Speeding Up Procurement

[Kirkhill]

And what share of the industry in each of those regions COMPETES with Boeing?

Pratt and Whitney is a potential supplier, as are Dowty and CAE.  Bombardier is a pure competitor.

 

[geo]

Bombardier is a pure competitor only if Boeing decides to go into the small regional jet business.  If it continues making the 737s then it  isn't competition..........

 

[MarkOttawa]

A certain journalist is at it again:

Buying below the radar
While in Opposition, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor was disgusted over the lack of competition in military procurement. Now, the tables are turned, and critics say civilian oversight and accountability have disappeared from the process of buying costly military equipment
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=56e15adb-492c-4c30-a396-ec001609217e

Though I would agree that de facto sole-sourcing the C-27J would not be proper.

Forces deny picking rescue plane before competition
Report suggests military set requirements for $1.3B deal so only one aircraft could win
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=19275bda-5cc9-4d7b-aa1d-fe14f0976b4b

Mark
Ottawa

 

[HDE]

It seems you'd have to be pretty flexible in your requirements to include the Dash-8 as a contender.  I believe both of the other potential candidates have a ramp, unlike the Bombardier offering.

 

[Kirkhill]

When I talk about Bombardier and Boeing competing I mean that they are both competing for the dollars that are currently on offer to fly Canadians from point a to b.  The same with Alenia and CASA, LM and Airbus.  The requirements aren't in the picture as far as they are concerned. They are just interested in securing the cash.  It is the salesman's job to convince you to spend the money with them by showing you how many neat things you could do with their particular gear.

Unlike cars there aren't a number of aircraft all built to the same spec by different manufacturers.  Because so few aircraft actually get built, in comparison to the number of cars and trucks built, then each manufacturer ends up only producing one or two models that fit somewhere on the broad spectrum of needs.  This has happened because of the increasing price of the aircraft and the decreasing number of customers.  When Canada bought the F18,  the options available at the time were the F14, F15, F16, F18 (F17 had lost out in a previous US competition) and the Tornado.  Currently, broadly speaking we have the Super F18, the Typhoon, the Rafale and the JAS-39 and then the F22 in a field of its own.  And shortly there will only be the F35 manufactured by as an option. 

Same thing happened in the Heavy Lift Business - 3 or 4 companies competed for that contract - only one company won.  All the rest have folded, been absorbed or limited there product range to one segment of the spectrum.  Now those that are left are reduced to trying to convince the customers that their one product will do everything they need if only they will adjust there procedures, make compromises and reduce expectations.....

Word from an experience Capital Sales salesman.

Cheers.

 

[MarkOttawa]

A related post at "The Torch":
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/01/hatchet-job.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[observor 69]

It seems you'd have to be pretty flexible in your requirements to include the Dash-8 as a contender.  I believe both of the other potential candidates have a ramp, unlike the Bombardier offering.

I just want to make the observation that one of the best SAR aircraft of it's time, the Albatross, did not have a ramp. I was on 413 Squadron with this aircraft. It had great range, all up weight, lots of avionics and was vastly superior to the Buff that replaced it. Mind you this is from an east coast perspective.

And might I add it came with an APU.  ;D

Amazing what you get when you have a purpose designed aircraft.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is more grist for the mill in the form of an editorial from today’s (24 Jan 07) Globe and Mail, reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070124.EBOEING24/TPStory/Opinion/editorials

The monkey wrenches in the Boeing contract

In opposition, the federal Conservatives resolutely denounced any attempt to play politics with defence procurement or to sole-source contracts. In office, they have reversed that position, insisting that defence firms provide regional benefits in return for contracts that Ottawa has effectively sole-sourced to them. Public Works Minister Michael Fortier in particular has declared that he will not sign a contract to buy four Boeing C-17 cargo aircraft unless Quebec receives a greater share of the contract's proposed regional benefits.

The Tories' astonishing reversal goes beyond undermining confidence in their efforts to re-equip Canada's embattled troops for the 21st century, and gets into the whole process by which government contracts are let and the degree to which regional politics shape questions of procurement.

The problem began last summer when Ottawa cited the highly unusual exception of "national security" in the federal-provincial Agreement on Internal Trade to weasel out of the normal contracting process for key military purchases. The Conservatives then insisted that contractors commit themselves to substantial purchases in the regions over the next two decades. The regional minimums were 10 per cent in Atlantic Canada, 10 per cent in Quebec and 10 per cent in the West. That was bad enough.

Then Senator Fortier got into the act. Under the proposed $3.4-billion cargo plane contract, Boeing had pledged to buy supplies and services of equal value in Canada. Roughly 30 per cent of that spending was earmarked for Quebec. Mr. Fortier has reportedly insisted that Quebec's share of Boeing's spending should come closer to its share of the nation's aerospace industry -- 55 per cent. Foreign Minister Peter MacKay is now arguing that Boeing should provide more benefits for Atlantic Canada. Boeing, in turn, has responded that it can guarantee its price only until the end of this month. The first plane was to arrive in June. This is more like a game show than a hugely important undertaking to equip our ill-equipped military.

Such odd dealings can be observed in all of the Tories' recent defence purchases. Equipment specifications have been so narrowly drafted that only one supplier could truly meet the needs. Ottawa is effectively sole-sourcing its purchases of helicopters, tactical aircraft, cargo planes and fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft. In each case, the military argued that it required equipment with a proven record. Defence officials also reasoned that they needed the equipment relatively soon to replace aging aircraft or to upgrade capabilities -- and in each case only one supplier could fill their needs. It seems urgency is now taking a back seat to pork-barrelling.

There are no angels in defence procurement. But Ottawa's sole-source purchases and its high-handed squabbling over contract spoils go well beyond any reasonable standard. The capital is abuzz with dissent, as some defence experts contend that competition is the only way to get value for money. In several weeks, at the urging of opposition MPs, the House of Commons defence committee will probe $14-billion in "de facto sole-sourced" military contracts. Such scrutiny is long overdue.

There were/are very good and valid reasons foe sole sourcing the C-17, C-130J and Chinook contracts: all three are based on solid, approved military operational requirements and, thanks to a decade of policy vandalism by former Prime Minister jean Chrétien and the Liberal Party of Canada, all three are too urgent to allow for the delays which competition from non-yet-ready-to-fly ‘competitors’ would demand.

There are no good reasons for Sen. Fortier’s actions.

If Sen. Fortier’s actions threaten to delay the timely delivery of the urgently needed aircraft then Defence Minister O’Connor  and Prime Minister Harper, if they care even one tiny bit about anything other than partisan politics in Québec, must toss Sen. Fortier’s demands on to the political dung heap where they belong.

It may be that Sen. Fortier is, simply, trumpeting the Conservative’s commitment to Québec, etc, etc, etc, and no real delay will be imposed and no real damage will be done.  If so, fair enough, politics is politics, after all and vote buying from a careless, uninformed Canadian populace is older than the country itself.  But, see above.

 

[geo]

As I have said elsewhere, if there is a risk of delaying or fouling the contract, the PM has to put his pants on and wade in on the issue and exercise his authority.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Meanwhile, back at the Liberals and the C-130J--flippity floppity (as with MrO'Connor when Defence critic and then MND) (reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act):

Where do the Liberals stand on defence procurement?
Douglas Bland, National Post, January 24
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=68447c70-aabe-4b08-9a80-1fe8e6cdbaeb

When the House of Commons convenes in January, the standing committee on national defence will begin detailed hearings on defence-procurement policies. The hearings will provide the Liberal party an opportunity to implement its pre-election promise to help rebuild the Canadian Forces, reform the defence-procurement process and expedite long-delayed major equipment contracts.

But now that the Liberals are sitting in opposition, that promise appears to have been an exercise in optics rather than policy.

Take the case of the new medium-lift planes our Armed Forces need to replace the 32 aging Hercules that make up the present fleet. On Nov. 22, 2005, then Liberal defence minister Bill Graham and Scott Brison, then minister for public works and government services Canada, the contracting agent for defence procurement, announced their intention to acquire 16 medium-lift aircraft to replace the Hercules fleet as the first step in a wholesale rebuilding of air-force transportation capabilities. The purchase, Mr. Graham announced, was central to the government's defence policy and "absolutely essential to the mission" of the Canadian Forces. The Herc replacement plan, moreover, would be "based upon a very small number of minimum performance requirements established by our military operational experts."

The ministers denied that these requirements worked in favour of the new Lockheed Martin Hercules C130J. Mr. Graham, however, emphasized that an operationally certified aircraft must be delivered within "36 months from when we sign the contract ? and we are going to work trying to get an aircraft earlier than the 36 month [deadline]." These criteria effectively blocked a bid from the only other competitor on the horizon, the Airbus A400M, which at best would not be deliverable before 2010 and more likely not before 2012.

Be that as it may, the urgency of the situation demanded, said Mr. Graham and Mr. Brison, "a streamlined  procurement process."..

Yet the urgency that inspired Mr. Graham and Mr. Brison to act decisively a year ago is now a distant memory. The Liberals have mounted a concerted attack on the new Hercules C130J. In 2005, Messrs. Graham and Brison pegged the total cost of the aircraft and it supporting package at "around $4- to $5-billion." But they seem to have forgotten all about that: In Question Period on Dec. 12, the Liberals professed to be scandalized because the Conservative estimate for essentially the same aircraft package is $4.9-billion.

Denis Coderre, the newly appointed Liberal defence critic, has decried the C130J as an "expensive flying lemon," yet he said nothing of the kind when Mr. Graham promoted the same aircraft as defence minister...

As for Mr O'Connor in December, 2005 (even big on regional benefits):

DEFENCE POLICY: CONSERVATIVES THE NEW LIBERALS
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/005351.html

Our politicians: plus c'est la meme chose.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[GAP]

My email to PM

Mr Harper, I am proud of you. For the last year you have kept the troopies in line and things have worked out. Now you've gone and let them play and look what happens. You have that digbat in Public Works and the other one in Foreign Affairs making you and the party looking very, very LIBERAL. Shut them down, award the damn contract and get on with it!!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

  January 26, 2007

Just plane nonsenseC-17 shafting of West baseless story
By TOM BRODBECK



Michel Fortier is not blocking any contract for the building of the C-17, Vic Toews says. (SUN FILES)
There are few stories that evoke as much anger among Winnipeggers -- indeed Western Canadians -- as the CF-18 ripoff of the 1980s.

That's when then-prime minister Brian Mulroney short-changed Manitobans by handing a lucrative CF-18 fighter jet contract to a Montreal firm instead of awarding it to Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg, even though Bristol had a superior bid at a lower cost.

The contract -- sent to Montreal purely for political reasons -- is considered one of the greatest federal snubs of Western Canada in recent history, surpassed only by former prime minister Pierre Trudeau's despised and short-lived National Energy Program.

If you want to get Manitobans cheesed off at the federal government, tell them Ottawa is about to pull another CF-18 on them.

Which is exactly what Premier Gary Doer and some of his media supporters decided to do this week -- as the federal Conservatives decide how to divvy up billions in military contracts.

The story is that federal Public Works Minister Michel Fortier is "reportedly" blocking a contract with Boeing to build C-17 cargo planes unless Quebec gets most of the work.

Which would mean Boeing in Winnipeg would get less work. Or no work at all, just like in 1986 when Winnipeg got screwed.

It's a riveting media story -- Eastern Canada giving it to the West again.

The villain: Prime Minister Stephen Harper shamelessly wooing Quebec voters in a desperate bid to win a majority government.

And the hero: Gary Doer, defending Manitoba's best interest by demanding the Tories not engage in "pork- barrel politics" like Mulroney did.

Shame there's no evidence to substantiate the story.

"(Fortier) is not blocking any contract on this issue," Treasury Board president and Manitoba MP Vic Toews told the Sun. "The issue that somehow one region will be treated unfairly over another is simply not correct."

NO MEMOS, QUOTES

Here's the problem with the story:

Fortier denies he said Quebec should get a greater share of the C-17 contracts. There are no quotes from him or his officials suggesting otherwise. There are no leaked memos, no letters, nothing.

Just a media "report" alleging he's "reportedly" doing it (that's media-speak for we don't really know but we'll say it anyway), regurgitated by other media and splashed on the front page like a cow's breakfast at dinner time.

"It's more political mischief than anything," Toews told the Sun. "The stories that are being circulated have absolutely no basis in fact."

Yeah, but why let facts get in the way of a good story?

The federal government is negotiating the purchase of four C-17 planes, the first phase of a $17-billion spending spree on military equipment over the next few years.

Nothing's been finalized so we don't know where those contracts are going.

But Winnipeg's aerospace industry will almost certainly get a piece of the $17 billion up for grabs.

I don't doubt for a moment that Ottawa wants to spread out the economic benefits from the $17 billion to all regions of the country. I'd prefer the contracts go to the best bidder at the best price regardless of region. But that's politics.

To claim, though, that Winnipeg may be on the verge of another CF-18-like debacle -- when there's no evidence at all to back it up -- is pretty weak.

To attribute statements to someone without knowing what they said -- if anything at all -- is even worse.

It's a hell of a good yarn, though.
http://winnipegsun.com/News/Manitoba/2007/01/26/pf-3451986.html

 

[MarkOttawa]

1) Michael Fortier, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, in a letter to the Ottawa Sun today:
http://ottsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Letters/2007/01/26/3452230-sun.html

There has been recent media speculation regarding the outcome of negotiations taking place between the Government of Canada and Boeing for the procurement of strategic airlift.

No contract has been signed, which explains why no announcement has been made.

Some media have gone as far as to say that I had declared that I would not sign a contract to buy four Boeing C-17 cargo aircraft unless Quebec receives a greater share of the contract's proposed regional benefits.

I never made such a statement.

Buying military equipment -- such as ships, airplanes, or trucks -- is not as simple as walking into a dealership and buying a new car.

Another tie? Get what you really wanted.

Billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake.

There are economic consequences to each purchase. And there are urgent needs in the field, where our troops risk their lives every day.

When billions of taxpayer dollars are given out to suppliers, it is the government's job to see that economic benefits are returned to Canadians and the Canadian aerospace and defence industry [emphasis added].

Our government is committed to address the military's need for new equipment, something that was neglected for 13 long years by the previous Liberal government. But no deal is concluded until it is signed -- that is, until the government is satisfied that the purchase was done properly, that Canadians are getting the right benefits and that the purchase will serve the interests of the country.

2) Bid change eliminated competitor for military contract, documents show
Mike Blanchfield, CanWest News Service, January 26
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=bd65cd42-957e-46dd-ba1c-88c172aabe1c&k=40203&p=1

Just weeks before the Conservative government announced its controversial plan to buy $3.4 billion worth of Boeing long-range military transports without a competitive bidding process, the military changed a key requirement that eliminated the only competitor - the Airbus Military consortium.

Documents obtained by the Ottawa Citizen show on June 13, 2006, Defence Department planners were under the impression two planes could satisfy its requirements for long-range airlift: the Boeing C-17 and the Airbus A400.

But planners changed a key specification: they doubled the payload requirement of their desired fleet, deciding each of their new planes now needed to carry 39 metric tonnes of cargo instead of the original specification of 19.5 tonnes.

"It's amazing. You call that a fix," said Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre, when told Thursday about the contents of the documents, that were recently released under Access to Information...

In a backgrounder issued on June 29, 2006, touting the new Conservative government's "Canada First" defence strategy, one of the key requirements that justified purchasing the C-17 plane was that it needed a payload capacity of 39,000 kilograms.

In the months leading up to that announcements, the military documents show the military appeared content to make due with a smaller plane with a maximum payload capacity of 19,500 kilograms.

Military planners understood if they upped the payload requirement, they would eliminate all competition...

...the military wanted a plane that could move the LAV III armoured vehicle, which weighs 18 tonnes...

I wonder why the reporter did not ask someone if the greater weight requirement might be needed to carry our Leopard tanks, which by the end of June, 2006, it was pretty likely the army would be keeping.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/07/army-wants-to-keep-leopards-ditch-mgs.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[geo]

we have to remember that the A400 is supposed to compete with the CC130 NOT the C17.

A long time ago, in a land far far away, we were looking to replace our Hercules fleet with CC130Js OR A400s but this was a time when we were using Hercs for Tactical AND strategic air movements.

Having decided that we would be interested in a strategic movement platform such as the C17, cargo capacity would obviously get jacked up..... Airbus is completely out in the cold on this contract - they don`t have a product to fit this requrement.  They should be sent packing until such time as they have done their homework AND have a platform that is already in the air ... instead of vaporware.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well the Liberals and Vaporware is a natural fit isn't it?  :

 

[geo]

Remember.... the CF18 deal with Bombardier was done by Brian Mulroney & the Conservatives...........

 

[MarkOttawa]

A much fuller article in Le Devoir makes it clear that this was about strategic, not tactical, lift--but also ignores the Leopard matter.
http://www.ledevoir.com/2007/01/26/128767.html

Query: Would in fact the 39,000 kg allow Leopards--or merely exclude the A400M (since the decision to keep the tanks had not officially been made)?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[geo]

Hmmm.... the Leo1 is in the books at 42.5Tons (not sure if US or UK)
US Ton = 38.600Kg

The CC130s and the A400s have limited capacity for those extremely long hauls (Trenton to Kandahar)... not enough bang for the buck and consequently, when deploying DART or anyone else, too many flights with smallish aircraft signifies prematurely wearing out CC130s OR wearing out our welcome with our friends.

 

[Long in the tooth]

Articles in Janes and The Economist have pointed out that Airbus has serious legal and financial problems aside from technical issues.  Airbus is an artificial construct, a 'private' company created by the French government so that the aerospace industry would not be subsumed by the British (BAE) and/or Germans.

If I were a civilian company I would hardly even consider doing business with such a shady and shaky firm.

But Mr Fortier?  Well, it is only tax money after all.

 

[GAP]

But Mr Fortier?  Well, it is only tax money after all.

What are you talking about?  ???