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

MSVS Mil-COTS Gun Tractor (Split From: MLVW restrictions)

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,845
Points
890
Hurricane said:
Anyways they could have chosen a better researched truck.

On the subect of better research - a fact that's posted in several locations:

When PWGSC went otu to industry to buy a truck, there was only one bid.  Only one offer to sell to DND.  No one else wanted the contract.

So the choices were: the MSVS MilCOTS, or nothing at all.


So, putting you in the same position, please decide which you would have chosen.
 

Hurricane

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Could the contract requirements not have been reviewed to determine why only one company had bid and what detered the others?
 

old medic

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Petard said:
Glad hands: might be a problem as it is a common assembly in all variants, but the 105mm howitzers this truck is intended to tow do not have air brakes. If someone is towing an M777 (which does have air brakes) with the MilCOT variant, then they are using it for a purpose it wasn't designed for. Considering most of the times the det doesn't hook the air lines up anyway I'm not sure how much of a problem it will be

I have snapped two off the standard cargo version, both times the threaded brass fitting where it passes through the steel hanging bracket. 
I suspect the fitting will eventually be changed from brass to steel.

 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,845
Points
890
Hurricane said:
Could the contract requirements not have been reviewed to determine why only one company had bid and what detered the others?

Certainly.  A consultation process with industry would take at least 6 months.  Rewriting the statement of requirements another 6 months.  Re-issuing the statement of requirements through PWGSC would be another 6 months, plus evaluation of bids and makign a decision would be about another 6 months.  This assumes no company appeals the process - which would add additional time to the process.

So, are you willing to wait at least two years and very possibly end up with the exact same truck as the successful bidder?


Keep in mind that although it sounds like a big order (1300 trucks) for major manufacturers that's a few extra shifts for a month or less.  Not a particularly interesting contract, and if you have limited resources, you'll focus your efforts and bid on contracts that will bring in more revenue and that will be more profitable.  COTS vehicles have lower margins than milspec.

 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
545
Points
1,060
dapaterson said:
Certainly.  A consultation process with industry would take at least 6 months.  Rewriting the statement of requirements another 6 months.  Re-issuing the statement of requirements through PWGSC would be another 6 months, plus evaluation of bids and makign a decision would be about another 6 months.  This assumes no company appeals the process - which would add additional time to the process.

So, are you willing to wait at least two years and very possibly end up with the exact same truck as the successful bidder?


Keep in mind that although it sounds like a big order (1300 trucks) for major manufacturers that's a few extra shifts for a month or less.  Not a particularly interesting contract, and if you have limited resources, you'll focus your efforts and bid on contracts that will bring in more revenue and that will be more profitable.  COTS vehicles have lower margins than milspec.

Further to DAP's last, I suspect that the suppliers also would be concerned about not interrupting the supply to their regular commercial customers that are buying something like 1300 Class 7 & 8 trucks a month in Canada (probably 10 times that in the US ) http://www.todaystrucking.com/trucksales.cfm

Now if we managed the MilCOTs fleet the way that a civilian haulage contractor managed his then that would be a different matter - there would be a plan in place to constantly renew the fleet to replace damaged and high usage vehicles..... but that is another story.

PS How do civvy contractors manage to support mixed vehicle fleets?  Or for that matter, how does an Engineer Regiment manage the nightmare of vehicles that they have on charge?
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,845
Points
890
Kirkhill said:
Or for that matter, how does an Engineer Regiment manage the nightmare of vehicles that they have on charge?

Poorly.

There are initiatives to renew the high cost/low density fleets, but with the numbers very small it's difficult to do it in a regular, organized way - even more so when they're spread across the country.

 

Hurricane

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
dapaterson said:
Certainly.  A consultation process with industry would take at least 6 months.  Rewriting the statement of requirements another 6 months.  Re-issuing the statement of requirements through PWGSC would be another 6 months, plus evaluation of bids and makign a decision would be about another 6 months.  This assumes no company appeals the process - which would add additional time to the process.

So, are you willing to wait at least two years and very possibly end up with the exact same truck as the successful bidder?


Keep in mind that although it sounds like a big order (1300 trucks) for major manufacturers that's a few extra shifts for a month or less.  Not a particularly interesting contract, and if you have limited resources, you'll focus your efforts and bid on contracts that will bring in more revenue and that will be more profitable.  COTS vehicles have lower margins than milspec.

Ack, never really thought of it that way. With a desperate need for updated medium lift fleet, it's the way to go.
 

Hurricane

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
This is a little off the topic of the Gun Tractor again, but were the MSVS-M supposed to be delivered with EIS in them (Tire Changing Equip, Vehicle Tools, ect?)
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,407
Points
940
Kirkhill said:
Further to DAP's last, I suspect that the suppliers also would be concerned about not interrupting the supply to their regular commercial customers that are buying something like 1300 Class 7 & 8 trucks a month in Canada (probably 10 times that in the US ) http://www.todaystrucking.com/trucksales.cfm

Now if we managed the MilCOTs fleet the way that a civilian haulage contractor managed his then that would be a different matter - there would be a plan in place to constantly renew the fleet to replace damaged and high usage vehicles..... but that is another story.

PS How do civvy contractors manage to support mixed vehicle fleets?  Or for that matter, how does an Engineer Regiment manage the nightmare of vehicles that they have on charge?

Average lifespan for smaller trucks (pickups) in the logging industry is about 5 years. Larger specalized trucks such as off-road log haulers are often completly rebuilt, either onsite or shipped off to a shop.
 

TSM A

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
are we any closer to having the MSVS (M) Guntractor issued to units?
 

Nfld Sapper

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
10
Points
580
TSM A said:
are we any closer to having the MSVS (M) Guntractor issued to units?

We are still waiting for the MSVS (M) SEV aka Engineer
 

Matt_Ubbing

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Received our first msvs gun tractor today. Going to take some adjustments on coming into and out of action, but oh well. We're gunners, well make do.
 
Top