Auditor-General to review

[jdobbin]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071127/...itary_contracts

Billions of dollars worth of fast-track purchases by the Defence Department will be the subject of a review by Canada's auditor general, The Canadian Press has learned.

Sheila Fraser has written to the Commons defence committee saying preparations are underway for the first in a series of audits, some of which will look at sole-sourced military contracts authorized by the Conservative government.

"We can now confirm that, over the next several years, we are planning to conduct work on major capital projects, including the procurement process at National Defence," said a Nov. 16, 2007, letter addressed to the committee chairman, Conservative Rick Casson.

The first review will begin early next year, with findings tabled a year later, according to the letter.

Fraser said her staff has yet to decide which projects to examine, but said she will "be considering the committee's interest and priorities."

About time, I think. It all may come out clean a whistle but the practice is subject to all sorts of problems related to expense.

[Shakeyhands]

About time, I think. It all may come out clean a whistle but the practice is subject to all sorts of problems related to expense.

There should never, ever be sole source contracting. Most everything should go to bid with very few exceptions. There should also be trackable judging criteria used to make the decision, this info should have to be kept on file for x number of years.

[margrace]

This is good news because we need to know more about this

[White Doors]

There should never, ever be sole source contracting. Most everything should go to bid with very few exceptions. There should also be trackable judging criteria used to make the decision, this info should have to be kept on file for x number of years.

Disagreed. When we send in our poorly equipped army on a war footing, then that is the time for sole source contracting. We have a duty to give our brave men and women the best equipment possible.

[jdobbin]

There should never, ever be sole source contracting. Most everything should go to bid with very few exceptions. There should also be trackable judging criteria used to make the decision, this info should have to be kept on file for x number of years.

The Tories had better hope that the Auditor doesn't rip them on this. They might try to blame the Liberals for the mess saying they had no choice but it will sound fairly weak if millions are wasted in haste.

[White Doors]

Sheila Fraser ripped the old procurement process for the DND so I don't think these emergency acquisitions in light of that mess could possibly be any worse than that.

[Wilber]

As much as I respect the Auditor General, what does she know about military equipment? You are not shopping for the best price. You buy the best that is out there and if you are buying new, you have one choice, the manufacture itself. You don't have a choice between Walmart, Costco and The Bay. When it comes to the C17's and C130's there are no serious competitors. She may find something in the contracts themselves that is questionable but not who got them.

They bought the best and good on them because if past history is any indication, our people will have to make them last for at least 30 years.

[Fortunata]

As much as I respect the Auditor General, what does she know about military equipment? You are not shopping for the best price. You buy the best that is out there and if you are buying new, you have one choice, the manufacture itself. You don't have a choice between Walmart, Costco and The Bay. When it comes to the C17's and C130's there are no serious competitors. She may find something in the contracts themselves that is questionable but not who got them.

They bought the best and good on them because if past history is any indication, our people will have to make them last for at least 30 years.

She doesn't have to know about military equipment. If the specs are put out to tender properly then you can get exactly what you want ... and for the best price. It's all about being specific and detailed, then let the bidding begin, it should never be about handing out to exactly who you want to benefit. If there is only one company that can deliver what you asked for, then the competition for it will reflect that.

[Michael Bluth]

As much as I respect the Auditor General, what does she know about military equipment? You are not shopping for the best price. You buy the best that is out there and if you are buying new, you have one choice, the manufacture itself. You don't have a choice between Walmart, Costco and The Bay. When it comes to the C17's and C130's there are no serious competitors. She may find something in the contracts themselves that is questionable but not who got them.

These are the questions Fraser can ask.

What were the terms of reference for the purchases?

Were the technical standards set out in the RFP really necessary?

Do we know if there were serious competitors who met the standards?

Does she know enough about military equipment to answer these questions? Of course not.

But she knows the correct questions to ask. Hopefully she knows the right people to ask.

Edited November 28, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[Wilber]

But she knows the correct questions to ask. Hopefully she knows the right people to ask.

Who is she going to ask other than the military or someone who is ex military? No brainer when it comes to these two items and a waste of her time and our money unless there is evidence of something underhanded with the contracts themselves.

Canada has a habit of letting its military approach rust out before it is forced to re equip. If that is going to remain the practice it only makes sense to buy the best available to push the impending rust as far into the future as possible.

[jdobbin]

As much as I respect the Auditor General, what does she know about military equipment? You are not shopping for the best price. You buy the best that is out there and if you are buying new, you have one choice, the manufacture itself. You don't have a choice between Walmart, Costco and The Bay. When it comes to the C17's and C130's there are no serious competitors. She may find something in the contracts themselves that is questionable but not who got them.

They bought the best and good on them because if past history is any indication, our people will have to make them last for at least 30 years.

It looks like people are already preparing to dismiss the Auditor's Report. The Auditor looks at the overall contract on everything from pricing to delivery to technical specs. Not all the products bought are built by only one manufacturer. Many companies wanted to bid on the trucks but they were sole sourced. Why?

As I said, the government could out clean as a whistle but why does Defence get an exemption from cost oversight?

[Wilber]

It looks like people are already preparing to dismiss the Auditor's Report. The Auditor looks at the overall contract on everything from pricing to delivery to technical specs. Not all the products bought are built by only one manufacturer. Many companies wanted to bid on the trucks but they were sole sourced. Why?

As I said, the government could out clean as a whistle but why does Defence get an exemption from cost oversight?

I'm not familiar with what is going on with the trucks but as far as the aircraft are concerned there are no serious competitors. Airbus was making a big noise but their machine isn't even built yet and they have no experience building military transports. Two of our new C17's are already in service. The C17 is simply the best of its type and the C130 is a proved design, versions already servicing in over 50 countries including Canada which will make for a short learning curve when the new ones arrive. In short, the most successful military transport since the C47. Again, the Chinook is a proved design. Over a thousand have been built, they are in service with more militarys than any other machine of its type and anything you could get for less is probably Russian. Nuff said. They bought the right stuff, the only issue is whether they are paying too much.

[jdobbin]

I'm not familiar with what is going on with the trucks but as far as the aircraft are concerned there are no serious competitors. Airbus was making a big noise but their machine isn't even built yet and they have no experience building military transports. Two of our new C17's are already in service. The C17 is simply the best of its type and the C130 is a proved design, versions already servicing in over 50 countries including Canada which will make for a short learning curve when the new ones arrive. In short, the most successful military transport since the C47. Again, the Chinook is a proved design. Over a thousand have been built, they are in service with more militarys than any other machine of its type and anything you could get for less is probably Russian. Nuff said. They bought the right stuff, the only issue is whether they are paying too much.

The aircraft are only one small section of what she is looking at. There were guidance systems, uniforms, trucks, food, fuel and several other areas that were sole sourced. Was it all necessary? I guess that is what the Auditor will find out.

The bidding system is very important to make sure we get the best price, best delivery dates, best maintenance contracts and the best overall specs.

There are various designs on C-130s as there are in C-17. Did we get the best design? Did we get the best delivery times? I have no problem if something is sole sourced if it can meet the test of scrutiny by someone like the Auditor and the Defence committee.

[bush_cheney2004]

....There are various designs on C-130s as there are in C-17. Did we get the best design? Did we get the best delivery times? I have no problem if something is sole sourced if it can meet the test of scrutiny by someone like the Auditor and the Defence committee.

Are you joking? Canada begged the US to let it butt in line to get a Globemaster III earlier in the production schedule. You can't buy it from anyone else, unless you buy used ones from the UK....and we all know what happened the last time Canada went shopping for the cheapest deal on diesel electric submarines. Well, at least the auditors office was happy...LOL!

Edited November 29, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Army Guy]

It looks like people are already preparing to dismiss the Auditor's Report. The Auditor looks at the overall contract on everything from pricing to delivery to technical specs. Not all the products bought are built by only one manufacturer. Many companies wanted to bid on the trucks but they were sole sourced. Why

?

lets not get our purchases mixed up.... there is 2 purchases for trucks....one to replace the med wheeled veh fleet listed below

Med log trucks

And there is this one for heavy trucks required in Afgan, those being used where in a poor state of repair, and i don't think either was sole sourced

Hvy truck.

Not all the products bought are built by only one manufacturer.

true enough, but not all the manufactures build to the same quality either...there are good choices and bad chioces.....Our government has a track record of going with the cheapest bid, or "Made in Canada label"....And this is not good pratice either....at least not for equipment that someones life may depend on ....what make sense to the accountants does not make it a good chioce to a soldier...vice versa...

The entire government purchasing system is flawed....the government should be approving funding, dollar amounts only ...not what equipment, types etc....unless it is stratigic in nature such as nuk attack subs, bombers, aircraft carriers etc. not trucks, tanks, helo's....

[weaponeer]

The Tories had better hope that the Auditor doesn't rip them on this. They might try to blame the Liberals for the mess saying they had no choice but it will sound fairly weak if millions are wasted in haste.

Let see, The Libs sole sourced the LSVW trucks in the 1990's to a company in BC. They are crap, we do not have any in Afghanistan. They sole sourcedthe 100 Griffon helicopters the military did not even want, they are not in Afghanistan either. They sole source maint contracts to Bombardier to get votes in Quebec.

At least the Troies have sole sourced equipment we can use like C17s, C130J, H47, Leopard tanks etc... Sounds like they actually listen to the military and buy what we need, and do not buy what we do not need. But what would I know, I am only the military guy who uses the equipment, whose life depends on it.

Here's a good link...

http://www.canada.com/components/print.asp...72-aa93a738a23b

[Fortunata]

There's absolutely no reason the process can't be both competitive and quality/exactly what is wanted. This black and white either/or thinking is ridiculous.

[Wilber]

There's absolutely no reason the process can't be both competitive and quality/exactly what is wanted. This black and white either/or thinking is ridiculous.

It is black and white if only one manufacturer builds what you need, otherwise I tend to agree. Canada has to buy off the shelf, we don't have the option of calling for design tenders because we don't buy enough to make it worthwhile.

[jdobbin]

lets not get our purchases mixed up.... there is 2 purchases for trucks....one to replace the med wheeled veh fleet listed below

And there is this one for heavy trucks required in Afgan, those being used where in a poor state of repair, and i don't think either was sole sourced

true enough, but not all the manufactures build to the same quality either...there are good choices and bad chioces.....Our government has a track record of going with the cheapest bid, or "Made in Canada label"....And this is not good pratice either....at least not for equipment that someones life may depend on ....what make sense to the accountants does not make it a good chioce to a soldier...vice versa...

The entire government purchasing system is flawed....the government should be approving funding, dollar amounts only ...not what equipment, types etc....unless it is stratigic in nature such as nuk attack subs, bombers, aircraft carriers etc. not trucks, tanks, helo's....

The heavy truck contract is the one that is stalled because it was sole sourced and there is a fight going on in regards to it.

http://www.570news.com/news/national/artic...ntent=n1127135A

Boeing was also tagged for a sole-source $4.2 billion deal involving the purchase iof 16 CH-47 Chinook battlefield helicopters, but a formal contract has yet to be signed.

Similarly, the $1.1 billion acquisition of heavy logistics trucks for the army has been stalled.

I totally agree that we should buy the best equipment but at the same time, the Department of Defence re-writes specs so that only one company qualifies. The relationship between lobbyists and the procurement is too close and the result sometimes is not a good one for the taxpayer or for our strategic defence. Paying $100 for a hammer is what happens when there isn't someone watching the till.

[jdobbin]

Let see, The Libs sole sourced the LSVW trucks in the 1990's to a company in BC. They are crap, we do not have any in Afghanistan. They sole sourcedthe 100 Griffon helicopters the military did not even want, they are not in Afghanistan either. They sole source maint contracts to Bombardier to get votes in Quebec.

At least the Troies have sole sourced equipment we can use like C17s, C130J, H47, Leopard tanks etc... Sounds like they actually listen to the military and buy what we need, and do not buy what we do not need. But what would I know, I am only the military guy who uses the equipment, whose life depends on it.

Here's a good link...

http://www.canada.com/components/print.asp...72-aa93a738a23b

The Liberals purchased that equipment because the military requested it not because they thought on looked good on the shelf. Sometimes the military makes extremely poor choices in its requests. The submarines come to mind. The Navy begged the Liberals not to let the subs go to another country and subsequently, we have four ships that are not in use.

Sole sourcing should only be done as a last resort. No one wants to pay crazy amounts of money for equipment that does not work.

[geoffrey]

Disagreed. When we send in our poorly equipped army on a war footing, then that is the time for sole source contracting. We have a duty to give our brave men and women the best equipment possible.

It has very little to do with defense spending. Your not going to save much in the big picture by tendering a bid there. It's the small things that add up though, that cause trouble.

I totally agree that we should buy the best equipment but at the same time, the Department of Defence re-writes specs so that only one company qualifies.

This shows that tendering can be just as open to ethical concerns as sole source. Perhaps even more so as they are under the guise of competitive bidding. At the end of the day, the government has no obligation to purchase the cheapest item either. The relationship between buyers and lobbyists is going to win or lose you the bid. I've been involved in lobbying and I left the the industry and whole field I was in because I couldn't ethically handle it anymore.

The relationship between lobbyists and the procurement is too close

It's an unavoidable situation though. Wining and dining after work and golf tournaments and what not are a fact of life in sales, to business and to government. Having a situation where lobbyists and buyers can't meet is surely not efficent either. Meeting vendors in person is key to determining productive business relationships. However, in the end the best personality and the company with the biggest perks always wins. Your concerns are valid, but there isn't a way to deal with them without stalling the government and making more inefficiencies.

These things do work in the corporate world. There is no reason why they can't in government, if there was competent employees and responsible management.

[jdobbin]

It's an unavoidable situation though. Wining and dining after work and golf tournaments and what not are a fact of life in sales, to business and to government. Having a situation where lobbyists and buyers can't meet is surely not efficent either. Meeting vendors in person is key to determining productive business relationships. However, in the end the best personality and the company with the biggest perks always wins. Your concerns are valid, but there isn't a way to deal with them without stalling the government and making more inefficiencies.

These things do work in the corporate world. There is no reason why they can't in government, if there was competent employees and responsible management.

And a proper audit and rules for how lobbyists and buyers do business.

Companies make sure they have lots of choices when it comes to large contracts. They make sure other companies bid on the work to get the best value. Governments should do the same.

Edited November 30, 2007 by jdobbin

[weaponeer]

The Liberals purchased that equipment because the military requested it not because they thought on looked good on the shelf. Sometimes the military makes extremely poor choices in its requests. The submarines come to mind. The Navy begged the Liberals not to let the subs go to another country and subsequently, we have four ships that are not in use.

Sole sourcing should only be done as a last resort. No one wants to pay crazy amounts of money for equipment that does not work.

Hi Jdobb,

The Air Force did NOT ask for the Griffon helos, they had 50 Heuys that were in great shape and could have had another 10 yeras of service. The Air Force was told it was getting 100 helos. The LSVW truck was thrust upon the military, we were ordered to rewrite the requirnments for a new truck to fit the LSVW.

Submarines; they are the most lethal and effective wepons system any navy can possess. They are virtually undetectalbe. One of my closest friends is a sub officer, and I have another great friend who flies aurora's. Subs cannot be detected if it is operated properly, they only get detected if the crew screws up and makes a mistake. You have to get your mind out of the cold war mantality, subs are not used for those roles much anymore, they are much more useful today. As for subs not doing anything, I will tell my friend whose at sea 3 - 4 times are year not to worry, he is not being used!!

We have a small military, that is good and in some ways bad. As a military officer I see the benifits of a smaller, more agile well trained and equipped military. A small military can be powerful, effective & lethal if it is properly equippped. that is the model our senior leadership is trying to follow. If we can only afford 18 transport planes, we have to get the best in the world, the C130J. If we can only sustain 16 heavy lift helos, get 16 of the best in the world. If you are only operating 18 maritime patrol planes with three coasts, get 18 of the best.

Ideas of "sales to the lowest bidder" fit a larger militray that buys in the hundreds & thousands for planes, trucks & boats. We do not!! If we only have 80 fighters defending the second largest landmass on earth, the better be 80 of the best available, not the lowest bidder. It does not work for a small military.

As for the libs support to the military, it is and was not there!! I am in the military, 19 years, I was around for the nightmare of the 1990's. Between the Libs & shitty military leadership it is any wonder we are still here. The libs were not interested in spending money on new anything, they would howvere spend loads of cash on upgrading old worn out machines, espescially if the contract could go to bombardier or some other Lib riding. I worked in HQ in the 90's, was involved is some projects, I was there!! I know what the lib policy was.

With the Tory gov't the military can be more honest and say that spending billions to upgrade worn out machines is non sense!! If you put a new engine & stereo in a '57 Chev, it is still a '57 Chev!!!

With a small military you have to ask the experts what they need, which specific product, and go buy it. The military is not interested is wasting taxpayers money, there is not value in that. We want to spend what we have wisely. If the Air Force general want to spend the monies on a specific item or platform, then he should be trusted as the air expert to do that.

It all comes back to the systemic liberal dislike and distrust of anything militray. "we can not be trusted to make sound judgements" "we have hidden agendas" etc..... when in reality we only want the proper equipment to defend our country, where our families also live, we want the equipment that will allow young Canadian sent overseas to dangerous places to do their job and come home safe. We have a small military, there is NO acceptable reason not to have it properly equipped at all times......

[weaponeer]

Jdobb,

Do not take my last as personel, I understand full you train of thought.....

[jdobbin]

The Air Force did NOT ask for the Griffon helos, they had 50 Heuys that were in great shape and could have had another 10 yeras of service. The Air Force was told it was getting 100 helos. The LSVW truck was thrust upon the military, we were ordered to rewrite the requirnments for a new truck to fit the LSVW.

Submarines; they are the most lethal and effective wepons system any navy can possess. They are virtually undetectalbe. One of my closest friends is a sub officer, and I have another great friend who flies aurora's. Subs cannot be detected if it is operated properly, they only get detected if the crew screws up and makes a mistake. You have to get your mind out of the cold war mantality, subs are not used for those roles much anymore, they are much more useful today. As for subs not doing anything, I will tell my friend whose at sea 3 - 4 times are year not to worry, he is not being used!!

We have a small military, that is good and in some ways bad. As a military officer I see the benifits of a smaller, more agile well trained and equipped military. A small military can be powerful, effective & lethal if it is properly equippped. that is the model our senior leadership is trying to follow. If we can only afford 18 transport planes, we have to get the best in the world, the C130J. If we can only sustain 16 heavy lift helos, get 16 of the best in the world. If you are only operating 18 maritime patrol planes with three coasts, get 18 of the best.

Ideas of "sales to the lowest bidder" fit a larger militray that buys in the hundreds & thousands for planes, trucks & boats. We do not!! If we only have 80 fighters defending the second largest landmass on earth, the better be 80 of the best available, not the lowest bidder. It does not work for a small military.

With a small military you have to ask the experts what they need, which specific product, and go buy it. The military is not interested is wasting taxpayers money, there is not value in that. We want to spend what we have wisely. If the Air Force general want to spend the monies on a specific item or platform, then he should be trusted as the air expert to do that.

It all comes back to the systemic liberal dislike and distrust of anything militray. "we can not be trusted to make sound judgements" "we have hidden agendas" etc..... when in reality we only want the proper equipment to defend our country, where our families also live, we want the equipment that will allow young Canadian sent overseas to dangerous places to do their job and come home safe. We have a small military, there is NO acceptable reason not to have it properly equipped at all times......

Hey weaponeer,

I should have been more specific. It was DND that put in the request for Griffins. I don't know what the individual branches of the military wanted but the top brass in procurement put the request in. Eugene Lang, former chief of staff for two Defence ministers, has written extensively in the National Post about the wish lists that came from DND. The Griffin was requested because it was thought at the time that it would better serve domestic needs.

Our subs at the moment are impossible to detect in the water. They were saying on CBC that if we are lucky, one sub may be in operation in 2008. The Navy begged for those subs. They were not thrust upon them. The result is four subs with huge issues in terms of repairs.

I have no idea about the trucks.

Decisions on what to buy are made by the military based on the budgets they are given.

As for upgrades, the Aurora upgrade was to keep the aircraft flying. That upgrade is cancelled now. There will be no Aurora flights for the rest of this year that last time I heard. Not exactly good in terms of maintaining our northern security. Even if the Tories sole source, it will mean many months before patrols resume.

You have heard me here say the the Forces should receive the best equipment to do the job. However, the decisions to buy Griffins wasn't made by a Defence minister going over specs of the Griffins and thinking they'd be nice to have. DND makes those choices.

Edited November 30, 2007 by jdobbin