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

Suggested method for bypassing tender process....

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Inactive
Reaction score
35
Points
530
In short, DND gathers existing contract information for desired kit as purchased by other nations from public sources and should the supplying company be willing to provide a minimum discount of 7.5% over the inflation-adjusted price, then the tendering process may be bypassed.

More than improving the speed at which we can procure new kit, it should hopefully change the entire outlook on the process.  Specifically, they should start looking the 'opportunity' of bundling kit from single suppliers/consortiums maximizing savings while minimizing internal labour.

The one caveat is that all companies who participate must sign civil contracts that they will not hire DND personnel in any way involved in the process after-the-fact.  We don't want anything like the Boeing SAAR lease fiasco happening here....



Matthew.  :salute:
 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
The one caveat is that all companies who participate must sign civil contracts that they will not hire DND personnel in any way involved in the process after-the-fact.   We don't want anything like the Boeing SAAR lease fiasco happening here....



Matthew.   :salute:

So the guys who will build equipment for our military are to be specifically prohibited from hiring former members of that military, preventing them from bringing their experience to the drawing board.

I don't see the logic in that.
 
Michael Dorosh said:
So the guys who will build equipment for our military are to be specifically prohibited from hiring former members of that military, preventing them from bringing their experience to the drawing board.

I don't see the logic in that.

The logic is to prevent today's general in charge of acquisitions from becoming tomorrow's highly paid consultant after he gives the company a contract that they would not have won, without his assistance. Defence contracts are rife with this sort of corruption. The people in question are guaranteed lucrative jobs upon retirement in exchange for their (successful) promotion of a certain product.

Additionally, once these guys become employees in the private sector, they are lobbying their former subordinates, who often replaced them in their positions of influence over acquisitions, with the end result being an old boys club in which the interests of industry are protected far more zealously than the interests of the CF.

Many industries have clauses prohibiting such employment after retirement, or upon release. 
 
I'm aware of the potential conflicts of interest bit why also prohibit guys who weren't part of the procurement process from seeking employment with these firms?
 
A few reasons.

1) It promotes attrition. This is a fact of life in the civilian world, but if the CF has the weight to prevent it, I say do it.

2) Even if they were not involved in procurement, there is an implied credibility attached to a product designed by a number of former members, or influential ones.

3) It prevents products from being produced and evaluated on their own merit, concentrating instead on the connections of the design team. (ie. Lewis Mackenzie (just for example) publicly backs an item, you refuse it. So you are smarter than him now?)

This is a hazy area of no firm answers and lots of grey - no black and white.

The results of this system can be seen south of the border with some truly ridiculous (in terms of cost and use) concepts seeing years of private sector research funded by the government. These include the Crusader, Comanche and the various variants of the F22. The military did not identify an operational requirement for these items, They are decades ahead of any potential rival, and they have no use in the current context. So why did the US DoD pay to have them developed? Because each had the backing of a large number of retired General Officers as "advisors" to Lockheed, McDonnel Douglas, General Dynamics etc.who would have profited enormously had they been put into production and service.

This perpetuates the Military Industrial Complex, which has had the US pursuing a wartime economy since 1945. That is why we don't want it to happen here.
 
So what former generals and DND big wigs hold positions at Oerlikin? (MMEV) How many ate crow after the Cyclone contract was awarded?
 
whiskey601 said:
So what former generals and DND big wigs hold positions at Oerlikin? (MMEV) How many ate crow after the Cyclone contract was awarded?

I'm struggling to draw a link between a Sikorsky Maritime Helicopter and the MMEV. Sikorsky does not make LAVs or their variants (as far as I know) and GD does'nt make Helos.

Could you rephrase?
 
I do see a problem with hiring a General or Senior Officer to be you Spokesperson or Sales Rep, but I see no problem with hiring ex-military pers in the R&D process.  I think that the Germans have such well thought out and designed Kit, because their R&D volk all have had time in the Bundeswehr.  They know what soldiers need and want, as they were soldiers themselves, not some geek whose only military experience was a PlayStation.
 
George Wallace said:
I do see a problem with hiring a General or Senior Officer to be you Spokesperson or Sales Rep, but I see no problem with hiring ex-military pers in the R&D process.   I think that the Germans have such well thought out and designed Kit, because their R&D volk all have had time in the Bundeswehr.   They know what soldiers need and want, as they were soldiers themselves, not some geek whose only military experience was a PlayStation.

This is true, but German officers are also required to rise to the rank of Sergeant before beign selected for officer training - right? I think that this would give them a bit more experience in what soldiers "need and want" than a general in Ottawa whose closest experience to the field in the last 30 years was when he sliced into the rough.
 
GO!!! said:
This is true, but German officers are also required to rise to the rank of Sergeant before beign selected for officer training - right? I think that this would give them a bit more experience in what soldiers "need and want" than a general in Ottawa whose closest experience to the field in the last 30 years was when he sliced into the rough.
Didn't I just say something along those lines?   Must be the late night posts without a Timmies.    ;D
 
Michael Dorosh said:
I'm aware of the potential conflicts of interest bit why also prohibit guys who weren't part of the procurement process from seeking employment with these firms?

Michael, if you re-read my post, I was recommending that only individuals involved in procurement be banned from future employment with defence contractors.

And if you need to see why, check the Boeing farce with air-to-air tanker lease contract. 

Bottom Line:  When you get cyclical movement of individuals from the Pentagon to a defence contractor, back to the Pentagon and then back to the defence contractor, you have a definite conflict of interest in which the procurement officer knows there is a potential reward for signing a deal that is not in public's best interest.




Matthew.  :salute:
 
George Wallace said:
Didn't I just say something along those lines?   Must be the late night posts without a Timmies.     ;D

Technically, it was early morning. Trouble sleeping these days... :-[

Sorry about that!
 
Back
Top