• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Defence spending run amok: Report

Slim

Army.ca Veteran
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Defence spending run amok: Report

BY DEAN BEEBY
CANADIAN PRESS


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...607&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968705899037

OTTAWA â ” A new review of multimillion-dollar contracts at the National Defence Department is raising red flags about out-of-control spending for more than two-dozen projects.

The report was triggered in part by a $146-million fraud uncovered last year in which the department paid phoney invoices during a 10-year period. The RCMP is investigating the scandal involving Compaq Computer Corp., later bought by Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co., which is reimbursing the money.

Two large maintenance deals for weapons systems also showed problems â ” National Defence will not provide details â ” prompting the broad review of 258 service contracts each worth more than $1 million.

The review, begun last August, has uncovered widespread contract irregularities worth tens of millions of dollars.

For example, auditors identified 15 major service contracts where the suppliers billed the department by at least 10 per cent above the appropriate amount â ” or about $35 million in total.

"Numerous reports of profit excesses, unauthorized additional work," "unsupported contractors cost," and "no proper accounting records for recording costs," were typical findings.

The audits either rejected the inflated invoices or required the contractors to reimburse the money.

The review authors also flagged four other contracts â ” worth between $10 million and $48 million â ” where costs spiralled by up to double the agreed amount.

"Poorly defined job descriptions that appear inflated," said one analysis. "Insufficient evidence to support payment for software upgrade deliverables," said another.

The January 2004 report is highly critical of the department's ability to adequately police its own contracts, citing shoddy information systems and a lack of high-level monitoring of potential problems.

"We've had a downsizing (of National Defence personnel) over a number of years in the department so there are fewer people available to manage the contracts," Chris Currie, one of the officials involved in the review, said in an interview.

"So that's been one of the problem areas."

In the end, the review â ” intended only as a preliminary survey â ” identified 25 high-risk contracts that will receive detailed audits during the next months.

The review has also spawned at least two other broad examinations of potential contract irregularities, one focused on goods procurement and another on medical contracts.

Both reports are in draft form, and Currie would neither release them nor discuss their contents.

One issue to be examined in subsequent audit work will be sole-sourcing, in which contracts are signed with a single supplier without a competitive process that can keep costs low.

The review found that 44 per cent of the 258 high-value contracts were sole-sourced, and that about 20 per cent of all 12,000 Defence Department contracts currently active were let without inviting competing bids.

Currie said some weapons systems are proprietary so that their purchase and servicing can be carried out only through a single supplier. But auditors will examine whether sole-sourcing levels are still too high, he said.

A former National Defence employee who now works for the Canadian Defence Industry Association says the department is more prone than others to contract fraud.

"It's a large organization with a lot of procurement," said Norbert Cyr, vice-president of media relations for the industry group.

"There are very few departments in government that have that size of discretionary spending."

Cyr added that downsizing over the years has made the department more vulnerable to fraud.

"There were more people available in the past, in project offices, to do oversight type duties," he said.

Trusted individuals within the department are most often responsible for fraud, he added.
 
The last line of that article is something we have long known.
 
I've always thought that someone with a business degree and a background in the military should run that sort of stuff.   If this was a business it would have gone bankrupt 100 times over.
 
"We've had a downsizing (of National Defence personnel) over a number of years in the department so there are fewer people available to manage the contracts," Chris Currie, one of the officials involved in the review, said in an interview.

Nice deflection.  Maybe they should stop with the public servant duplicity of military positions and get busy doing something they are trained for.  Unbelievable.
 
Makes you wonder, eh CFL?

A question to those familiar with RMC on the site here, can you not study business or commerce at RMC? Wouldn't that, CFL, be an answer to your question? A suitable person to manage the finances?
 
I see your new to the army Tebo.  If you are in fact an officer cadet you'll be changed soon enough. ;).

scott1nsh I was thinking more along the lines of someone that runs a fortune 500 company that has a smick with the land of the army. 

An officer with a business degree would be a start though (although who knows if those kind of graduates already work there).
 
Couldn't agree with CFL more
 
Not that new.  Continual acceptance of wrong doings only makes them the status quo - not a process I will partake in.  I'll continue to be angry, bide my time and one day make a difference and/or get booted out.  Thankfully, I can find some dignitiy in such a path.

Infantry Officer w/ Engineering Degree.  Who knows.
 
Education, training and experience are nice ... but not worth a pinch of raccoon's poop if somebody is corrupt.  Here endeth the sermon.

I beseech you to be careful what captains of Horse you choose, what men be mounted: a few honest men are better than numbers ... If you choose honest godly men to be captains of Horse, honest men will follow them ... I had rather have a plain russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than that which you call a gentleman and is nothing else.
Oliver Cromwell: Letter to Sir William Springe, September 1643
 
Boy you sound like a Cpl not a bat boy, I mean officer cadet. :)  You go, me need more guys at the top that don't care if they step on a few toes.
 
I think that moreso we need to "hold feet to the fire", that is make these guys take responsibility for their mis spending, etc. if it is as simple as that which I highly doubt.

CFL, sounds like you are reading my mind with your latest post!!!!
 
In regard's to DND contract's we just have to check which with in said companies are Ex. Snr retired Officer's. >:(
Our System is the same as the State's when it come's to pay off's in regard's to defence contract's! >:(
Retired Snr. Officer's!! :sniper: >:(

Yet we on the ground pay for it in the long run.
 
The problem with making them responsible is that its politicians in the ruling parties that tend to f things up such as the helicopters, LSVW's, not accepting kit from the US without the contract to build the spare parts in Canada etc.  Therefore the politicians rarely roast themselves.
 
Howdy all,

I'm not gonna touch the Canex topic as it's a no win situation.

I also believe that anyone that has more than 5 years in the CF knowsthe Military pays twice to three times as much for everthing they buy. It's only not very often that the public sees the cost over runs (Clothes the soldier). When will that end 3030???

We'd be so much better off if we had a Lee Iacocca at the budget helm or Ron Bridon (formerly of the Ottawa Senators).

:cdn:
 
Or a huge benefactor like the Sens have now!! What's his name? That's what we need!!

Cheers
 
Back
Top