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

Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have long said that you could fund the CAF to 4 percent of GDP, but we would still lag behind in NATO and be much the same where we are.

It's never the money, it's politics. It's procedures. It's the pork-barreling in our defence spending that makes us a paper tiger in NATO.

My only hope in all of this for the CAF and the GoC, whatever the political stripe that may be, is that it will rouse them out of the "Peace Dividend" slumber. The world has been unstable since 1945. We have used geography, proximity, and association as a Defence Policy ever since. ICBMs don't care how close to the U.S. or how far from Russia/China we are.

Don't give us a dime more, but let us spend money on defence like it matters. The fact we follow the same rules for purchasing a fighter aircraft as we do for buying office furniture for a Service Canada office is disgraceful. Don't treat defense procurement as a stimulus package for Canadian Industry. There I said it.

We spend so much money, time, and effort trying to get that money to stay in Canada; be it by awarding contracts to companies with no capability to produce items without first "retooling" and"developing the production lines", or by hamstringing perfectly competent and competitive bidders by forcing the project to be made in St. Margaret de Poutain de Champignon, QC because the ruling government either lost the seat in the election, or won it with promises.

We spend so much money and staff hours jumping through TBS regulations that are great for other departments, but are terrible for defence procurement. Some items you have to sole source, because there are technologies and capabilities no one else makes. By doing the bid process, you get companies clamoring for a project they can't deliver on, but because they tick the bright boxes on the score sheet....

I truly and honestly belief we need to split from PSPC and legislate that its not beholden to TBS, only to the PBO/PCO. The guiding principles of this new Defence Procurement department should be "Off the shelf, from somewhere else" if there isn't an industry in Canada.

BOOTFORGEN has demonstrated how well we do when we are able to actually get what we need, instead of lining the pockets of a Canadian company that got lucky.

That, but with tanks, fighters, ships, weapons systems....
 
The GOC publicly announced an RFI process in Feb 2022 that detailed the requirements for a replacement aircraft in great detail including some HLMRs (high level mandatory requirements). I assure you, none of those HLMRs are “made up” so the P-8 was selected.

If no other interested parties submitted a response to the RFI that met the HLMRs, having a bid process would be nothing more than a waste of time; time the fleet can’t really afford to piss away.

Here’s a link to the RFI, look to Sect 5 for timelines and the Annexes for HLMR.


I’d also draw your attention to Annex C; MOTS was not the only option being considered during the OA phase.

View attachment 81877


RFI is simply a request for information that is one item that can be used in the early stages of the process to help determine if sole sourcing is the best option. IAW with the PAMs "The Request for Information and Letter of interest documents must clearly indicate that the request is not a solicitation and that there are no commitments with respect to future purchases or contracts."

Vendors don't even have to respond to an RFI to enter a bid when it goes out for solicitation. Purchasers still need to do their homework to show that another vendor couldn't and wouldn't fill the contract needs when it goes out for bids. McDonald's may not respond to an RFI for burgers but they can certainly produce a hundred burgers with ketchup mustard and onions if it went out to bid so still has to be considered. Sole sourcing to Wendy's simply based on RFI alone wouldn't stand the test.

Basically it is a "we are thinking of maybe purchasing something along this line and am wondering if you have something in mind that you might submit if we actually put out a bid process. Oh and feel free to give any advice on what we are considering, changes that we may want and how we should actually do this"

Directly from the RFI:

"Participation in this RFI is encouraged, but is not mandatory. Respondents should note that this RFI is not a pre-selection process and that there will be no short-listing of potential suppliers for the purposes of undertaking any future work as a result of this RFI."

I am sure the GOC is concerned about not pissing time away on a bid process. Oh wait, that is one of the supposed reasons the initial contract for 35's was cancelled, it was sole sourced instead of put out for bid. Maybe that will happen again after the next election or even before if enough pressure is used and appears the way to save much needed votes in Ontario and Quebec.

I hope that all these purchases do go through if they actually are what the military needs. I am not even trying to determine what is needed as I have no knowledge of that and will trust others with the knowledge. I simply don't trust the government, regardless of who it is, when it comes to the military until things are actually delivered and in our hands.
 
Usually there is a RFI, consultation with industry, then a RFP (sometime a draft RFP then more input from Industry then the actual RFP), but other times Governments can conduct a market survey and award via JNA for Sole Source.

I believe CMMA had an actual RFP with only one bidder.
 
RFI is simply a request for information that is one item that can be used in the early stages of the process to help determine if sole sourcing is the best option. IAW with the PAMs "The Request for Information and Letter of interest documents must clearly indicate that the request is not a solicitation and that there are no commitments with respect to future purchases or contracts."

Vendors don't even have to respond to an RFI to enter a bid when it goes out for solicitation. Purchasers still need to do their homework to show that another vendor couldn't and wouldn't fill the contract needs when it goes out for bids. McDonald's may not respond to an RFI for burgers but they can certainly produce a hundred burgers with ketchup mustard and onions if it went out to bid so still has to be considered. Sole sourcing to Wendy's simply based on RFI alone wouldn't stand the test.

Basically it is a "we are thinking of maybe purchasing something along this line and am wondering if you have something in mind that you might submit if we actually put out a bid process. Oh and feel free to give any advice on what we are considering, changes that we may want and how we should actually do this"

Directly from the RFI:

"Participation in this RFI is encouraged, but is not mandatory. Respondents should note that this RFI is not a pre-selection process and that there will be no short-listing of potential suppliers for the purposes of undertaking any future work as a result of this RFI."

I am sure the GOC is concerned about not pissing time away on a bid process. Oh wait, that is one of the supposed reasons the initial contract for 35's was cancelled, it was sole sourced instead of put out for bid. Maybe that will happen again after the next election or even before if enough pressure is used and appears the way to save much needed votes in Ontario and Quebec.

I hope that all these purchases do go through if they actually are what the military needs. I am not even trying to determine what is needed as I have no knowledge of that and will trust others with the knowledge. I simply don't trust the government, regardless of who it is, when it comes to the military until things are actually delivered and in our hands.

RFIs are poorly thought out fishing expeditions where you don't catch anything worthwhile, usually.

If you want to receive some worthwhile responses you need to prove that you've already done your homework related to what you need, backed up by a competitive amount of cash, or you'll get what you pay for: not much.
 
The CMMA RFI detailed the intent and more importantly, requirements/operational capabilities the platform would need.

Ya; that was probably horrible information.

😂
 
add something else coming, Christmas is coming to the CAF


Forge caps for all ranks (again)? New service dress? Removal of approval for beards in army units?

Happy Little Girl GIF by Demic
 
which to me tells me we are sending units that really are not ready to go over sea's are represent our nation. We shouldn't have really good units and really bad ones, thats a leadership failure, and a big one if units aren't ready are being sent instead of being given extra training.
Or maybe, just maybe, different people have different impressions of different groups they work with based on their deployment and the jobs they were doing at the time and individual anecdotes should be taken with healthy grains of salt. Unless it’s about the Spanish who are junk.
 
Or maybe, just maybe, different people have different impressions of different groups they work with based on their deployment and the jobs they were doing at the time and individual anecdotes should be taken with healthy grains of salt. Unless it’s about the Spanish who are junk.
"The guys in the other ship have no idea what they're doing!"
-Every bridgeteam of a ship conducting formation manoeuvres

I imagine the same sort of thoughts come up between battlegroups in the field...
 
RFIs are poorly thought out fishing expeditions where you don't catch anything worthwhile, usually.

If you want to receive some worthwhile responses you need to prove that you've already done your homework related to what you need, backed up by a competitive amount of cash, or you'll get what you pay for: not much.
YMMV; we did a market survey, did an RFI, and then spoke directly with vendors on multiple RFPs and used that to shape the RFP. It is an interesting poker game, and all gets vetted to make sure you aren't unfairly weighing something specifically for one bidder.

Things like scoring criteria, T&Cs etc are all really relevant (especially when ISED was doing the IRB replacement pilot T&Cs).

That was on smaller contracts under $20M, all the way up to big strategic things like AJISS and NSS. If it's a big enough for that market, you will get serious interest and real returns. If you are a small contract relative to the market no one will care and you are better off browsing the company websites and doing market survey yourself on google.

Anyway, a sole source contract award has a notification that goes out anyway where anyone can submit a notice that they could have bid (which can send a sole source back to an RFP), if one of the mandatories is a working aircraft in service with other militaries it's pretty hard for Bombardier to argue they would qualify, and it's a pretty reasonable requirement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top