Canadian Army Prohibits Purchase of Commercial Kit

[Farmboy]

Taken from www.soldiersystems.net


Quote:

Canadian Army Prohibits Purchase of Commercial Kit

On Monday, LGEN A.B. LESLIE, Chief of the Land Staff for Canada, released a message entitled, “Prohibition on Acquisition of Soldier Personal Equipment, Clothing and Camp Stores.” The point of the message was to remind units that they cannot use Operations and Maintenance monies to procure Soldier Systems items. Specifically, guidance was issued that, “THE LF CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT REMAIN WORLD CLASS. AS SUCH LOCAL PURCHASE OF CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT WITH O AND M FUNDS BY LF UNITS IS PROHIBITED.” The list of equipment units CANNOT use O&M to purchase is pretty extensive and includes basically everything that is covered on SSD. What killjoys. From the message:

A. PERSONAL CLOTHING. OCULAR PROTECTION, HELMETS, HELMET SUSPENSION AND RETENTION SYSTEMS, HEADWEAR, FOOTWEAR, GLOVES, JACKETS, NEXT TO SKIN CLOTHING TO INCLUDE SHIRTS, PANTS, SOCKS AND UNDERGARMENTS

B. PERSONAL EQUIPMENT. LOAD CARRIAGE SYSTEMS, HYDRATION OR WATER PURIFICATION SYSTEMS, AMMUNITION OR WEAPON SLINGS / BANDOLIERS, KNIVES, MULTITOOLS, FLASHLIGHTS, HEADLAMPS, ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT FOR PERSONAL WEAPONS AND PISTOL HOLSTERS

C. CAMP STORES. TENTAGE, COTS, SLEEPING SYSTEMS, AIR MATRESSES OR SLEEPING PADS, GENERATORS / HEATERS OR THEIR ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT, STOVES, POWER DISTIRBUTION, LIGHTING KITS AND VCP KITS

Truthfully, our favorite quote from the entire message is, “THE LF CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT REMAIN WORLD CLASS.” Really, you can’t make this stuff up. Despite the assertion of world class kit, a previously released message from LGEN Leslie authorizes Canadian Soldiers to privately purchase and use equipment from the following sources:

A. ARKTIS
B. BLACKHAWK
C. EAGLE
D. FELLFAB
E. HIGHSPEED GEAR
F. PACIFIC SAFETY PRODUCTS
G. TACTICAL TAILOR
H. SORD
I. COTMS

It must be noted that products from the manufacturers on this list include makers of trials kit from the Modular Fighting Rig program which should finally see theater this August. So I guess that the current “world class” kit will be replaced by even more world class once they make a decision on MFR. Until then, if you are a Canadian Soldier, if you want equipment that outclasses world class, you are going to have to buy it yourself.

Very interesting.


LGen A.B. Leslie, why do you think it is that units are spending O and M funds on local purchase of clothing and equipment?

Could it be that the "world class" equipment the troops get issued if far from world class?

Could it be that the CF is issuing equipment that doesn't work for the task at hand?

The very fact that the issue TV only holds four C7/C8 magazines while our troops get issued ten to fifteen, speaks volumes about how incapable the issue TV really is.

The fact that the CF is now procuring new "Modular Fighting Rigs" is just more proof that our "world class" kit really isn't!

The MFR went out for a "competitive" tender, which really wasn't, since the tender specified a specific attachment system only found on SORD products from Australlia. So suddenly the competitive tender became sole source, without actually have to sole source the product.

Because of a handfull of soldiers who wore SORD gear overseas on a tour, it has now become the new MFR for Canada. Not a Canadian made product nor even a US made product, which in my opinion is far superior, but an product that got sole source because of the attachment system for the pouches, even though no other company or army uses it.

So what is the warranty the CF gets for this "even more world class" gear?

Quote:

Products are guaranteed for life against all faults in materials or manufacture.
Exclusions from the guarantee: Normal wear and tear, modifications or alterations, incorrect storage, damage caused by accidents, by negligence or by use for which the product is not intended.

"Damage caused by accidents" "Normal wear and tear" WOW hopefully our CF members look after their gear that is suppose to survive combat!

You are even trying to prohibit the purchase of slings. Yes, the CF issues two slings for the C7/C8 and both are unfit for combat. The two point "parade" sling and the three point "patrol" sling. The parade sling is meant for just that, parades while the three point patrol sling was obsolete many years ago. Never mind the fact that it's obsolete, I have yet to see one that isn't held together by duct tape and paracord.

Why do I care?

Well my company has been supplying CF Units and individuals with quite a bit of product since the issue gear isn't all that great.

Two lines we carry, Tactical Assault Gear and Blue Force Gear, come with "Unlimited Lifetime Warranties".

The key word in that is Unlimited. Meaning wear and tear, and damage caused by accidents, to the product, is covered under the warranty.

Both product lines were excluded from the competitive tender though, and aren't included on the approved purchase list that was already put out, even though the quality far exceeds a number of companies on the list.

Two companies on the list don't even do individual or unit sales. Another only makes medical related products, and we already covered the warranties of some of the other lines.

The Blue Force Gear Vickers sling has been purchased and used by multiple CF Units, hundreds of individual CF soldiers, issued to RCMP, used by multiple LE Tac Teams, multiple US military forces including all elite forces, multiple US government agencies and is now being procured by the Dutch for their weapons upgrade program. It's seems however that for the CF officially the parade sling works just fine.

So while the Airforce as a whole gets new aircraft, our Army makes due with "world class" gear that doesn't work, is held together with duct tape, is being replaced with gear that isn't warrantied against "wear and tear" and is now prohibited from procuring gear that actually works for the job they are doing.

If the issue gear really was "world class" there would be no reason to prohibit the purchase of aftermarket gear.

Darren Cole
President
One Shot Tactical Inc.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Darren,

Here's the key phrase

The point of the message was to remind units that they cannot use Operations and Maintenance monies to procure Soldier Systems items.

Individual soldiers can still purchase gear on their own dime. They don't want Unit funds, that are supposed to be used for other spending, used to buy gear. There is a finite number of dollars per Unit. Buying aftermarket gear robs another Unit resource of it's funding.

Again, soldiers are still able to purchase with their own funds.

Most Units I'm familiar with are pretty savvy about raising external funds when needed, without touching that particular O&M budget, which was the only one specified as off limits. There are other options available to imaginative Unit COs.

 

[daftandbarmy]

... and some bosses are living in a fool's paradise:

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/06/some_bosses_live_in_a_fools_pa.html

 

[captloadie]

I can't comment on the validity of the OP's comments, so I won't.

However, when did this site allow, what is in my opinion, the blatant lobbying of a defense contractor?

 

[1feral1]

Group orders from say a PL for example, yes at private purchase, usually generates a bulk discount. How the money is raised, or could be rasied is up for debate.

A group of soldiers, acting as one, too may also go in for the group buy. Seen this done here many times, and I was also part of that. One's uniform allowance or service allowance can be used, reciepts given out and here this can be used for one's tax return

OWDU

 

[Ex Ranger Instructor]

Most Units I'm familiar with are pretty savvy about raising external funds when needed, without touching that particular O&M budget, which was the only one specified as off limits. There are other options available to imaginative Unit COs.

Why should anyone have to get creative in order to acquire essential field stores? 

If the system can't provide generators, power distribution systems, tentage, lighting kits or heaters (as it apparently can't- look at the amount of such stuff that we have to lease from contractors every time the Reg F has a major exercise, and look at the number of Res units that have SFA for field stores other than a couple of sections of mod) then there needs to be an alternate source.  It's well and good to say that we have the best kit in the world, but when the system is perpetually fresh out of all that nice, fantastic kit then the guys on the ground have to make do somehow. 

I would guess that the only reason this has become an issue is the fact that so many units are finding themselves in a position whereby they feel that they have no option but to buy their own field stores from commercial sources.  That says a lot in and of itself.

 

[GAP]

I can't comment on the validity of the OP's comments, so I won't.

However, when did this site allow, what is in my opinion, the blatant lobbying of a defense contractor?

As far as I know, Farmboy, is a paid advertiser on this site. More importantly, he has a valuable opinion on a site like this, as he adds another, normally unavailable, facet to equipment arguments.

He does not hide the fact that he is a contractor, and is stating his opinion, from his point of view. His arguments are clear, concise and well informed. He has a bias, and that's fine, we all do.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Why should anyone have to get creative in order to acquire essential field stores? 

If the system can't provide generators, power distribution systems, tentage, lighting kits or heaters (as it apparently can't- look at the amount of such stuff that we have to lease from contractors every time the Reg F has a major exercise, and look at the number of Res units that have SFA for field stores other than a couple of sections of mod) then there needs to be an alternate source.  It's well and good to say that we have the best kit in the world, but when the system is perpetually fresh out of all that nice, fantastic kit then the guys on the ground have to make do somehow. 

I would guess that the only reason this has become an issue is the fact that so many units are finding themselves in a position whereby they feel that they have no option but to buy their own field stores from commercial sources.  That says a lot in and of itself.

We're not talking about MSA stores.

Apples and turnips

 

[Ex Ranger Instructor]

Para C of the message quoted seems to indicate that we are indeed talking about those kinds of stores.  I know of a lot of units that have been spending money on just those sorts of things lately.

 

[The Bread Guy]

He does not hide the fact that he is a contractor, and is stating his opinion, from his point of view. His arguments are clear, concise and well informed. He has a bias, and that's fine, we all do.

And anyone can (while sticking to the site's rules) comment in response.

 

[57Chevy]

Pretty neat "Do Everything Folding Chinese Shovel" video on the link.  op:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Para C of the message quoted seems to indicate that we are indeed talking about those kinds of stores.  I know of a lot of units that have been spending money on just those sorts of things lately.

The OP deals more with personal gear. That was the point being made.

When MSA is available through the system there shouldn't be a need. Coleman lanterns and two burner stoves shouldn't be tossed and unit funds used for some gucci stove to carry in your pocket.

Don't paint all Units with the same brush either. Mine has plenty of MSA. We just choose to take care of it and maintain it. The system works, if you know how to work the system. My RQ does.

 

[aesop081]

Para C of the message quoted seems to indicate that we are indeed talking about those kinds of stores.  I know of a lot of units that have been spending money on just those sorts of things lately.

O&M budgets are not meant to be spent on those things. This is done at the expense of, well, operations and maintenance ( ya know....O&M). The prohibition applies to using O&M for anything else that O&M.

 

[Ex Ranger Instructor]

Fair enough, I'm outside my lanes when discussing budgets.  Not my forte.

However I do see significant shortages of the types of kit I've discussed, and the method I've seen used to rectify those shortages has been local purchase.  An example would be CPDS (power distribution equipment).  I am not aware of any Res F unit that has an entitlement to that equipment.  Large generators are pretty much useless without a means of distributing the power (and running 9 million household extension cords is not the preferred solution).  The work around that was arrived at in at least one case I'm familiar with was the purchase of a civilian pattern equivalent.  What specific budget was used to fund the purchase, again, I guess I don't know. 

Not being an expert on budgets, I don't want to put my foot in my mouth.  But again, I don't know why a message would be issued on the subject if it weren't the case that units have been doing this.  I don't know why they'd do it if they didn't feel there was a pressing need for them to do so.

 

[aesop081]

  I don't know why they'd do it if they didn't feel there was a pressing need for them to do so.

Imagine if my Sqn spent its TD budget (meant to pay for TD expenses incured on training deployments) to buy new boots because the issued ones are no good, then turns around and says to the Wing and Division that we are not combat ready because we havent been able to train. Do you think that would go over well ?

Units have other avenues to adress equipment shortfalls (its not because they are a PITA that they dont exist) and using money meant for training and maintenace is not one of them ( as expedient as it may be).

 

[Ex Ranger Instructor]

Your argument makes perfect sense.

I guess all I'm saying is that there are obviously some significant problems with getting various different types of kit to the various units that need them.  I think it's a bit of a sad commentary on our current state of affairs that the LPO of everyday field stores has become an issue on which the CLS has to weigh in.

 

[McG]

I think it's a bit of a sad commentary on our current state of affairs that the LPO of everyday field stores has become an issue on which the CLS has to weigh in.

He wouldn't if people used the proper channels to get what they want.  If something is available in the supply system, that is where units must go to get it.

An example would be CPDS (power distribution equipment).  I am not aware of any Res F unit that has an entitlement to that equipment.  Large generators are pretty much useless without a means of distributing the power (and running 9 million household extension cords is not the preferred solution).  The work around that was arrived at in at least one case I'm familiar with was the purchase of a civilian pattern equivalent.

Instead of working around the system, why didn't somebody staff a request for the entitlement?

If the system can't provide generators, power distribution systems, tentage, lighting kits or heaters then there needs to be an alternate source. 

And when this stuff breaks (as it inevitably does), users and techs turn to the supply system for spare and replacement parts - but there are none because the LPO equipment is not centrally supported.  Now the unit is spending more money replacing the whole equipment or buying parts that would have been centrally funded for centrally supplied equipment.

There have been plenty of cases where such LPOed equipment ends up deployed in an operational theatre - a lack of central support means even longer unavailability when the equipment fails (because the supply system is right in theatre, while Husqvarna is not).

A lot of times, where deployed ops or formations decide thier LPOed equipment is special, they fight and unfortunately win getting it centrally supported.  I say "unfortunately" because now the LCMM and SM have just had some of thier time and money stolen to support a system that is unique to one or two users - surely the solution, to things you want not being available, is not to throw more distractions on the plates of the people who are supposed to get these things onto depot and warehouse shelves.

Not being an expert on budgets ...

It is bigger and more confusing than unit budgeting.  If several dozen COs independantly decide they have a need for newer tentage and independantly they purchase an aggregate total of $500k in tents, then there are folks at lofty hights in TB and PWGSC who would declare that DND was guilty of contract splitting, that higher approvals should have been required, and that a different parlaimentary vote of money should have been used. 

 

[armyvern]

Your argument makes perfect sense.

I guess all I'm saying is that there are obviously some significant problems with getting various different types of kit to the various units that need them.  I think it's a bit of a sad commentary on our current state of affairs that the LPO of everyday field stores has become an issue on which the CLS has to weigh in.

I can't say as I blame him.

The clothing and eqpt this is applicable to is "Centrally Managed" & Centrally Funded" for the most part. IE: It is managed and paid for using national/central fin coding (ie generators) when brought into the system via a contracted supplier. Some clothing & eqpt is "Centrally managed", but "locally funded" (ie 2nd Line Supply can LPO - which ensures the items are brought onto charge after they're purchased and actually issued onto accounts so that they are visible in the system. Items such as towells etc are like this. As for "non-entitlement" to this eqpt at 1st line level --- that is what the MACR process exists for and you should be submitting these to your supporting 2nd line supply activity.

When there is a national contract to supply items into the system, the contractor MUST be used; it really is that simple. There exists a risk of the CF/DND being found to be "in breach of contract" when these types of items are purchased with unauthorized monies and fin codes outside of the authorized national or second line level.

That all being said, when a requirement exists for an above item and a "nil national stock" is being experienced AND the contracted supplier can not provide (a fact which needs to be certified as the case by "central" [who manage it!!]), national fin coding can be requested by 2nd line Supply through the SM for the particular item. If substantiated, and supplier is confirmed not to be able to provide, central may provide the national fin coding for purchase due to the circumstances and the items are then "seen & known" by them. 2nd Line can then ensure the items are BOCd, then either loaned from MSA Command Pools to the 1st Line Units or issued to them as applicable.

Not so the case when 1st line Units are purchasing camel backs (for example) or chest rigs and giving them to Unit personnel without either using the proper fin coding, bringing them on charge to their Unit and/nor are they ensuring the item is issued to the clothing docs of the troops they give them to.  In any case, if the pers is not entitled to a camel back on the LFC Ops clothing & eqpt scale (ie he is not deploying on international operations) --- there also exists zero entitlement/authority to buy camel backs and give to him anyway by Unit COs even if there is nil national stock - he still isn't entitled to one. In cases like this, the national fin coding to purchase would be denied.

 

[57Chevy]

We always worked on the notion, " If it's in the system, we'll get it ". And we usually found it.

 

[rampage800]

Make no doubt about it, I'm not a huge advocate of some of the kit the CF issues. That being said, if half the people who bitched about the kit all the time put the same effort into completing UCRs we'd be miles ahead.

My 2 cents.