Speeding Up Procurement

[Colin Parkinson]

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."

They knew exactly what they were doing, ensuring they had a reason not to take part in oversea operations.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Just to add another fly to the ointment, look at this from today’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061005.DEFENCE05/TPStory/?query=daniel+leblanc

U.S. rules snag military equipment deals
Ottawa facing 'unmanageable problem,' senior procurement official declares

DANIEL LEBLANC

OTTAWA -- The federal government is facing an "unmanageable problem" with its plan to purchase $17-billion in new military equipment and the eventual solution could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the bill, government documents and experts say.

The problem stems from U.S. rules that prevent some dual nationals from obtaining confidential information relating to U.S. military equipment.

Ottawa's view is that the restrictions are unconstitutional and cannot be applied in Canada.

"To undertake discriminatory employment practices based on nationality is contrary to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms," said a document prepared by Dan Ross, the senior bureaucrat in charge of procurement at the Department of National Defence. "DND's recent defence procurement announcements of $17-billion could be negatively impacted by the dual-national . . . requirement."

The document, which was obtained by the French-language arm of the CBC, was circulated to government and private-sector officials last month.

The conflict between U.S. rules and Canadian law is hindering Ottawa's negotiations with the U.S. company Boeing Co. to purchase four giant C-17 cargo planes (at a cost of $3.7-billion) and 16 heavy-lift Chinook helicopters (for $4.7-billion).

The Harper government plans to buy another $9-billion in military equipment, including smaller cargo planes, ships and trucks. Those purchases will also be affected if they are made in the United States.

Federal officials say the government could be forced to engage in a process known as a "foreign military sale."

In effect, the Canadian government would buy the aircraft directly from the U.S. government, which would take a commission of about 5 per cent (roughly $400-million) to order the aircraft from Boeing and ship them north.

A retired bureaucrat said a change in the procurement process would cost more money, take more time and lead to fewer economic benefits in Canada.

"You will never get the same kind of deal as going through a very harsh and competitive marketplace," said Alan Williams, the former top bureaucrat in the procurement branch at DND. "You're not bickering on the price, plus you're paying a broker, as opposed to cutting the cost by X or Y per cent."

State Department rules known as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations prevent dual nationals from a list of proscribed countries (such as China, Cuba and Vietnam) from working on military projects that involve U.S. technology.

In Canada, the Charter prevents the federal government from treating some citizens differently than others.

"Complying with [State Department] requirements to identify dual nationals and using that information for discriminatory purposes is contrary to the Canadian Charter," said the document prepared by Mr. Ross.

The document said it is simply impossible to accommodate the U.S. restrictions and Canadian law. It's an "unmanageable problem," the document bluntly states.

The document adds that the U.S. government has been enforcing its restrictions more stringently in recent months, hence the current predicament.

Federal officials at the highest level of government are aware of the problem, and Canada's ambassador to the United States, Michael Wilson, has pressed the case with senior State Department officials.

Ottawa hopes to work around the problem by providing a high-level security clearance to the employees who require access to controlled data, in exchange for an "effective exemption" from the U.S. rules on dual nationals.

DND officials could not be reached yesterday to comment on Mr. Ross's document. A Public Works Department official acknowledged that the situation is "preoccupying."

The ‘problem’ is difficult but hardly unmanageable.

If we had a single, unified military (as opposed to DND) procurement agency – maybe a public-private partnership operating somewhat beyond the day-by-day reach of the governing caucus – then it would be possible to skirt the Charter issue by making compliance with contractual requirements a condition for employment in specific, albeit changeable, positions within the organization, I think (he says, pointing to the empty place on the wall where a law degree does not hang).

Defence procurement is a complete bugger’s muddle and it needs quick, radical surgery.  Putting purely military procurement into a separate agency, a business agency, might help.  If we can have an arm’s length agency to sell Canadian military hardware to foreigners -  http://www.ccc.ca/eng/home.cfm - why can we not have another arm’s length agency to buy military hardware – from Canadian and foreign suppliers?  The only down-side would that members of the government caucus would not get to waste taxpayers’ hard earned money by steering contract requirements to favour their own, local suppliers.  Imagine the many and varied drawbacks to honest, businesslike procurement; quelle horreur – the government might have to make sound, practical spending decisions when using your money and mine, just like you and I.

 

[GAP]

Did not congress recently approve the purchases by Canada? There was a blurb about it, about 3-4 weeks ago. Is this the same thing, or is it additonal?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Did not congress recently approve the purchases by Canada? There was a blurb about it, about 3-4 weeks ago. Is this the same thing, or is it additonal?

I think these are just some of the 'contractual requirements' - imposed by one agency after another - which come into play after Congress approves these sorts of deals (FMS, etc).  I have been away from the details of the procurement process for about 15 years so I am happy to be corrected.

 

[MarkOttawa]

For some strange reason the current issue of Ottawa Life magazine (Vol. 9, Number 3) has a full page ad from Bombardier promoting a military version of the Dash-8 (actually now called the "Q series") for "Search and Rescue". "A Canadian made solution..." blah, blah, blah.

Q Series aircraft and military derivatives are built in Toronto; Bombardier is considered a Quebec company. What will a minority government, seeking a majority through more seats in Ontario and Quebec, do? If honestly trying to get the best fixed-wing SAR plane for the Air Force perhaps follow the policy of Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator--at least if the next federal election is not delayed too long. Otherwise a tough decision should be made.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Franko]

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 

Coyotes and LAVs are completely different beasts due to the surv op package we employ. Coyote is set up for it, LAV is not.

Regards

 

[MarkOttawa]

Thank goodness we're well clear of the Airbus A400M--Airbus head says its schedule is on the edge.
http://eureferendum2.blogspot.com/2006/10/real-thing.html

Streiff is also saying that the A400M – the military airlifter - could suffer cost overruns or delays. "The timetable is exactly on the edge. It is a tense situation with a number of suppliers and internally. We are exactly on track but without any reserves [of time]," Strieff says...

Streiff is also saying that the A400M – the military airlifter - could suffer cost overruns or delays. "The timetable is exactly on the edge. It is a tense situation with a number of suppliers and internally. We are exactly on track but without any reserves [of time]," Strieff says...

That there is a potential problem seems to be confirmed by the speed with which Francois Lureau, head of France's DGA procurement agency, came rushing to the defence of the project, declaring that, "the key milestones have been respected and that deliveries are on track for 2009." That, of course, is not the point – the question is whether cost over-runs will force Airbus to pull the plug or slow down production...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Brad Sallows]

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

How accurate are the old 106's?

 

[Old Sweat]

The 106 was accurate within its design limitations, but it was a low velocity weapon with an effective range of about a kilometre. Its armour penetration, at least for its HEAT round, was limited by its calibre. (There is a formula for the amount of armour a shaped charge can cut through, but I can't remember it off hand. It seems to me, however, that the thickness it can defeat was very close to its diameter, in this case 106mm or 4.1 inches.) HsAT also works best if it does not rotate and is not travelling that fast, hence the low velocity. The HEAT round had a rotating driving band, which allowed it to function as a fin stabilized projectile. The other round, which was another variety of HE, was spin-stabilized, but I recall little else about it.

While light and agile compared to the 17-pounder which it replaced in postwar Canadian infantry battalons, it also is large and cumbersome when placed beside its replacement, the TOW. Now add in the lack of a source of spares and the lack of a production line for its ammunition, and it is a non-starter.

At several times over the years there have been suggestions that we resurrect the 106, but none progressed past the stages of early examination. The 106, after all, is nearly six decades old.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Thanks.  So the question is, if the capability sought (at 2.5km) is AP rather than AT, is there anything else cheaper, simpler, accurate, with a higher ROF and less complex ammo, than a missile system?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The 106, after all, is nearly six decades old.

Sure, but I've been (and continue to be) an advocate of inexpensive and proven equipment even if the tech is old.  I'd rather resurrect a production line for 1940's Willys jeeps than buy another expensive COTS truck for the LUVW slot, and I continue to wonder whether a 2006 version of the Bren carrier would be inexpensive and useful (but with increasing doubt because I see a glimmer of superiority of wheels over tracks in current modes of conflict).

 

[Old Sweat]

Brad,

I'm not trying to be confrontential (even after a glass too many of red plonk at dinner), but would you send Canadian soldiers into action mounted in half-tracks instead of LAVIIIs?

Best regards,

BAR

 

[a78jumper]

I wish them well speeding up the process. My time with what was then called DG Proc S/Initial Provisioning in the late 1980s was the beginning of the end as far as my time in the CF went. Posting trained military personnel there to be pretend civy servants was a crime; I escaped by going to the Sky Hawks for a year, which sure beat hitting my head against the wall on a daily basis. :dontpanic:

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I'm not trying to be confrontential (even after a glass too many of red plonk at dinner), but would you send Canadian soldiers into action mounted in half-tracks instead of LAVIIIs?

Not if we're buying LAV IIIs all around.  If we're sending one battalion into action in LAV IIIs and another in LUVWs, I'd just as soon buy something in between, though.

 

[Brad Sallows]

BTW, something along the lines of an inexpensive and small armoured vehicle was something that popped into my mind back when the recce guys were debating basic mud recce versus surveillance and the over-engineering of the Coyote for the former.

 

[Cloud Cover]

A flamethrower version of the LAV might be handy for all sorts of reasons. A RonsonLav 

 

[geo]

Ronson LAV, interesting idea but, not sure of the frequency / need for such a comodity.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Ronson LAV, interesting idea but, not sure of the frequency / need for such a comodity.

You have to admit that you wouldn't have to use it often, after the first few times the enemy will hoof it when they hear the LAV's and the effect on morale would be significant.

 

[Cloud Cover]

makes cleaning up the garbage a lot easier too!

 

[geo]

You have to admit that you wouldn't have to use it often, after the first few times the enemy will hoof it when they hear the LAV's and the effect on morale would be significant.

Colin,
We haven't seen a need to deploy manportable ones........ vehicle portable ones are a long way back down the food chain.  With respect to morale; the chain guns on the LAVs is looking after that already - IMHO