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

Speeding Up Procurement

Kirkhill

Puggled and Wabbit Scot.
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
8,298
Points
1,160
Military to speed buying as Afghan conflict intensifies
Canadian Press

HALIFAX — Canada's military will streamline a cumbersome buying system to ensure personnel are given modern equipment for the battle in Afghanistan, a senior bureaucrat promised Thursday.

Dan Ross, assistant deputy minister of materiel, told a defence industry audience in Halifax that he is the midst of a “transformation” of the military's purchasing arm, in part to buy hardware for troops fighting in Kandahar province.

Whether it be sensors to detect incoming rocket-propelled grenades from the Taliban or new medium-to-heavy lift helicopters needed to carry troops, the department is devising ways to buy equipment in as little as one third the traditional time.

“They (department staff) aren't dragging along the old process, the 15-year process,” Mr. Ross said during his speech, referring to the traditional period of time the military has required for major expenditures.

“We produce Treasury Board submissions and cabinet proposals over a long weekend and those things are hand-delivered through the system and they get pulled through,” he said.

In an interview following his speech, Mr. Ross said he expected major purchases to take less than five years from conception to first delivery.

He cited the $8-billion contract for C-17 Globemaster transports and Chinook medium-to-heavy lift choppers as an example of increased “off-the-shelf” buying by his department.

Under that system, DND announced Boeing Corp. had met its requirements, and other firms were invited to attempt to meet the same standards. The aerospace giant is expected to formally be awarded the contract next spring despite protests from competitors that the process is unfair.

Mr. Ross defended the practice, saying the choppers are urgently needed in missions such as Afghanistan, where Canadian troops currently are flown to combat zones by American aircraft.

Under the old DND procurement system, endless specifications were written and huge bureaucratic hurdles slowed the process, he told members of the Canadian Defence Security and Aerospace Exhibition Atlantic.

“I don't have to write a technical specification to Boeing to tell them how to build a C-17 or any other aircraft. They know how to do that,” he said.

Mr. Ross said the military is also identifying ways to protect troops in Afghanistan, including setting up an “active protection system” to ward off rocket-propelled grenades fired at armoured vehicles.

The vehicles are currently vulnerable to the grenades, which are a favourite weapon of the Taliban.

The new systems would sense the incoming grenades and set off a counter explosive to prevent the grenade from damaging the vehicle.

“That's an extremely high priority to us and we're going to pursue that very aggressively,” Mr. Ross said during his speech.

Mr. Ross also noted other potential purchases to help Afghanistan troops, including:

— Improved ballistic protection visors for helmets to prevent eye damage when roadside bombs explode;

— Advanced light-armoured weapon systems, which would allow infantry to destroy enemies up to 2.5 kilometres away;

— Improved unmanned aerial vehicles, including some equipped with weapons.

While some purchases are going smoothly, a key purchase of replacements for the geriatric Sea King helicopters could be facing a delay.

During a seminar later in the day, officials with Sikorsky Corp. said a strike at the company may affect the schedule for 28 maritime helicopters, known as Cyclones, due to start arriving in November 2008.

“We had a strike this year that cost us about eight weeks worth of employee work,” said Dan Hunter, project manager for Sikorsky, in an interview.

“We're working with DND to talk about the implications of that and how to mitigate that and still make our schedule.”

Michel Lapointe, the Defence Department's project manager for the chopper project, said his department will review whether it will extend the original deadline in light of the strike.

“Until then we don't know how long it's going to take or if there will be any impact,” he said.

Military procurement will see a massive ramping up in the next two or three years, said Mr. Ross.

He estimated that projects ranging from replacements of the aging fleet of Hercules transport planes to two new ships to carry troops and equipment will mean a doubling capital spending from current levels of over $1-billion to about $3-billion annually.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060907.wMilit0907/BNStory/National/home

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings Provision of the Copyright Act.

Particularly interesting in light of Mr. Martin's use of Alan Williams as a source of wisdom.

Also noteworthy is this:
Advanced light-armoured weapon systems, which would allow infantry to destroy enemies up to 2.5 kilometres away;

Could you put Javelin or Spike-MR to use as a bunker buster over there?
 
Combat creates an imperative unlike peacekeeping. Each country wants their troops to have the best equipment possible which is a good thing. This shakes up the bureaucracy to move purchases into high gear.
IEF/OEF has done this for the US Army. The pressure from the troops in the field and their families at home has revolutionized our fielding of high need equipment quickly. The Rapid Fielding Initiative has been awesome. While no one likes war it does serve the purpose of shaking up stodgy purchasing, training doctrine and ineffective leaders are replaced by smart hard chargers that helps improve the quality of the force.

http://peosoldier.army.mil/rfi/history.asp
 
nothing like a good old fashion gun fight to grease the wheels of industry...
bring it on the troops need the best hang the political backlash and cost

andy
 
it baffles me to no end that, to date, no one has said BOO about rustling up an order for additional LAVs......
Based on the wear and tear the small inventory of LAVs is going thru, we won't have any over here to train on before deployment....... or are we going to start using Cougars and Grizzlies in Canada?

 
The US Army has burned up so many vehicles in Iraq [useful service life] that we will have to buy new vehicles to replace the one's that cant be refurbished. The term we use is reset and that cost for the Army alone will be around $9 billion. In the case of the LAV new ones can be bought to replace destroyed vehicles the rest can be rebuilt.
 
geo said:
it baffles me to no end that, to date, no one has said BOO about rustling up an order for additional LAVs......
Based on the wear and tear the small inventory of LAVs is going thru, we won't have any over here to train on before deployment....... or are we going to start using Cougars and Grizzlies in Canada?

Actually geo, I did see an article to that effect just recently.  I am looking for it on-line.  I think it was in either the NP or the G&M on Saturday. IIRC it was talking about at least 100 more and possibly enough to round out the battalions.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Combat creates an imperative unlike peacekeeping.....

I agree. Event though we may not be a nation at war we are an army at war. Anything that speeds up the process of getting new gear to our guys is a good thing.
 
Canada
Army may buy 100 more LAVs
The Canadian army is considering buying hundreds more of the light armoured vehicles that have become the workhorse of its battle group in southern Afghanis...

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/archives_paper.html?pubdate=2006%2F09%2F05&x=38&y=13

It was in Tuesday's National Post.  Unfortunately I can only get this stub out of their archives.  The link below has a bit more of the article.

The Canadian army is considering buying hundreds more of the light armoured vehicles that have become the workhorse of its battle group in southern Afghanistan, in part to replace troop carriers lost to enemy fire but also to give its soldiers sufficient numbers of the versatile Canadian-built LAV IIIs. Senior army officers, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the military is considering purchasing more than 100 additional LAV IIIs and Coyotes -- the armoured reconnaissance version of the 17-tonne vehicle. "It's under consideration," said one officer.

http://www.fuddle-duddle.net/story/3518/
 
Negotiations are on going at this time.  Due to OPSEC I cannot discuss or comment on this further.
 
big bad john said:
Negotiations are on going at this time.  Due to OPSEC I cannot discuss or comment on this further.

I'd love to see the ROE for negotiating with industry. ;D
 
If we're going to buy more LAV's, would it not make sense to buy enough to phase out the Coyotes, so as to rationalize the fleet for both the Infantry and the Armoured Corps?

PS: When the hell was OPSEC extended to government procurement?  ;D  ;)
 
LOL, No, but there are certain implications and decisions by people above my pay grade.
 
Hmph....
just hope it doesn't take 10 yrs to order more AND get delivery.
Though they might be built in Oshawa, we aren't the only country placing orders and can't claim 1st dibbs.
 
geo said:
Hmph....
just hope it doesn't take 10 yrs to order more AND get delivery.
Though they might be built in Oshawa, we aren't the only country placing orders and can't claim 1st dibbs.

By the Lord Harry but your a hard man to please.....  ;D
 
Been around too long.
( BTW Lord Harry is a good friend)
:P
 
http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/061004/cal/061004aw.htm

PUBLICATION:  Calgary Herald
DATE:  2006.10.04
EDITION:  Final
SECTION:  The Editorial Page
PAGE:  A14
COLUMN:  Barry Cooper
BYLINE:  Barry Cooper
SOURCE:  Calgary Herald
WORD COUNT:  735

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Long road back for our Forces

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last June, the Harper government began a military acquisition program to rebuild the Canadian forces, as ambitious as the Chretien government's was contemptuous and neglectful.

Even before the recent change in direction, Canada had a military procurement problem of impressive dimensions.

Three large government reports over the past five years have produced nearly 150 recommendations to deal with a major problem: buying things for the Forces takes too long, costs too much and is open to continuous political interference.

Unfortunately, most Canadians see public policy, especially something as arcane as military procurement, as somebody else's business. Worse, the bureaucrats, both uniformed and civilian, who actually put the policy into practice, are determined never to share information with anyone, often including each other.

The procurement mess is a legacy of recent Liberal governments. Never forget: the purpose of a military is to fight and win wars. If an army can't do that, it won't be any good for peacekeeping. If the Forces were incapable of providing military security in Afghanistan, Canadian reconstruction teams would be slaughtered by the same people against whom they are fighting.

It is important to be clear about these home truths in order to see the procurement problem in all its glory. Because it takes more than 15 years actually to get a piece of equipment into service after Parliament has agreed to buy it, what the Government of Canada didn't do in 1991 hurts the Forces today.

As Alan Williams, the author of a new, "view from the inside" book on Canadian defence procurement put it, what the Department of National Defence "buys today determines what the CF can do tomorrow, which in turn largely determines Canada's future defence and foreign policy options."

Long before Canada sent troops to Afghanistan or the navy to the Persian Gulf, the problems associated with military equipment were well known to those who cared, both inside and outside the department and the Forces.

The follies of the Sea King maritime helicopter even achieved the status of a public scandal. Williams explained how years of neglect have turned military procurement into a hot topic in Ottawa (relatively speaking) because of its sheer urgency. Everyone knew the chickens would eventually come home to roost. They are surely home now.

Moreover, it is clear how it has come to pass. Political negligence played its part, but as with most problems in Ottawa, from Adscam to the latest bit of sophistry from the commissioner of the RCMP, at its core is the ethos of bureaucracy: incompetence combined with a refusal to see a problem, admit responsibility or to undertake remedial action.

The same virus that transformed the Mounties from a competent federal police into a brass-heavy bureaucracy with more concern for its precious image than catching bad guys has also infected DND.

In a normal world, the military would tell industry what they wanted their new equipment to do, and industry would go off and build it. Instead, DND issues lengthy and detailed technical instructions, which often are modified partway through. The Statement of Requirements, as it is called, for the light armoured vehicles currently in use runs to 760 pages.

It is also difficult for normal people to understand why Canada cannot use the same stuff available, say, as the Netherlands or the U.K. The reasons are clear. First, alone in the western alliance, Canada requires (except under unusual circumstances) competitive acquisition of military goods and services. No off-the-shelf purchases for our troops! This ensures lengthy political and bureaucratic scrutiny prior to placing an actual order.

Second, when a perfectly good piece of equipment is rejected, it is usually not because the product won't do the job, but because the "bid" of the company which makes it is found to be "non-compliant."

The bid is bureaucratically defined; the product is an actual piece of equipment. Bureaucrats are comfortable only with bids. Third, not one but at least four departments along with two central agencies have turf-defending input into any major decision.

No wonder the announced joint support ship will take 18 years to enter the fleet -- if everything goes according to schedule.

The sorry procurement mess with which the Canadian Forces have had to deal has not made their job in Bosnia, the Gulf, or Afghanistan any easier. It is yet another reason, if one were needed, why Canadians should be no less amazed than grateful for their accomplishments on our behalf.

Barry Cooper is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary and a Fellow of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.
 
big bad john said:
http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/061004/cal/061004aw.htm
In a normal world, the military would tell industry what they wanted their new equipment to do, and industry would go off and build it. Instead, DND issues lengthy and detailed technical instructions, which often are modified partway through.
It is also difficult for normal people to understand why Canada cannot use the same stuff available, say, as the Netherlands or the U.K. The reasons are clear. First, alone in the western alliance, Canada requires (except under unusual circumstances) competitive acquisition of military goods and services. No off-the-shelf purchases for our troops! This ensures lengthy political and bureaucratic scrutiny prior to placing an actual order.
I know that this is a radical theory but can't the government just give the military a bunch of money, tell them to do their accounting and let them buy the best tools for the job as quickly as possible?
 
Back
Top