Army Guy Posted July 22, 2012 Report Posted July 22, 2012 good to know you don't recognize and could care less about Public Works. But...change is in the works, hey? We need a massive restruture on how we purchase anything for the government, these chnages that the government proposes are not going to solve anything. Procurement used to be done this way anyway so no changes that way, only recently (Afghan) has DND had more say on the equipment purchased. Have you ever read a spec sheet the military sent into PWSG, its so vague you have to ask is this a truck or a plane....from these specs sheets a civilian picks samples of what they think they are looking for, Then it has to pass the political process which has hundrds of requirements they exam each sample on price, can it be built in Canada, is there any benifits to our country, how much of it can be manufactured in Canada, who's riding can it be built in, how many Canadian jobs will it create etc. all of has nothing to do with will it save lives,will it do the job. Then those samples are given to the Military so they can test them and recommend one, keep in mind the that decission has already been made by our political master...who have NO experience, knowledge of either in the military or doing large purchases, or contracts, the final and most important decision is(are there any votes in it) which is why we end up with the equipment such as MLVW, LSVW, 5/4, Subs, If the C-17 did not have any political pionts attached to it, it would not have been soled sourced or purchased in a timly matter.... It all comes down to money and votes....not lives...So this new process will work, soldiers will pay for these decisions with their lives, and when enough have died the public will demand a change... Can you honestly say that PWSG has any more experience on these multi bil dollar contracts, i mean they only come up every 30 years or so....Why not train these Military guys in the proper way, make it a trade, keep them in purchasing for thier entire carear. Keeping military equipment for 30 plus years is just plain stupid, and cost more over the long run. I said, 'tailoring to the exclusion of any but the preferred vendor/product... you know... ginning up the procurement process! But... as I said, change is in the works. Best you talk to the Harper hand, hey? Can you blame them really , whats wrong with getting equipment that works, or fits the job we do. Whats wrong with letting the dept that uses the stuff to chose...tell them this is what funding you have make it last...want more justify why... Changing requirements, or getting as much on the contract as we can put in there, can you blame them again your going to keep it for 30 years, again stupid practices time for a change, time for changes that work, not for ones that chase votes....This is a problem that effects all Parties, even most nations.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
waldo Posted July 22, 2012 Report Posted July 22, 2012 A “tight deal” with the Russians………Ask the Indians and Chinese what they think about “tight Russian deals” again, you asked for an alternative - I gave you one. If we had no qualms in a long-standing rental arrangement with the Russians, I'm not clear why you need to fabricate a scenario that doesn't fit that past relationship... other than it's another of your distracting self-serving needs. Are those the Chief of Defence Staff’s words……..moving the goal posts Waldo? no goal posts being moved. The article speaks directly to force projection... you yourself spoke to it as, "preparing contingencies". Interesting in that you're now quibbling over whether the Chief of Defence Staff actually spoke the very words to align with Postmedia News' representative of the directive. And yet you were the guy who repeatedly spoke to some backside covering "news release" that tried to counter the mass-media interpretation that the U.S. Navy CNO had doubts about the JSFail F-35... a "news release" that carried no specific direct words from CNO Greenert; i.e., just another one of your selective self-serving claims, hey? Clear enough? it's been quoted/linked before... read it several times... just needed to have you speak specifically to the word sovereignty. As in escorting commercial airliners... or a drug carrying Cessna Quote
waldo Posted July 22, 2012 Report Posted July 22, 2012 I said, 'tailoring to the exclusion of any but the preferred vendor/product... you know... ginning up the procurement process! But... as I said, change is in the works. Best you talk to the Harper hand, hey?Ottawa eyes plan to loosen DND’s grip on military procurement Can you blame them really , whats wrong with getting equipment that works, or fits the job we do. Whats wrong with letting the dept that uses the stuff to chose...tell them this is what funding you have make it last...want more justify why... Changing requirements, or getting as much on the contract as we can put in there, can you blame them again your going to keep it for 30 years, again stupid practices time for a change, time for changes that work, not for ones that chase votes....This is a problem that effects all Parties, even most nations.... within a procurement process, subject matter experts, invariably, hold and project upon degrees of bias. Notwithstanding legalities, it is imperative to at least be seen attempting to balance inherent bias against a fair undertaking... if for no other reason than to keep vendors engaged... for the next one. Vendor/manufacturers, typically, have a pretty good idea how their offerings stack up against their competition. If requirement specifications are properly written, a fair(er) evaluation is likely to occur... and be interpreted as such by vendor/manufacturers... and in this specific DND scenario, by the Canadian public. Much of what has been described as occurring within DND procurement can't be described as being 'fair evaluations'. Again, as I said, a requirements spec can't be written to specifically favour one vendor/product... to the explicit exclusion of other vendors/products. If a spec is written properly, if the right people are evaluating products against the spec (properly and fairly), the best/right product will surface. if, per the above link, a new organization is structured within Public Works, I'd anticipate some of it being staffed by persons from DND... providing more of an arms-length relationship to DND proper. Optics and all that. Quote
Army Guy Posted July 22, 2012 Report Posted July 22, 2012 within a procurement process, subject matter experts, invariably, hold and project upon degrees of bias. Notwithstanding legalities, it is imperative to at least be seen attempting to balance inherent bias against a fair undertaking... Subject matter experts at what exactly, military equipment or purchasing, makes a huge difference, my wife is a purchasing god, but i don't let her pick out my power tools. Your concerned about being bias, are you saying PWSG is free of bias could not be influenced somehow. or are you saying Military members can not be unbias i mean they do have a vested interest to pick the best veh , but better yet they could pick the right vehs for the competition. Why not just eliminate the reasons to be bias, purchase equipment on a regular time scedule, lets not wait 30 years, and lets replace those that are scraped that same year, with separate approval, ie a truck is written off in an accident then that year it is replaced to maintain the numbers of the orginal contract, we don't do that, destroy one and thats it it's gone forever. Purchase a reasonable war stock. to keep units up to their orginal T&OE. lets add to the contract a seris of reasonable times to perform updates through out it's life on a regular basis, new tech comes out then purchases it and add it, i'm not talking about regular modifications, I'm talking about stuff we add on to midlife SLEP's, instead of waitng 10 or 15 years to do it. if for no other reason than to keep vendors engaged... for the next one. Vendor/manufacturers, typically, have a pretty good idea how their offerings stack up against their competition. If requirement specifications are properly written, a fair(er) evaluation is likely to occur... and be interpreted as such by vendor/manufacturers... and in this specific DND scenario, by the Canadian public. The Specs are a joke, they are written to be as vague as posiable, so there is not hint of favoritism to any manufacture. They are changed a hundred times until all parties involved are happy, DND, PWSG, Our Political masters. I'd like to know what are the your requirements are for a fair evalation. which like i've said before, fair has nothing to do with it Then it has to pass the political process which has hundrds of requirements they exam each sample on price, can it be built in Canada, is there any benifits to our country, how much of it can be manufactured in Canada, who's riding can it be built in, how many Canadian jobs will it create etc. all of has nothing to do with will it save lives,will it do the job. These have more wieght to the equipment we buy than than specs do so how can that be fair. prime example of this is the LSVW purchase awarded to western star in BC. Veh DND had it's eye on was the HUMVEE, not even close to specs of the LSVW, but the US would not allow it's manufacture in Canada. and in this specific DND scenario, by the Canadian public. I'll ask the question why does it have to have the appearence of being fair to the Canadian public ? because they are paying taxes, Do they have to approve every aspect of the purchases ? I'll say it again why can the government not just approve the amount and DND purchase something within that, why does purchases have to be politically micro manged. If a spec is written properly, if the right people are evaluating products against the spec (properly and fairly), the best/right product will surface You mean like the LSVW, HLVW, Iltis jeep, TPAV, the list goes on, and on. if, per the above link, a new organization is structured within Public Works, I'd anticipate some of it being staffed by persons from DND... providing more of an arms-length relationship to DND proper. Optics and all that. The only way that would work if the were EX military, because iof you wear a uniform you still report back to the chain of command. PWSG should have a role as inspectors to ensure the procument runs as per Treasure boards regulations and laws, other than that what experience or knowledge do they bring to the table... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
cybercoma Posted July 22, 2012 Report Posted July 22, 2012 what's that about you accepting to a decades+ wait on the production of the over-budget, overdue and over-hyped JSFail F-35? You're such a cliche! NO! Screw you guys! You're not doing this to yet another thread. Piss off out of here, both of you! Quote
waldo Posted July 22, 2012 Report Posted July 22, 2012 Subject matter experts at what exactly... sorry Army Guy... I'd like to respond to your reply (of my reply); however, MLW member, 'cybercoma', has issued a ruling. Quote
madmax Posted July 22, 2012 Report Posted July 22, 2012 sorry Army Guy... I'd like to respond to your reply (of my reply); however, MLW member, 'cybercoma', has issued a ruling. I am sitting pretty tight with Army Guy on this one and it appears this is the service of the military where he has a bit more close up insight. What Cyber Coma was alluding to was yourself and Derek highjacking the thread and going round in circles for 242 pages...... And quitel frankly read my mind..... I don't believe there is any issue with regards to you replying to Army Guy... just a polite pointer to not get caught going in circles.... eventually the thread gets whittled town to a two punter pissing contest that everyone stops reading.... take no offense, we all have had that happen.... Just an observation... Also, one may have an opinion on everything, but we can't be experts on everything. (Thats why CyberComa is wrong about Temp Agencies ) Ok, back on track.... How about dem trucks.... Its easy to see how the Department has lost its way. There needs to be a correlation between needs in the field and purchasing, without the undue special interests or influence. However, its been nearly 5 years and the trucks in service continue to rot, and sit idle, actually out of service. Its like a wrecking yard compound. Quote
cybercoma Posted July 22, 2012 Report Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) I don't believe there is any issue with regards to you replying to Army Guy... just a polite pointer to not get caught going in circles.... eventually the thread gets whittled town to a two punter pissing contest that everyone stops reading.... This.I wasn't being very polite, but I was half kidding with the feigned outrage. I just don't want to see Derek L and waldo turn this into another 400 pager of them talking past each other. The key issue here is the DND's handling of procurement. Not the various technical specs on equipment. Derek likes to take distract from examining organizational deficiencies with jingoistic jargon and shopping list posts, when as Argus said this thing could be about toilets for all it matters. Edited July 22, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
bleeding heart Posted July 22, 2012 Report Posted July 22, 2012 While most of us are occasionally guilty of thread hijacking (usually not really intentionally), there are a few who do it regularly (and I'm certainly not talking about Waldo here); and, almost without exception, on essentially the same subject. Lots of youtube videos to support their "point" (the point being to masturbate, while simultaneously hijacking threads). Ah well, whatever floats their geekdom boats. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Guest Derek L Posted July 22, 2012 Report Posted July 22, 2012 again, you asked for an alternative - I gave you one. If we had no qualms in a long-standing rental arrangement with the Russians, I'm not clear why you need to fabricate a scenario that doesn't fit that past relationship... other than it's another of your distracting self-serving needs. Simply put, you’re alternative is based on a unreliable partner as opposed to Canada obtaining it’s own assets. no goal posts being moved. The article speaks directly to force projection... you yourself spoke to it as, "preparing contingencies". Interesting in that you're now quibbling over whether the Chief of Defence Staff actually spoke the very words to align with Postmedia News' representative of the directive. And yet you were the guy who repeatedly spoke to some backside covering "news release" that tried to counter the mass-media interpretation that the U.S. Navy CNO had doubts about the JSFail F-35... a "news release" that carried no specific direct words from CNO Greenert; i.e., just another one of your selective self-serving claims, hey? You’re the one implying they’re both (CDS & the Writer) one in the same….. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 22, 2012 Report Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) Lots of youtube videos to support their "point" (the point being to masturbate, while simultaneously hijacking threads).... Alas...old habits die hard. Bring on the "pantywaist" insults too. Edited July 22, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest Derek L Posted July 22, 2012 Report Posted July 22, 2012 This. I wasn't being very polite, but I was half kidding with the feigned outrage. I just don't want to see Derek L and waldo turn this into another 400 pager of them talking past each other. The key issue here is the DND's handling of procurement. Not the various technical specs on equipment. Derek likes to take distract from examining organizational deficiencies with jingoistic jargon and shopping list posts, when as Argus said this thing could be about toilets for all it matters. And my point to Argus, was if we required “toilet seats”, go out and buy them, not form a committee, have a procurement staff for 20 years, ensure the seats are made in our own ridings, we give a cleaning contract to Quebec or Manitoba, make sure the instructions are in both English and French, that there is a toilet seat training facility set-up in the Maritimes and finally, ensure the seats are both open and closed fronts models so as not to offend the opposite sex…………………. And I forgot, include the First Nations, somehow (details aren’t important) in the process….. Quote
bleeding heart Posted July 22, 2012 Report Posted July 22, 2012 Alas...old habits die hard. Bring on the "pantywaist" insults too. As I said, I prefer not to use it. And so I don't! Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Argus Posted July 23, 2012 Author Report Posted July 23, 2012 Can you blame them really , whats wrong with getting equipment that works, or fits the job we do. Whats wrong with letting the dept that uses the stuff to chose... Ah, but it's about fairness, don'tcha know? Has to be an open bidding process so everyone has a fair chance of winning! Kind of like government HR. Government HR, which I've written about a time or two, is almost unbelievably inefficient, and takes mass of paperwork and effort and untold ages to get the simplest of hiring done. Why? Because the whole process has been hijacked. Instead of what's in the interest of the hiring party, the process is 90% designed to benefit the applicants, and to ensure fairness at all levels. To a certain extent, procurement is the same. Never mind what's good for the purchaser. What's good for the people wanting to sell? Much of the process is arcane and ridiculously complicated in order to benefit, not the government, but outside parties. As an example, and again, I've written about this before. Our little group had an arrangement with a temp agency. Whenever we needed someone, we called and they'd have someone at our door next morning. They knew our requirements, and we never had an issue with anyone they sent. Excellent business relationship. How it started, I don't know. Nobody knew anyone at that business, and no one was getting any kind of kickback or anything. Fast forward, and the government changes the process for "fairness". The new process is that when we want someone, we have to fill out a number of forms to explain the reason we wanted them, the skillset they needed, the security implications of the job, etc., etc. Then after some back and forth dickering, the procurement people would sent out requirements to at least three agencies, and no, they weren't "our" agency. We weren't allowed to suggest where the temp employee would come from. The temp agencies were given 48 hours to send resumes to the procurement team, who would then eventually fax or email them to us. The whole process took about a week to ten days, and about half the people we wound up with could actually do the work. Oh but it was fair! Just not very damned fair to us. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 23, 2012 Author Report Posted July 23, 2012 NO! Screw you guys! You're not doing this to yet another thread. Piss off out of here, both of you! This. You two really do get dreary. And Waldo, suggesting we buy Russian gear is just trolling. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Army Guy Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 The last time i checked this was a forum to debate various topics, i kind of enjoy Waldo, and derecks debate, i find it informative, covers both sides of the argument, and it's done without a whole lot of slander, or bitch slapping, which is kind of refreshing. they bring more detail than most posters, also refreshing. In any one topic there is normally 4 or 5 conversations going on, there is enough room for every one. In my opinion. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 Ah, but it's about fairness, don'tcha know? Has to be an open bidding process so everyone has a fair chance of winning! Your right i think this fairness is BS, there is nothing fair about any contract once our political masters get a hold of it. it might seem that way, but its not DND will eventually get it's trucks, but they will not be the ones we want or sometimes need, they will be the ones they can get the most political pionts off, which i mean is far more important than something as trival as say soldiers lives. The whole process was written by lawyers and politicians it needs to be written in laymen terms , and the whole process needs to be dumbed down and simplified. set it uo for sucess, and so it is efficient....trucks do not take over 6 years to buy... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
cybercoma Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 The last time i checked this was a forum to debate various topics, i kind of enjoy Waldo, and derecks debate, i find it informative, covers both sides of the argument, and it's done without a whole lot of slander, or bitch slapping, which is kind of refreshing. they bring more detail than most posters, also refreshing. In any one topic there is normally 4 or 5 conversations going on, there is enough room for every one. In my opinion. It's fine. But over 500 pages they're not saying anything they haven't already said. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 The last time i checked this was a forum to debate various topics, i kind of enjoy Waldo, and derecks debate, i find it informative, covers both sides of the argument, and it's done without a whole lot of slander, or bitch slapping, which is kind of refreshing. they bring more detail than most posters, also refreshing. In any one topic there is normally 4 or 5 conversations going on, there is enough room for every one. In my opinion. I enjoy debating Waldo as well........I even asked him to join the F-35 debate a few months ago........We both dig at each other, but in a harmless way but don't spew inflammatory posts when contrasted with many posters here.......I didn't know there were time or content limits on these forums? If people find our debates boring......don't read them or put Waldo and I on ignore...... Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 ...I didn't know there were time or content limits on these forums? If people find our debates boring......don't read them or put Waldo and I on ignore...... Of course...ignore the self appointed sheriffs who can't follow their own "ignore list" advice. It's comical..... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest Derek L Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 Of course...ignore the self appointed sheriffs who can't follow their own "ignore list" advice. It's comical..... Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.