JCB prototype, according to the Army. A final version is expected to be authorized to be worn by all soldiers, regardless of the terrain where they are stationed, according to the US Army.

 

[GAP]

Hmmmmm......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungle_boot

In the early years of the Vietnam conflict, some U.S. Army units were equipped with the M-1945 Tropical Combat Boot.[7] In 1965, a boot incorporating most of the improvements developed since the end of World War II for tropical climates was adopted by the U.S. military as the M-1966 Jungle Boot.[1][7] In the improved boot, the upper was made of cotton canvas duck, with leather for the toe and heel, and nylon reinforcements for the neck of the boot.[1][7] The new Jungle boot originally used a Vibram-type lugged composition rubber sole strongly vulcanized to the leather toe and heel.[1][9] Water drains (screened eyelets) were added to the canvas top near the sole to quickly drain water from the inside of the boot.[1] Removable ventilating insoles made of fused layers of Saran plastic screen, first invented in 1942, were issued with the Jungle boot.[1][2]

In May 1966, after numerous widely reported incidents of foot injuries to U.S. forces caused by punji stake traps, issue Jungle boots were fitted with a stainless steel plate inside the boot's sole to protect the wearer from punji stake traps.[7][10][11] Later Jungle boots were given nylon canvas tops in place of cotton duck. The boot was also fitted with other improvements, including the Panama mud-clearing outsole and nylon webbing reinforcement on the uppers.[7] However, Vibram-soled jungle boots continued to be issued to troops into 1969.[7]

 

[Colin Parkinson]

okay...how?

Andddddddddddddddddd...now I see why there is still a shortage of things like flight suits and NCDs, at least IVO my postal code.

If you have a workable standard and experienced suppliers in place who have produced workable clothing, it's fairly easy to reissue such a contract and identify the sizes needed. In this case it's not quality or ability to provide the item, it's the size and frequency of the orders. Every Minister and Cabinet keeps back funds to deal with crisis or unexpected funding opportunities. Identifying some of that funding expressly to fix a shortage of clothing could lead to a rapid filling of the contract. I suspect the current shortages has been budget related as only a portion of the current budget is allocated to fulfilling clothing contracts. Give the people money and a keen interest from the Ministers Office and you be amazed how fast things can happen.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

But the money is the problem.  There isn't any.  I went to get 2 x 2 piece flight suits exchanged...none in my size.  None in my size of 1 piece either.  Hmmmm.  The Sgt I ended up talking to said there is no money, there are none in the system.  I asked if she could maybe try calling the other Wing that is close to me...one of my size there.  They held it for me, but I ended up taking a day off (NWD from the CO) to drive to that Wing, drive back to my own so I could get it tailored.  The guy I spoke to at *other wing Supply* said they have the same problem, there just aren't any and none being made because..there is no money for the contracts for them.  He also said they just shipped 99% of their NCDs to another location because they had a shortage and...sailors need NCDs, its the operational dress.  End state, I ended driving 5ish hours, so that I could have *most* of my kit before leaving on a tasking and I still ended up with a 2 piece flight suit that is too big and a 1 piece flight suit that is too small. 

So...that's what I mean about all the talking heads with their "we will ensure out soldiers have the right orders, kit and  :blah:" standard party line crap messages.  Because the fact is...they can't even supply people with the Basic kit like NCDs and flying suits.  Its all talk, no walk.  I shouldn't have to drive around my province trying to chase down kit that is my basic issue, operational wear.

I'm not supply and can only go off what they say but the basic message was yes, there are none in the system and none coming because there is no money for that right now.  rly:

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Question:  How much red tape would be cut if someone had the balls to eliminate the Industrial Regional Benefit requirements?

That must add 30% or more to the costs of the bidders, and likely the same amount of $ in bureaucracy to assess if bids are IRB compliant....not to mention probably doubling the time requirements to both prep and assess bids.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Just out of curiosity, has the military procurement issue appeared in the PC leadership debates or in any of the platform anone has read?

Just thinking out loud, but the 5-year knapsack example would be a great rallying point for all PC candidates to get behind as a party platform plank. 

It provides a short concise soundbite which is easily picked by media and absorbed by voters.

 

[QM]

Question:  How much red tape would be cut if someone had the balls to eliminate the Industrial Regional Benefit requirements?

That must add 30% or more to the costs of the bidders, and likely the same amount of $ in bureaucracy to assess if bids are IRB compliant....not to mention probably doubling the time requirements to both prep and assess bids.

For many Canadians (and a good chunk of politicians), jobs for Canadians is the PRIMARY aim of defence procurement. Primary. The suggestion that this is not the case causes many people to assume we are selfish and want the best kit even if it means unemployment for some Canadians. Seriously. The idea of spending billions of dollars of Canadian taxpayer money outside Canada is a non starter. The current requirement that all projects valued at over $100 million MUST have the full value of the contract spent in Canada simply won't go away. Politicians of both major parties know that removing or watering down that requirement gives the opposition parties a blank cheque to fire for effect.

ps. your assumption that getting rid of ITBs (they are called Industrial Technical Benefits now) would speed up and simplify the process is 100% correct. And it's not just cost, it's complexity and time. We ask manufacturers to transplant their finely tuned production and supply chains into Canada. They aren't set up to do that. They have refined and optimized their manufacturing process in their home nation, and we make them tear it down and do much of the work in Canada, using materiels, suppliers, and companies they don't normally work with, at enormous expense as you identify, and at great cost to their efficiency, quality and speed of execution.

But alas, we aren't here to fight. We are here to provide jobs for Canadian industry. Sigh.

 

[Quirky]

For many Canadians (and a good chunk of politicians), jobs for Canadians is the PRIMARY aim of defence procurement. Primary. The suggestion that this is not the case causes many people to assume we are selfish and want the best kit even if it means unemployment for some Canadians. Seriously. The idea of spending billions of dollars of Canadian taxpayer money outside Canada is a non starter. The current requirement that all projects valued at over $100 million MUST have the full value of the contract spent in Canada simply won't go away. Politicians of both major parties know that removing or watering down that requirement gives the opposition parties a blank cheque to fire for effect.

ps. your assumption that getting rid of ITBs (they are called Industrial Technical Benefits now) would speed up and simplify the process is 100% correct. And it's not just cost, it's complexity and time. We ask manufacturers to transplant their finely tuned production and supply chains into Canada. They aren't set up to do that. They have refined and optimized their manufacturing process in their home nation, and we make them tear it down and do much of the work in Canada, using materiels, suppliers, and companies they don't normally work with, at enormous expense as you identify, and at great cost to their efficiency, quality and speed of execution.

But alas, we aren't here to fight. We are here to provide jobs for Canadian industry. Sigh.

This makes me wonder why companies bother making bids at all. Canada seems like a giant pain in the ass to sell things to. Canadian companies need to make better products, it's from boots to planes.

 

[jmt18325]

This makes me wonder why companies bother making bids at all.

Because there's obviously still a profit to be made.  They wouldn't do it otherwise.

 

[MilEME09]

Because there's obviously still a profit to be made.  They wouldn't do it otherwise.

True but take ship building and the CSC for example, the Italians have said they have issues with the system and might not bid, now imagine if everyone walked away? how big of a political football would that become?

 

[jmt18325]

True but take ship building and the CSC for example, the Italians have said they have issues with the system and might not bid, now imagine if everyone walked away? how big of a political football would that become?

It would be quite a thing.  Everyone won't be walking away though.

 

[Good2Golf]

It would be quite a thing.  Everyone won't be walking away though.

True.

There is money to be made in defence, however, no one should doubt that.  If someone is 'telegraphing' that they may not bid, perhaps there are other factors at play with such an organization.  Not sure why soccer players' reactions to 'grave injuries' comes to mind...

 

[jmt18325]

The Italian request was pretty clear - they wanted to build 3 of the ships.  Whatever your feelings on the NSS, it was also very clear.  They shouldn't waste their time bidding if they don't like the rules.

 

[Kirkhill]

Isn't that how we ended up with the Navstar MilCOTS MSVS?  Only one company bid?