New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
- Thread starter GAP
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Let's back-up for a second.
Unfortunately I haven't followed the run up to this as closely as I should have, but perhaps someone could shed some light on this.
If I understand it correctly, there are 2 contracts to be bid for, one for new combat vessels, one for icebreakers and a support ship, and possibly a third for smaller vessels. Now, the three shipyards (or lead groups) are bidding each contract separately, knowing that they will get one of the two big contracts, or possibly the smaller third contract as a consolation prize, with the other main contract automatically going to the other winning lead group.
Now here is an interesting scenario according to the previous article: is it possible that since only two people in the country may know which group will win on each given contract, and neither knows the result of the other that it could result in one lead group "winning" both? Wouldn't it then come down to the "winner" being given the choice of which contract they would rather have?
Unfortunately I haven't followed the run up to this as closely as I should have, but perhaps someone could shed some light on this.
If I understand it correctly, there are 2 contracts to be bid for, one for new combat vessels, one for icebreakers and a support ship, and possibly a third for smaller vessels. Now, the three shipyards (or lead groups) are bidding each contract separately, knowing that they will get one of the two big contracts, or possibly the smaller third contract as a consolation prize, with the other main contract automatically going to the other winning lead group.
Now here is an interesting scenario according to the previous article: is it possible that since only two people in the country may know which group will win on each given contract, and neither knows the result of the other that it could result in one lead group "winning" both? Wouldn't it then come down to the "winner" being given the choice of which contract they would rather have?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
cupper said:
That is a very interesting scenario! Presumably they would just take the larger of the two. Davey Yards in Quebec isn't even submitting a proposal for the combat ships which means at least one of our coasts is about to get a huge boost financially. My prediction is that Halifax will get the 35b. contract and Vancouver will get the 5b. Coast Guard contract and the Quebec yard will be back into insolvency.
cupper said:
According to the article there is a British consultant evaluating the bids. The consultant must know who they have recommended to win each bid and would not recommend both be awarded to one group. So while it may be true that only two people in Ottawa know, that is only because the results are coordinated externally.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Local lad having some fun with the "ships start here" campaign of Dexter. http://starshipsstarthere.ca/
interesting . . . just read in the morning paper that only two bidders are in the game for the big $25B naval shipbuilding contract - Halifax and Vancouver.
Three bidders, Halifax , Vancouver and Davie have bid on the $8b coast guard contract and there is $2b for other work that all three have bid on.
Three bidders, Halifax , Vancouver and Davie have bid on the $8b coast guard contract and there is $2b for other work that all three have bid on.
online version of the story . . .
"The three bidders are Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax, Seaspan Marine Corp. of B.C. and the Davie Shipyard in Quebec.
Only Irving and Seaspan are competing for the most lucrative part of the contract — $25 billion to construct military vessels over several decades.
All three are bidders for $8 billion in non-military vessels, including a coast guard science ship and an Arctic icebreaker.
The loser will take the relative crumbs — $2 billion for the construction of smaller government ships.
Four senior bureaucrats have been in charge of evaluating the bids, but they are assessing the information on a "blind" basis.
In other words, the documents state that the proposals are coming from "Company A, Company B or Company C," an official said.
Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Federal+government+braces+blowback+shipbuilding+contract/5564082/story.html#ixzz1b8p6HPKj
"
"The three bidders are Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax, Seaspan Marine Corp. of B.C. and the Davie Shipyard in Quebec.
Only Irving and Seaspan are competing for the most lucrative part of the contract — $25 billion to construct military vessels over several decades.
All three are bidders for $8 billion in non-military vessels, including a coast guard science ship and an Arctic icebreaker.
The loser will take the relative crumbs — $2 billion for the construction of smaller government ships.
Four senior bureaucrats have been in charge of evaluating the bids, but they are assessing the information on a "blind" basis.
In other words, the documents state that the proposals are coming from "Company A, Company B or Company C," an official said.
Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Federal+government+braces+blowback+shipbuilding+contract/5564082/story.html#ixzz1b8p6HPKj
"
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,229
- Points
- 1,010
IIRC, the split is not between warships and all other departments ships: It is between "combatants" and "non combatants" - so for instance, the AOR's would be part of the smaller prize, as would the AOPS.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Oldgateboatdriver said:
That's how I understand it too. At least Irving won't be building the new Tankers. Thank god...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
From a recent briefing I was at, I can say according to VA Maddison that the AOPS will be the first combatants build and the Destroyer/frigate replacements after that. The AOPS are in the Combatant grouping.
The tankers will be in the non-combatant grouping and will be the first made at the other shipyard.
At least that was the situation about 3 weeks ago. Things can and do change but i don't think they will be changing due to rough costing estimates.
cheers
The tankers will be in the non-combatant grouping and will be the first made at the other shipyard.
At least that was the situation about 3 weeks ago. Things can and do change but i don't think they will be changing due to rough costing estimates.
cheers
- Reaction score
- 4,172
- Points
- 1,260
$35B Tory ship project hits snag
Article Link
John Ivison, National Post · Oct. 19, 2011
OTTAWA . A $2.6-billion project to design and build two new naval support ships has been thrown into disarray, on the eve of the Harper government's announcement of the winning bidders for $35-billion worth of naval shipbuilding contracts.
The Conservatives are set to reveal the winning shipyards that will build the $35-billion worth of contracts Wednesday. The competing yards are Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax, Seaspan Marine Corporation of Vancouver and MIL-Davie of Quebec City. The expectation is that one yard will win the $25-billion contract to build naval warships, while another will win an $8-billion contract to build non-combat ships. Sources suggest that all three yards may yet come out as winners, if the government decides to split the combat work between Vancouver and Halifax, and awards Quebec City the non-combat work.
However, the news of the troubled joint supply ship (JSS) project is sure to raise questions about whether the government is able to bring any of its procurement projects in on time or on budget.
Defence sources said it is in trouble because two companies competing to design the new ships - ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems of Germany and Navantia S.A. of Spain - are backing away from the bidding process. It is understood that the government is not prepared to pay their asking price and is likely to turn to a domestic Canadian design being prepared by engineering support contractor BMT Fleet Technology of Kanata, Ont. None of the competing companies responded to requests for comment Tuesday.
A spokeswoman for National Defence said the government is continuing contract negotiations with the two European companies but if neither design delivers the best equipment at the best price, the Canadian design will be used.
The BMT design would have the benefit of being made to order. But naval analysts suggest it would be an unproven technology, compared to the two European designs that fit NATO guidelines and are already in service. Canada has a checkered history when it comes to ordering custommade military hardware. In 2004, the government ordered 28 Sikorsky Cyclones, a custom-built helicopter, for a price tag of $3.1-billion. The Auditor-General last year lambasted National Defence for under-estimating the complexity of a project that soared in cost to $5.7-billion and has faced serious delays.
One Defence insider said the JSS problems reflect a lack of experienced procurement staff. "This is so depressingly Canadian - you go out to bidders, you indicate an interest in designs, you load on extras and then say 'no, thank you'. It could set us back another five years," he said. The new supply ships were due to be in service by 2017 but sources say that deadline is unlikely to be met now.
More on link
- mod edit to change link to one that works -
Article Link
John Ivison, National Post · Oct. 19, 2011
OTTAWA . A $2.6-billion project to design and build two new naval support ships has been thrown into disarray, on the eve of the Harper government's announcement of the winning bidders for $35-billion worth of naval shipbuilding contracts.
The Conservatives are set to reveal the winning shipyards that will build the $35-billion worth of contracts Wednesday. The competing yards are Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax, Seaspan Marine Corporation of Vancouver and MIL-Davie of Quebec City. The expectation is that one yard will win the $25-billion contract to build naval warships, while another will win an $8-billion contract to build non-combat ships. Sources suggest that all three yards may yet come out as winners, if the government decides to split the combat work between Vancouver and Halifax, and awards Quebec City the non-combat work.
However, the news of the troubled joint supply ship (JSS) project is sure to raise questions about whether the government is able to bring any of its procurement projects in on time or on budget.
Defence sources said it is in trouble because two companies competing to design the new ships - ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems of Germany and Navantia S.A. of Spain - are backing away from the bidding process. It is understood that the government is not prepared to pay their asking price and is likely to turn to a domestic Canadian design being prepared by engineering support contractor BMT Fleet Technology of Kanata, Ont. None of the competing companies responded to requests for comment Tuesday.
A spokeswoman for National Defence said the government is continuing contract negotiations with the two European companies but if neither design delivers the best equipment at the best price, the Canadian design will be used.
The BMT design would have the benefit of being made to order. But naval analysts suggest it would be an unproven technology, compared to the two European designs that fit NATO guidelines and are already in service. Canada has a checkered history when it comes to ordering custommade military hardware. In 2004, the government ordered 28 Sikorsky Cyclones, a custom-built helicopter, for a price tag of $3.1-billion. The Auditor-General last year lambasted National Defence for under-estimating the complexity of a project that soared in cost to $5.7-billion and has faced serious delays.
One Defence insider said the JSS problems reflect a lack of experienced procurement staff. "This is so depressingly Canadian - you go out to bidders, you indicate an interest in designs, you load on extras and then say 'no, thank you'. It could set us back another five years," he said. The new supply ships were due to be in service by 2017 but sources say that deadline is unlikely to be met now.
More on link
- mod edit to change link to one that works -
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,229
- Points
- 1,010
Well, here's a suggestion: Get two "Cantabria" style AORs and two "Largs Bay" type auxiliary landing ships: I would be willing to bet that you would get all your supply and combat support needs met, with four ships instead of only two and at a fraction of the projected cost. To be real cute, you could fit the two landing ships with a single fuelling derrick so that they can sub-in whenever that coast's AOR is in refit or unavailable.
But what the hell do I know, I'm just a stupid boat driver- not a Nav. Arc.
But what the hell do I know, I'm just a stupid boat driver- not a Nav. Arc.
drunknsubmrnr
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
The projected cost is for 2 Cantabrias or Berlins, and they're still having trouble getting it done.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,229
- Points
- 1,010
Not quite Drunksubmrnr.
The cost is for two Cantabria/Berlin modified to include the army logistical support and troop carrying requirement of the CF.
RC, I know that the military Naval Architects have not worked on this: Nav Arcs are called Nav Arcs whether they are civilians or not. Its one of those few profession that has the same name in and out of the service. The ones I had in mind are the ones that work on the conceptualization of the ship and its requirements to draft the tender.
The cost is for two Cantabria/Berlin modified to include the army logistical support and troop carrying requirement of the CF.
RC, I know that the military Naval Architects have not worked on this: Nav Arcs are called Nav Arcs whether they are civilians or not. Its one of those few profession that has the same name in and out of the service. The ones I had in mind are the ones that work on the conceptualization of the ship and its requirements to draft the tender.
drunknsubmrnr
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Wow...why would they leave that in? It was a token capability in the first place. They'll still need commercial ro-ro's to carry most of a deployment even with those capabilities in the AOR's.
Didn't the auditor-general warn of this in a bunch of projects lately?
Didn't the auditor-general warn of this in a bunch of projects lately?
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Same here...
I have a real chip on my shoulder about what they've done on this project and about the fact that rather than being drawn and quartered for it, they were given further contracts. I think it's an international embarassment to the industry in Canada that otherwise has a pretty good reputation.
Similar threads
