Canadian Military/Defence procurement process (Mega Thread)

[Sub_Guy]

OTTAWA -- Two-thirds of the Canadian military's Hercules aircraft are effectively grounded and the expanding reserve force can't fly aboard the rest because of soaring liability costs, says a defence think-tank.

Yet replacing the Hercules, the backbone of the air transport fleet, and other badly needed equipment is years off because the military lacks expertise and efficient procurement practices, says the Conference of Defence Associations.

"At present, the department has inadequate numbers and expertise . . . to execute the existing capital acquisition plan," the association said in a report to the Commons defence committee.

"Existing approaches to military acquisitions and a dearth of project expertise lead to the troubling conclusion that transformation of the Canadian Forces . . . would not be possible before the year 2020."

The conclusions come as the all-party committee prepares to release a report on military procurement Monday. The panel is expected to say defence purchasing is weighed down in politics and inefficiency.

On Tuesday, the government is to release its international policy review, including a major defence policy statement that says Ottawa must "assure" access to long-and mid-range air transport.

The Hercules is the military's workhorse, its primary means of heavy air transport, but 19 of 32 were built in the 1960s, the defence association notes.

"For all intents and purposes, DND has grounded two-thirds of the Hercules tactical airlift fleet," the report says.

"The remaining aircraft are not allowed to transport reservists, given that the dangers and liability costs are unacceptably high."

Air Canada has decided to sell its passenger-and freight-configured 747B Combi aircraft, the association says, so "the government has virtually no credible air transport capability at its disposal."

The report alludes to "the pressures a politician would endure during a national disaster as the Armed Forces tender a contract for airlift or wait for allied assistance."

February's federal budget set aside money for trucks, medium-lift helicopters and Arctic airplanes, while new mobile-gun systems are also on the way.

But the bulk of military purchasing for ships, transport aircraft and other equipment is yet to come. The policy statement to be released on Tuesday promises a document in coming months detailing a major spending program.

The conference report says the Defence Department has got to pull up its socks if it's going to see the program to its effective conclusion.

"In the last six months, those responsible for advancing capital acquisition projects have missed 90 per cent of their milestones," says the report.

"When that staff was twice its current size, it took 15 years to process major acquisitions."

The Commons panel is expected to conclude that four years of political delays imposed by ex-prime minister Jean Chretien contributed to deterioration of the used submarine fleet Canada acquired from Britain in the 1990s.
An October fire aboard one of those boats, HMCS Chicoutimi, claimed the life of a navy lieutenant.

Many of the purchasing problems lie in government procurement rules.

During the tender process for the 1980s purchase of CF-18 fighter jets, only 25 per cent of the specifications focused on the military's technical and operational requirements for the aircraft.

Three-quarters of the data the government released to bidders related to industrial benefits, offsets, job creation and technology transfer.

The conference warns that if existing public administration practices at DND don't change, "a long period of dormancy awaits many military capabilities.

"As a consequence, some of these capabilities may be lost."

In a recent speech, Defence Minister Bill Graham agreed on the need to streamline military purchasing, saying it must be made a priority.

 

[Sub_Guy]

I highly doubt anyone will be surprised by this.  At least they are starting to recognize a problem, I certainly hope that we start to turn our military around right now as we are wasting time.

 

[KevinB]

I hate to break it to people but I've seen reservists stepping off Hercs in Afghan  ;D

I'd be insulted if I coudl get on a plane a a reservist was too valuable to lose on...


The entire Cdn acquisition process amazes me, we would be better off acting like leaches on US acquistions

 

[Sub_Guy]

Look at Australia they have a good procurement policy.  Their military seems to have everything going in the right direction.

 

[kilekaldar]

This guy would love to see us wait 10 to 20 years for new kit that our allies have been using successfully for years, all in the name of fair bidding process.


Sun NEWS Column

By Greg Weston



Today's tour of the federal funny farm takes us to National Defence headquarters, where the generals have concocted a truly novel battle plan to end political meddling in the bidding for huge military contracts.

Get rid of the bidding.

Sources tell us the defence department has drafted a detailed plan to buy up to $10 billion of new aircraft over the coming decade, an expenditure just slightly less than this year's entire military budget.

If all goes to plan, the biggest procurement program in Canadian history would include not a single competitive bid. Instead, the generals would simply pick the planes they fancy, the government would hand out the contracts, and taxpayers would be stuck with the tab.

No muss. No fuss. No bids to rig.

Sources tell us this all-in-one mega-deal, unaffectionately known as the "Four-Pack," includes about 20 Chinook helicopters and 15 Italian-made planes for search-and-rescue; a dozen Hercules and two giant Antonovs for transport.

Industry insiders say they expect Defence Minister Bill Graham will take the proposal to cabinet as early as next month, and that it already has a tentative nod from the prime minister.

Given this government's apparently incurable attention deficit for fiscal prudence, the generals may well smoke this one past the politicians.

Smooth move

In the realm of bureaucratic efficiency, of course, the plan is pure genius. Paul Martin has long promised to clean up the military procurement process after the purchase of new helicopters became a monument to bureaucratic bungling and political bid-rigging.

In that debacle, the feds took over a decade just to design the bidding process for the new choppers.

Get rid of bidding, get rid of the problem.

After the contract was finally awarded to the foreign makers of the Cormorant, Jean Chretien's government cancelled the deal in 1993 as an election stunt.

The Liberals then spent the entire next decade in office trying to rig the bidding process to ensure Cormorant didn't win again.

Without competitive bids, Oncle Jean could have settled the whole deal over golf at a Shawinigan inn.

When the Martin bunch took office promising to do things differently, they weren't kidding.

Instead of trying to rig the outcome of the troublesome helicopter bidding, they got rid of the bidders.

Firm flying high

Last year, the helicopter contract was awarded to the American-made Sikorsky when all of the other contenders were disqualified after a decade in the running. Lawsuits to follow.

What all this obviously taught the generals and geniuses in Martin's regime is that so much expense and political embarrassment can be avoided by avoiding competitive bidding.

Instead, under the plan now heading for cabinet, some general would have picked up the phone and bought the 38 helicopters.

The proposed defence department shopping plan is no doubt a huge hit with Canada's new top general, Rick Hillier, a no-guff man of action who would probably be happiest if he could buy squadrons of planes over the Internet.

Of course, all brilliance has its critics.

Gordon O'Connor, the Conservative defence critic and a former soldier himself, says: "The problem is once you start abandoning the competitive process, you have no guarantee you're getting the best price.

"And how do you know you're getting the most effective, efficient piece of equipment?"

Details. Details.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letters to the editor should be sent to feedback@ott.sunpub.com.

 

[onecat]

Its a good try by DND to stop the madness of delayed bids.  But I have a feeling this will only end in waste just like the current process.  In fact there couuld be more because there would be no way of knowing how much pressure the gov't is putting DND to pick certian kit.  An eg would be MGS, the liberals are mad for this... and even after the US pulled out because its junk... that's not stopping them from buying them.. and 66 for 600 million they way over price.

Here's my idea on how to solve the problem.. link the CF so closely with the US armed forces that just just wnat ever they are using  from the same contactors and at the same price. ;D  Would this work better,  whio knows it would have to be tested out but at least we get better kit.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I mentioned this a few weeks ago in commenting on a Globe and Mail article by Don Martin - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32944/post-262361.html#msg262361

For those who forgot their secret decoder rings:

"¢ In "Sources tell us the defence department has drafted a detailed plan ...",  'Sources' = Ernie Regehr of Project Plowshares or 'communications' staffers from e.g. Health Canada or DIAND which will not get to waste $10 billion more if DND gets it;

"¢ In " Sources tell us this all-in-one mega-deal, unaffectionately known as the "Four-Pack," includes ...", 'Sources' = lobbyist for Bombardier or 'communications' staffers for PWGSC/Services Canada which will not get to hire even more idle staffers to spend DND's money; and

"¢ In " Industry insiders say they expect Defence Minister Bill Graham ...", 'Industry insiders' = more lobbyists.

Gordon O'Connor, like Greg Weston has changed trades: he's now a stenographer, taking dictation from the hacks, flacks and bagmen in Ottawa.

The defence staff has said it needs - now - C-130 Hercules aircraft and CH-47 Chinook helicopters in order to maintain standardization with allies and to use American Cooperative Logistics support to keep life cycle costs down.  (Capital costs are a fairly minor concern when buying aircraft - it is the life cycle costs (operations and maintenance) which really matter, and do the damage to budgets a generation down the road.  (Many journalists have no idea about this because many journalists are incredibly ill-informed - but they 'inform' Canadians anyway.))  If O'Connor thinks that we can do better, right now, with some other tactical transporters then let him say so; I think he banged his head on the closed hatch a few too many times.

The SAR and strategic transporters should, by all means, be purchased in the normal, quasi-corrupt competitive manner but the Hercs and Chinooks should be bought sole source by a new Defence Procurement Agency which should be required to do the job at ½ the cost normally 'charged' by PWGSC, in ½ the time, and still show a profit.

The 'Sources' and 'Industry insiders' have launched their counter-offensive.  They want $12 billion in new defence spending - so long as way, way too much of it goes into their pockets rather than into the pockets of the people who build and sell good hardware.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Edward:  Amen and well said.

This is becoming a trend isn't it?  First Martin's name-calling and innuendo, now Weston's ill-researched article.  It will be interesting to watch the hue and cry increase as procurement plans are solidified and as the various interest groups begin to feel left out.  I see that Scott Taylor's already had his two cents worth on the M777 gun buy  :.

On a related subject.  Frankly, I lost it with Conservative defence policy when they proposed putting a battalion in Goose Bay, merely to gain short-term political points, so put zero stock in what O'Connor has to say - despite his dated military experience.  As with many other things, the Conservatives need to present a well-thought out, credible alternative if they are to criticise effectively.  A knee-jerk visceral reaction isn't helping.  There aren't many realistic alternatives to the C-130J out there and if O'Connor has one, he'd better present it now.

 

[Cloud Cover]

In "Sources tell us the defence department has drafted a detailed plan ...",   'Sources' = Ernie Regehr of Project Plowshares or 'communications' staffers from e.g. Health Canada or DIAND which will not get to waste $10 billion more if DND gets it;

Interesting observation. I was truly unaware that Ecumenical Ernie was now deeply dialed into DND beyond what the odd ATI request or journal article might provide. He's within stray RPG range of me, I must go and talk to him sometime. 

I think that Mr. Westons editorial comments were just that: editorial and shouldn't be taken seriously. They  certainly do not constitute an informed opinion, in my opinion anyway!!

 

 

[Cloud Cover]

This is becoming a trend isn't it?   First Martin's name-calling and innuendo, now Weston's ill-researched article.   It will be interesting to watch the hue and cry increase as procurement plans are solidified and as the various interest groups begin to feel left out.   I see that Scott Taylor's already had his two cents worth on the M777 gun buy  :.

Without reproducing the article or bashing ST [thanks], what in Gods green earth does he see wrong with the new weapon?

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

A tidbit from yesterday's Chronicle-Herald:

Personally, I don't understand how heavy artillery, with or without guided shells fired at a range of 30 kilometres, is going to help combat the Taliban and al-Qaida.

As with the ongoing insurgency in Iraq, the modern battlefield features non-linear guerrilla warfare. Most attacks against coalition forces are in the form of booby traps and sudden "shoot and scoot" ambushes

and

Given that it takes an average of 12 years for our military procurement system to implement any new equipment purchase, it will be some time yet before our troops receive either these guns or the helicopters to move them.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Seen:

I think the first comments were fair, he is admitting that he is a journalist who knows little about the employment of artillery in the latest version of military thinking about winning the fight in A'Stan. Perhaps someone could fill him in.


The second quote about the time lines to fill equipment needs are clearly designed to be sarcastic, and demonstartes that he has not fully informed himself of the facts prior to print. Or, has he?

Cheers.

 

[Infanteer]

Personally, I don't understand how heavy artillery, with or without guided shells fired at a range of 30 kilometres, is going to help combat the Taliban and al-Qaida.

As with the ongoing insurgency in Iraq, the modern battlefield features non-linear guerrilla warfare. Most attacks against coalition forces are in the form of booby traps and sudden "shoot and scoot" ambushes

I have actual video footage of gun and mortar barrages from FOBs in Afghanistan (usually fired in support of guys clearing out the local wilderness or as counterbattery fire against Taliban mortars and rockets).   Having a base means a big red target - high tech arty acts as an instant "reach out and touch somebody" for that base.

As for Iraq, all Mr Taylor has to do is open up the last couple years of the Marine Corps Gazette - the arty is there and it gets used.

Ubique.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Ubique.

LOL

Well then, lets make it easy for the lad: do you have a link to the gazzette?

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I have actual video footage of gun and mortar barrages from FOBs in Afghanistan (usually fired in support of guys clearing out the local wilderness or as counterbattery fire against Taliban mortars and rockets).  Having a base means a big red target - high tech arty acts as an instant "reach out and touch somebody" for that base.

Exactly, which is why the first batch of guns is being procured on an accellerated timeline - for that very purpose.  As for the lift, it has been stated in public that we'll be piggy-backing on US and Dutch lift, at least for the short to mid-term until the buy that started this thread gets the aviation side sorted out.

All of this is public domain and a little research by the people involved could have avoided the creation of a lot of angst and hyperbole.  Then again, perhaps that's the objective... :-\

 

[Infanteer]

As to the original article - I can't figure out if he is in support of or opposed to the direct buy; his rhetoric seems to bash all of it.  But the last part caught my eye:

Gordon O'Connor, the Conservative defence critic and a former soldier himself, says: "The problem is once you start abandoning the competitive process, you have no guarantee you're getting the best price.

"And how do you know you're getting the most effective, efficient piece of equipment?"

Details. Details.

1.  Gordon O'Connor hasn't said anything right in my opinion - he has single-handedly managed to convince me that the Conservatives will be no better for Canada than the Liberals.  A pox on both their houses.

2.  And how do we know we'll get the best equipment?  Look at General Hillier's CV - when you have 30 years of TI, served in Yugo, Afghanistan and as a 2ic of a US Army Corps you aren't just some layman.  Same as the people backing the good General.  How is the political process supposed to enlighten what we already know?!?   The military, through the CDS, has advised the government on what it feels is best for National Defence.   Kudos to the Martin government, if this goes through, for putting the country's needs ahead of politics.

3.  Details, Details.  Yeah, I'd say the most important detail is the monumental increase in CF operational capability.  Isn't that a detail?

O'Connor (and, I think, the author of this piece) are yakking here - they criticize the problem, but offer no solutions at all.  "If you ain't part of the solution, you are part of the problem".  I personally don't see any issue with streamlining the defence aquisition process in order to ensure we don't get saddled with a Ross Rifle, a LSVW, or a 20 year wait for maritime 'copters....  :tsktsk:

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

2.  And how do we know we'll get the best equipment?  Look at General Hillier's CV - when you have 30 years of TI, served in Yugo, Afghanistan and as a 2ic of a US Army Corps you aren't just some layman.  Same as the people backing the good General.  How is the political process supposed to enlighten what we already know?!?  The military, through the CDS, has advised the government on what it feels is best for National Defence.  Kudos to the Martin government, if this goes through, for putting the countries needs ahead of politics.

Very good point and I had been thinking much the same, although such thinking is incomprehensible to the commentators.  For perhaps the first time in my recollection, we have a military leadership that can say - hand on heart - "I want this piece of equipment because I've used it and it's the thing for the job at hand."

If we know that "X" is a great piece of kit, that it's in service with our major allies, that it can be supported cheaply through collaborative arrangements, and that it fills a firm operational requirement, what is the problem with a sole-source accellerated procurement?  It is the job of the military to state what it requires to perform its job, regardless of political considerations and "competitive processes".  If the government of the day doesn't agree, that's their perogative and they can direct - for political reasons - a different procedure.  However, if they do so, they must accept the consequences of deciding to ignore a recommendation - with all that means.

As it stands, I am hoping against hope that the government doesn't buckle to the demands of the "commentators" and their somewhat suspect agendas.  Keep your fingers crossed.

 

[McG]

"you have no guarantee you're getting the best price."      "And how do you know you're getting the most effective, efficient piece of equipment?"

Is "best price" always compatible with "most effective"?  .... and, when you can only go to a single source for new CC-130 or Chinooks, there is not much shopping around left to do.

 

[Gunnerlove]

Used with prudence it could allow us to ride on others R&D budgets.

It could also allow senior brass to pave their way to cushy consulting jobs with defence contractors as is often the case down South. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Used with prudence it could allow us to ride on others R&D budgets.

It could also allow senior brass to pave their way to cushy consulting jobs with defence contractors as is often the case down South. 

Senior officers here in Canada - from CDS on down - already move into well paid consulting jobs, sometimes with a year pf 'cooling-off' in the USA.  Nothing new there - but a few less politicians (remember Jean-Jacques Blais?) might make the same trek if we did our procurement in a more effective and efficient manner, and almost anything which does not involve PWGSC is bound to be more effective and efficient.