Canadian Military/Defence procurement process (Mega Thread)

[MilEME09]

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

pretty much, but at least they realized before it was too late the issues and cancelled the remaining of the contract, and now we have the Kerax 8x8 from Mack Defense coming our way this fall. Honestly who orders a military truck that says warranty void if used off road? people that make these contracts don't know what the military needs.

 

[McG]

pretty much, but at least they realized before it was too late the issues and cancelled the remaining of the contract, and now we have the Kerax 8x8 from Mack Defense coming our way this fall.

That is not at all what happened.  The MSVS project was always intended to deliver two types of trucks.  The MSVS MilCOTS and the MSVS SMP versions.  Neither should be replacing the simple to drive little MLVW.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Apologize if this is a repost; couldn't find it anywhere

From the CBC story athttp://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/zodiac-inflatable-boats-procurement-tender-public-services-national-defence-cancelled-1.4220375

Botched procurement delays inflatable boats for military - Politics
Dean Beeby Senior reporter, Parliamentary Bureau


Call it the case of the delayed dinghies.

The Canadian military wants to replace its fleet of inflatable landing craft, which is more than a quarter-century old, with 350 new inflatables designed for rapid deployment of up to a dozen infantry or engineers in each boat.

Public Services and Procurement Canada has flubbed the order twice since last year – and will be trying to place an order for a third time later this year.

The first request for competitive bids was issued May 30, 2016, revised that July, and was cancelled soon after "following questions from industry regarding the performance specifications," says a memo to then Public Services Minister Judy Foote.

The department reissued the tender Nov. 23 and attracted four bidders. One of the bids was eliminated because it didn't meet the technical requirements.

Read through the RFP and all the amendments with the questions (link below).  Looks pretty straightforward, so not sure where it could have gone off the rails.  There was the two step bid process though, which is relatively new.  Sounds like it may have gotten messed up, but not sure why it would have been bad enough to cancel and awarded contract.  Basically it lets you ask bidders that were non-compliant to clarify something in their bid (ie where in the bid does it show you meet requirement x, certificates missing, etc), but it's not something that has been applied across the board, so someone may have made a mistake.  Still, canceling a contract is pretty significant, and I'm assuming if there was nothing that Zodiac had done, they would have been compensated.

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-MC-032-26068

 

[Wookilar]

The SOR is fairly straightforward honestly. I don't know a boat /ship/hole in the ground from any other, but I know how to write specs, and these ones are pretty clear. A few of the questions from potential bidders are good, but as always, some are being a bit...dickish lol (generally due to their not being able to meet one or more of the requirements).

From what I am reading, the SOR was actually well done. It was the selection process at PWGSC that seems to have gone off the rails. I dealt with the office in Moncton the most and have to say I usually had no issues, even with larger (relatively) SOR's similar to this one or even the more complicated SOW's for services.

Any Sappers/SAR Techs/Bosun types with inflatable boat experience have anything to say about the specs?

 

[MarkOttawa]

I suspect CGAI's Dave Perry is rather optimistic about RCN shipbuilding going as planned--and new RCAF fighter is a total balls-up.  Liberals heart just isn't in military except for Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! (as middle-class as possible).  Still lots of good work here:

September 2017
2016 STATUS REPORT ON MAJOR EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT
https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Equipment-Procurement-Perry.pdf

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Of course Stephen Harper's and Conservatives' heart not with military either when procurment push came to budgetary shove, or when fatalities (Afghanistan).  Basically Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! for both parties.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

All of this of course assumes best case scenario sous les circonstances that Canadian gov't (whichever party) will actually provide funds:

Shortage of procurement staff identified as top threat to Liberals' defence plan
'The money is coming, and our feet are being held to the fire to do what we said we could do'

Senior officials at the Department of National Defence are admitting that they will be challenged to make good on the Trudeau government's promise to buy billions of dollars in new military equipment in the coming years.

The top concern? A shortage of staff to manage the dozens of increasingly complex — and risky — projects that have already been or will soon be launched to obtain the equipment that the Canadian Armed Forces needs.

The frank assessment was delivered Thursday at a conference hosted by the Canadian Global Affairs Institute that focused exclusively on the federal government's troubled defence procurement system.

Officials insisted they aren't just determined to deliver on the promises included in the new defence policy, which promised an extra $62 billion over the next 20 years, but that the government expects them to follow through as well.

"Financially, we've been very well resourced through defence policy, and now we have to deliver on it," said Maj.-Gen. Jean-Marc Lanthier, who is responsible for managing National Defence's corporate strategy.

"The money is coming, and our feet are being held to the fire to do what we said we could do."

Efforts are underway to streamline the system and hire hundreds of additional staff, including procurement experts, engineers and technicians, and officials said they are optimistic that they will deliver.

But while National Defence is hiring as fast as possible, numbers alone won't be enough — staff need certain skills and experience to deal with intricate intellectual-property rules and technical requirements.

"Recruiting people is not easy," Andre Fillion, chief of staff within National Defence's procurement section, told the audience, which was comprised of industry representatives, government officials and military officers.

"Our business is not getting easier, it's getting tougher and tougher. As we put together contracts, things like intellectual property, the defence market itself, the technology that we're buying is increasingly complex."

Projects delayed

The department's challenge was highlighted in the federal economic update this week.

The update revealed that the Liberals quietly reduced the amount of fiscal space set aside for new military equipment over the next five years before releasing their defence policy because of delays in several projects [emphasis added].

It's the latest in a string of such delays that have seen billions of dollars in planned defence spending pushed to future years as projects remain snared in the procurement system — or at the whim of politicians.

The government insists the fiscal space, which totals about $382 million, will be available when those projects are actually delivered...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-procurement-delays-staffing-1.4374008

Tee hee.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Keep your eyes open for that bow wave.

 

[Rifleman62]

http://www.canada.com/business/military+procurement+turned+corner+official/15560620/story.html

Military procurement officials hopeful years of troubles finally behind them - LEE BERTHIAUME, THE CANADIAN PRESS NOVEMBER 7, 2017

OTTAWA — For anyone hoping the Liberal government plans to blow up Canada's much-maligned military procurement system, Patrick Finn has some advice: Don't hold your breath.

Finn is the Defence Department official responsible for overseeing the $6-billion-per-year procurement system, which has been criticized far and wide in recent years over a perceived failure to deliver critical military equipment.

The problems have been blamed on poor planning, red tape and internal bickering, which has tied up efforts to buy new aircraft, naval ships and other equipment.

There were expectations that the Liberal government would finally start to unravel the problem with its new defence policy last month, which promised an extra $62 billion for the military over the next 20 years.

But the policy made little mention of the procurement system, even though its proper functioning will be all the more critical if and when the promised new defence spending starts to flow.

Finn, whose official title at National Defence is assistant deputy minister of materiel, believes that after a decade of hard-earned lessons, the system has finally turned a corner.

"Do I think we're on the right path? I do," he said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"Do I think we're at the end of that path? We're not. Do I think we're through all the growing pains? We're not, but we're a lot more mature than we were three, five, eight or 10 years ago."

The reference to 10 years ago is important.

National Defence's materiel section had only a handful of procurement specialists, many of whom were inexperienced, when the Harper Conservatives unveiled their own defence policy in 2008.

Gutted in the 1990s, the section struggled to produce accurate cost estimates and schedules for the billions of dollars in new military equipment the Tories promised.

Finn said many of the problems can be traced back to that shortage of staff and experience, and he acknowledged that having enough skilled personnel remains his top risk.

His 4,200-strong workforce is in the process of adding 300 more staff by the end of next summer, he said, while many of his staff have the hard-earned experience to know what works, and what doesn't.

"The nature of the conversations that we're having compared to 10 years ago, it's kind of exciting because we're really kind of getting into: 'Be careful, we've done this over the years,'" Finn said.

Another significant problem was the fact the Conservatives didn't set aside enough money for their policy, which led to a merry-go-round of trying to match available funding to the military's needs.

Finn is hopeful that the Liberals' defence policy, which the government says has been rigorously costed by six accounting firms, will finally fix that problem by acknowledging the real cost of different gear.

One example: while the Conservatives said 15 warships would cost $26 billion, the Liberals say the actual price tag will be closer to $60 billion — the same number as reported by the parliamentary budget officer.

Many critics of the military procurement system, including some of those who held Finn's position before him, have also lamented what they see as an onerous amount of red tape and lack of accountability.

The reason is that while the ultimate purpose of the system is to buy the gear the military needs, there are other interests as well, notably the desire to maximize economic benefits and competition. That means heavy involvement in the system by two other federal departments: Economic Development Canada and Public Services and Procurement Canada.

Critics of the system have repeatedly asked the government to create one single department responsible for all military procurement. Finn said that isn't on the radar right now.

"Are we going to fundamentally change the authorities of ministers or are we going to smash it all together? Not at this point," he said.

"And I would caution to anybody: Be very careful. Because even just smashing that all together is probably going to distract us for a year or two while this kind of stuff sits on the back burner."

Finn's optimism will soon be put to the test. The Liberal defence policy promises to spend tens of billions of dollars on 50 major military equipment purchases over the next 20 years.

Those include the long-delayed purchase of new fighter jets and warships that are expensive, complex and politically sensitive, but absolutely necessary if Canada is to have a modern military.

Finn noted many other projects previously tied up in the system are moving ahead or being delivered, such as new armoured vehicles for the army, Arctic patrol ships for the navy, and search-and-rescue planes.

"It's up to us now," he said of his unit. "The government has done their part to kind of sign up to this, and we're very seized departmentally." (?)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We are likely to have more Procurement Specialists, than Infantry at this rate......

 

[Kirkhill]

We are likely to have more Procurement Specialists, than Infantry at this rate......

You say that like it is a bad thing.

Here's a thought.  Enrol all those procurement specialists in the Reserves as infantry.  Twofer - and they might think twice about the functionality of what they are buying.

 

[dapaterson]

The infantry (Reg & Res) is roughly 4x the size of the Material group's civilian workforce.  That workforce includes (mostly) technicians & tradespeople at maintenance facilities, life cycle materiel managers, procurement specialists, and admin personnel.


And your slur against the professionalism of procurement staff says far more about you than about them.  If equipment doesn't meet the need, that's the fault of those who define the specifications, not those who purchase what the specifications require.

 

[Kirkhill]

The infantry (Reg & Res) is roughly 4x the size of the Material group's civilian workforce.  That workforce includes (mostly) technicians & tradespeople at maintenance facilities, life cycle materiel managers, procurement specialists, and admin personnel.


And your slur against the professionalism of procurement staff says far more about you than about them.  If equipment doesn't meet the need, that's the fault of those who define the specifications, not those who purchase what the specifications require.

My apologies.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The infantry (Reg & Res) is roughly 4x the size of the Material group's civilian workforce.  That workforce includes (mostly) technicians & tradespeople at maintenance facilities, life cycle materiel managers, procurement specialists, and admin personnel.


And your slur against the professionalism of procurement staff says far more about you than about them.  If equipment doesn't meet the need, that's the fault of those who define the specifications, not those who purchase what the specifications require.

Almost every Coast Guard ship since the mid 80's has had stability problems and a few before that. We have been unable to buy trucks, boots, clothing. We have multiple piss poor database systems within government. It's not just a DND thing. Procurement government wide is generally terrible with far fewer success stories then failures. I wish I could say better, but they have not as a group earned it. 

 

[Good2Golf]

#onestopshoppingdoesntalwayswork

 

[MarkOttawa]

Tweet by CPAC:

CPAC‏Verified account @CPAC_TV

Tonight on #PrimeTimePolitics 8pmET /5pmPT: We continue our "Big 5" series.
How has the bureaucracy reacted to efforts at reforming the military procurement process? Carla Qualtrough: “It takes a little bit of movement. It takes a little bit of pushing.”
https://twitter.com/CPAC_TV/status/959170221826244608

Program is already online!
http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/primetime-politics/episodes/58773619

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Good2Golf]

Tweet by CPAC:

Program is already online!
http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/primetime-politics/episodes/58773619

Mark
Ottawa

By continually adding more steps to the Defence Procurement Strategy...that'll speed things up.  I wonder if Minister Qualtrough will address any of Dave Perry's concerns about the growing burden of the Defence Procurement framework itself?

Regards
G2G

 

[Kirkhill]

By continually adding more steps to the Defence Procurement Strategy...that'll speed things up.  I wonder if Minister Qualtrough will address any of Dave Perry's concerns about the growing burden of the Defence Procurement framework itself?

Regards
G2G

Hey, it's working for pipelines, refineries and LNG stations.... Isn't it?

 

[MarkOttawa]

CPAC interview--procurement min Qualto says Canada cannot choose and have new fighter delivered (one now in production) in much under 10 years.  About the time of our two world wars.  Hurl, upchuck at this balderdash.

Also very telling that in all the procurement talk on the show by min Qualtro, experts and other pols there was zero discussion of what missions/roles the equipment is for and what capabilities are needed for future.  All about process not product for real purposes.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[jollyjacktar]

As Mel Brooks said in Blazing Saddles. "Gentlemen, we have to protect our phony baloney jobs".