Canadian Tire orders inventory early, charters cargo ships to keep shelves stocked

[MJP]

I 100% agree that it is probably a bad idea but that’s not for the LogO or Supply Tech to say no. A bad idea isn’t necessarily an unlawful order, never mind a manifestly unlawful order…

I've always been amused at the amount of people who say things are illegal when they're inherently not so. There may be a rule against it or regulation or some other form of prohibition but it's not illegal generally.

Specialist and advisors that know those rules should tell people. But like you said, if someone with the proper authority doesn't want to follow them all fine and dandy, sign here on the dotted line and carry on.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Absolutely it is. There are rules and regulations around contracting and ones rank or position does not trump TBS and the rules we have to follow.

I'd a CO wants to override the R&R surrounding contracting they are welcome conduct and carry out the contracting process themselves.

Rules and regulations are not necessarily law. Your job, as an advisor, in a case like this is to say “Yes, but here’s what we need to do to get this done,” not “No.” The mere fact that we’re discussing this really emphasize that it is NOT a MANIFESTLY unlawful order. I after advise the order is still to do it, carry on with the order and if it was unlawful, let the CO deal with the consequences.

Early on, I have been taught to say “Yes but” rather than “No.”

 

[Halifax Tar]

I've always been amused at the amount of people who say things are illegal when they're inherently not so. There may be a rule against it or regulation or some other form of prohibition but it's not illegal generally.

Specialist and advisors that know those rules should tell people. But like you said, if someone with the proper authority doesn't want to follow them all fine and dandy, sign here on the dotted line and carry on.

Rules and regulations are not necessarily law.

Misuse of public funds is against the law and ordering such is an unlawful command. I actually had to investigate this in past as a former Div O of mine attempted to order a LS Sup Tech misuse his AQC.

Also, the responsibility for the lawful and ethical conduct of the contracting process is sole responsibility of the contracting authority. Regardless of any attachments which look to take that responsibility.

As I said, and have said, if you wish to circumvent the R&R surrounding contacting and procurement you are welcome to that under your own name and against my advice.

 

[SupersonicMax]

So, unit is deployed on operation as part of ROTO 0, needs refrigerators to be procured and LogO says “no, we can’t.” CO gets angry and orders LogO to take the credit card and buy the refrigerators. LogO buys the refrigerators, against published policies. Should we charge people?

 

[Halifax Tar]

So, unit is deployed on operation as part of ROTO 0, needs refrigerators to be procured and LogO says “no, we can’t.” CO gets angry and orders LogO to take the credit card and buy the refrigerators. LogO buys the refrigerators, against published policies. Should we charge people?

House hold refrigerators say for a section to store water are an NPF item, if they are required for a kitchen/galley they are supplied through the CFSS.

That's what the CO should be told. If the CA disregards the rules they should face the consequences, if that's a charge so be it.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Misuse of public funds is against the law and ordering such is an unlawful command. I actually had to investigate this in past as a former Div O of mine attempted to order a LS Sup Tech misuse his AQC.

Also, the responsibility for the lawful and ethical conduct of the contracting process is sole responsibility of the contracting authority. Regardless of any attachments which look to take that responsibility.

As I said, and have said, if you wish to circumvent the R&R surrounding contacting and procurement you are welcome to that under your own name and against my advice.

HT, some Commanding Officers make dopey decisions. Or not. They are not illegal, necessarily.

The FAM (as much as TB and a bunch of public servants want it to be so) do not and cannot cover every situation. Which is why Commanding Officers exist- to make (and own) decisions where things are grey or no policy exists.

Hell, I have even intentionally broke procurement rules (and probably the FAA, too), myself. But, you had better believe that I had good reason and I weighed the implications and I was more than willing to wear the blowback for my log staff (there was no blowback- everyone up to NDHQ was happy with my decision).

 

[Halifax Tar]

HT, some Commanding Officers make dopey decisions. Or not. They are not illegal, necessarily.

The FAM (as much as TB and a bunch of public servants want it to be so) do not and cannot cover every situation. Which is why Commanding Officers exist- to make (and own) decisions where things are grey or no policy exists.

Hell, I have even intentionally broke procurement rules (and probably the FAA, too), myself. But, you had better believe that I had good reason and I weighed the implications and I was more than willing to wear the blowback for my log staff (there was no blowback- everyone up to NDHQ was happy with my decision).

Yup seen it a million times. Our procurement and contracting rules and regulations get broken all they time. For just as many reasons. And it's wrong.

As for the legality of the contracting and procurement R&R I will continue to follow the advice and education I recieved from the governing procurement folks in my AOR. You're free to disregard at your pleasure.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Yup seen it a million times. Our procurement and contracting rules and regulations get broken all they time. For just as many reasons. And it's wrong.

As for the legality of the contracting and procurement R&R I will continue to follow the advice and education I recieved from the governing procurement folks in my AOR. You're free to disregard at your pleasure.

No- I am free to disregard at my risk.

Commanding Officers own risk. Not the Log staff. You misunderstand your role in the chain.

 

[Halifax Tar]

No- I am free to disregard at my risk.

Commanding Officers own risk. Not the Log staff. You misunderstand your role in the chain.

Negative. I know exactly what my role is WRT to contacting, and I know exactly what my DOA and your DOA allows each of us to do and approve. I also know my regulations surrounding use of ACQs and the procurement process.

You cannot order someone to misuse their issued AQC and/or conduct a contract illegally.

If an authority feels strongly enough that that procurement evolution is required even after the Log team has denied it, then the person in that authority should conduct the procurement evolution themselves.

We have a false belief that that email from the CO or Div O ect ect in the file absolves responsibility, it absolutely does not.

And there are times when no is the answer, but most of the time their are alternate methods the fridge example is a good one.

 

[SupersonicMax]

House hold refrigerators say for a section to store water are an NPF item, if they are required for a kitchen/galley they are supplied through the CFSS.

That's what the CO should be told. If the CA disregards the rules they should face the consequences, if that's a charge so be it.

They need the Fridge now to keep in-flight meals fresh for those 6+ hours missions in a combat zone. There is no time to go through the CFSS.

 

[MJP]

Negative. I know exactly what my role is WRT to contacting, and I know exactly what my DOA and your DOA allows each of us to do and approve. I also know my regulations surrounding use of ACQs and the procurement process.

You cannot order someone to misuse their issued AQC and/or conduct a contract illegally.

If an authority feels strongly enough that that procurement evolution is required even after the Log team has denied it, then the person in that authority should conduct the procurement evolution themselves.

We have a false belief that that email from the CO or Div O ect ect in the file absolves responsibility, it absolutely does not.

And there are times when no is the answer, but most of the time their are alternate methods the fridge example is a good one.

Sure those are all good things to have/do but you are missing the fact that SKT is right and commanders can and will assume risk. Breaking some regulations is not manifestly unlawful and should be carried out as ordered.

 

[Halifax Tar]

They need the Fridge now to keep in-flight meals fresh for those 6+ hours missions in a combat zone. There is no time to go through the CFSS.

On board an aircraft ?

Otherwise the meals should be stored in the galley/kitchen until they are issued for consumption. For various in flight feeding security reasons.

As your goal posts continue move, my move would be to reach back to CJOC for approval of the procurement as they are the contracting authority for deployed ops.

 

[SupersonicMax]

On board an aircraft ?

Otherwise the meals should be stored in the galley/kitchen until they are issued for consumption. For various in flight feeding security reasons.

As your goal posts continue move, my move would be to reach back to CJOC for approval of the procurement as they are the contracting authority for deployed ops.

The goal post doesn’t move. The fridges are kitchen-type to be used at the deployed location. That scenario actually happened. CO ordered Log O to buy the fridges. Fridges were bought. No one received disciplinary or admin measures.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The goal post doesn’t move. The fridges are kitchen-type to be used at the deployed location. That scenario actually happened. CO ordered Log O to buy the fridges. Fridges were bought. No one received disciplinary or admin measures.

I have no doubt that happened. And I am willing to bet the Log team did more work in the background that you wouldn't know about to make sure this was on the up and up.

Or as also happens after the fact we're ripped a new one by CJOC.

I continued to deal with contracting/CJOC issues from Fredericton for months, close to year after we came home and left the unit. None of which her former or new CO were aware of.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I have no doubt that happened. And I am willing to bet the Log team did more work in the background that you wouldn't know about to make sure this was on the up and up.

Or as also happens after the fact we're ripped a new one by CJOC.

I continued to deal with contracting/CJOC issues from Fredericton for months, close to year after we came home and left the unit. None of which her former or new CO were aware of.

Isn’t it part of the job?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Isn’t it part of the job?

I assume you mean making sure the procurement was on the up and up, absolutely.

 

[stoker dave]

I don't have much to add to this discussion except that I was trained to be a ship's engineering officer. There were two primary documents that guided operation of the ship's engineering department: one was fleet-wide (Naval Engineering Manual) and the other was ship-specific (Engineering Officer's Technical Instructions - EOTI). The engineering department was obligated to comply with both.

Procurement and installation of ship-board equipment not in accordance with approved procurement and installation methods was strictly forbidden. So, no, someone could not just buy some refrigerators and plug them in somewhere. That may have issues related to overloading circuits, access to something else, fire safety, etc. Configuration management is (or is supposed to be) a big thing. Ad-hoc shipboard modifications are not permitted. They happen, but they are not supposed to.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I don't have much to add to this discussion except that I was trained to be a ship's engineering officer. There were two primary documents that guided operation of the ship's engineering department: one was fleet-wide (Naval Engineering Manual) and the other was ship-specific (Engineering Officer's Technical Instructions - EOTI). The engineering department was obligated to comply with both.

Procurement and installation of ship-board equipment not in accordance with approved procurement and installation methods was strictly forbidden. So, no, someone could not just buy some refrigerators and plug them in somewhere. That may have issues related to overloading circuits, access to something else, fire safety, etc. Configuration management is (or is supposed to be) a big thing. Ad-hoc shipboard modifications are not permitted. They happen, but they are not supposed to.

That was not the point of the fridges but even then, what makes it a MANIFESTLY unlawful order? What law specifically?

 

[stoker dave]

what makes it a MANIFESTLY unlawful order? What law specifically?

My knowledge is pretty stale and may be outdated. I will offer what I can.

As I said above, ship's engineering departments need to comply with Naval Engineering Manual (NEM). I don't have a copy of that. Someone needs to flip that open and look at the first page. My guess is that it is issued on behalf of Director General Maritime Engineering and Maintenance (DGMEM). DGMEM has (presumably) the authority to issue orders and instructions related to naval engineering.

Who gave DGMEM this authority? Well, there has to be something somewhere that says they have the authority and responsibility for the safe engineering and maintenance of the ships. Included in that authority will be the ability to issue orders, instructions, etc. for the fleet to follow.

That's all I can offer. Maybe someone else here can add more.

 

[MJP]

That was not the point of the fridges but even then, what makes it a MANIFESTLY unlawful order? What law specifically?

Indeed, people confuse bad and regulation breaking orders with manifestly unlawful ones. Granted there may nuances as someone may think something is manifestly unlawful when it isn't but in general people have a hard time wrapping their brain around command prerogative.