Military Contract for CF-18

[jdobbin]

I don't think we should be surprised by this.

A few people have mentioned that the contracts for the military have been rushed and too many of them are sole-sourced.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Canada's efforts to equip its CF-18 fighter jets with laser-guided smart bomb technology has hit a snag, with a ruling that the contract to do the work may have been improperly awarded, CTV News has learned.

In March, the Public Works Department awarded the massive $180 million contract to outfit the jets with Advanced Multi-Role Infrared Sensor systems to aerospace company Lockheed Martin.

But two competitors immediately began to complain.

Raytheon Company and Northrop Grumman Corporation -- both U.S.-based defence and aerospace leaders -- submitted lower bids to do the work.

In fact, an industry source tells CTV News one of the losing bids was $20 million lower than the one put forward by Lockheed Martin, which eventually won the contract.

And unlike Lockheed Martin, both Raytheon and Northrop Grumman had similar systems already in operation on F-18 jets around the world.

On Tuesday, CTV News learned that the Canadian International Trade Tribunal had sided with the losing bidders, who complained the process wasn't fair.

I suspect we'll see other losing bidders stepping forward with complaints about the lack of transparency and fairness in the process.

[Visionseeker]

I don't think we should be surprised by this.

A few people have mentioned that the contracts for the military have been rushed and too many of them are sole-sourced.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

I suspect we'll see other losing bidders stepping forward with complaints about the lack of transparency and fairness in the process.

I wonder, was Lockheed Martin one of O'Connor's clients in his lobbying days?

[Michael Bluth]

I suspect we'll see other losing bidders stepping forward with complaints about the lack of transparency and fairness in the process.

I guarantee we'll hear further questions from certain posters that lack in the transparency and fairness they claim others will complain about from the Government.

[jdobbin]

I wonder, was Lockheed Martin one of O'Connor's clients in his lobbying days?

No, it wasn't. And O'Connor used to complain that the military seemed to favour Lockheed all the time. However, when it came down to it, O'Connor approved the purchase despite lower bids elsewhere.

http://www.airapparent.ca/library/full_tex...ealitycheck.htm

During his time as a lobbyist, Gordon O'Connor lobbied for 27 clients over the course of those eight years before he became an active politician.

Among those clients: BAE Systems, United Defense, General Dynamics, Atlas Elektronic GmbH, Raytheon Canada, and Airbus Military.

The Airbus connection is of particular interest because for several years the company has been trying to sell the Canadian government on the virtues of the A400M military transport to replace the aging Hercules aircraft.

One of the lobbyists for the Airbus transport was O'Connor, although that was before he entered politics.

The military transport contract is serious business. Last fall the Liberal government announced plans to spend $5 billion for 16 planes, which is enough money to make any company eager.

The main competition is the Lockheed Martin C130J and O'Connor complained quite recently that the military seemed to be favouring the Lockheed in the way they set out their requirements for the transport.

[Canuck E Stan]

I suspect we'll see other losing bidders stepping forward with complaints about the lack of transparency and fairness in the process.

.....and these losing bidders would be, who? And what would their complaint be?

I suspect this just another of Dobbin's wishful thinking posts......again.

[Michael Bluth]

.....and these losing bidders would be, who? And what would their complaint be?

I suspect this just another of Dobbin's wishful thinking posts......again.

He took a whole 20 minutes to prove my concerns about fairness and transparency.

He linked to www.airapparent.com. A site that borders on the tinfoil hat.

From their "In the News" section.

Big Media is gearing up for another attack on the Internet. Join the fight for Internet freedom.

What exactly is this 'Big Media' of which they speak?

Isn't the media the key to fairness and trasnparency?

[jdobbin]

.....and these losing bidders would be, who? And what would their complaint be?

I suspect this just another of Dobbin's wishful thinking posts......again.

Complaints about the sole sourcing and contracts awarded to higher bidders have been around for some time now. The wishful thinking seems to come from Conservatives who thought that losing competitors weren't going to complain to the trade tribunal.

[Michael Bluth]

Complaints about the sole sourcing and contracts awarded to higher bidders have been around for some time now.

Really?

Then why is your only source of information as suspect as airapparent?

[bush_cheney2004]

This is what really sucks:

...In the meantime, Canada's troops in Afghanistan are relying on British and U.S. airpower because Canada's jets can't be used in the theatre until they're equipped with the laser-guided missile technology.

This has been going on for many years. During Allied Force (Kosovo), Canada had to share/swap FLIR/Night Hawk pods:

Canadians went into the NATO campaign to halt Serbian ethnic cleansing of Kosovo’s Albanians with 18 Hornets and just nine Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) pods and NIGHT Hawk laser targeting systems. Canadians weren’t told at the time, but the air force had to borrow three-older generation pods from the Australians to give 12 of the 18 jets precision-targeting capability.

Now I know why.

[Canuck E Stan]

Complaints about the sole sourcing and contracts awarded to higher bidders have been around for some time now.

Who was complaining? Names. I want names.

Who are these "losing bidders" and "complainers"you keep referring to?

[jdobbin]

Sole sourcing problems described as early as 2006 by one of Canada's top military analysts.

http://www.espritdecorps.ca/procurementwars.htm

A good example of this came to light last week over the Hercules replacement project. From the outset, competing aircraft manufacturers have been crying foul over the fact that the Defence Department guidelines were so stringent as to exclude all but one possible contender - the C-130J produced by American manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

When it was learned Canadian procurement officers were already in Lockheed's U.S. headquarters in Marietta, Ga., negotiating a contract, the political daggers were drawn.

Last Tuesday, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor had to withstand a barrage of questions on the C-130J purchase from three opposition party critics.

The Liberals and NDP voiced concern over what appeared to be a sole-sourced contract award rather than a competitive process, while the Bloc Quebecois raised the issue of the C-130J's questionable operational record with allied air forces.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper jumped in to defend the purchase by attacking the Liberal government's failure to provide for the Canadian Forces when they were in power.

"What we see here once again is the Liberal Party opposing new equipment for our military, under all circumstances, as they did for 13 long years in office," Harper told reporters.

Gordon O'Connor specifically defended the choice of the C-130J in his rebuttal. "(The C-130J) meets the requirements of the military as an aircraft."

Unfortunately for the Conservative government, $4.9 billion is too big a potential contract for the critics to simply walk away from.

Just one day after O'Connor defended the C-130J as the right choice, the media reported a contradictory opinion in the form of an internal air force memo. Drafted in 2005, the DND assessment highlights the serious deficiencies in the C-130J fleets that are already in service with U.S. and British air forces.

Both the range and payload of the new generation of C-130 Hercules were described as "inadequate" by those already using them. The Canadian report's conclusion reads: "The bottom line with regards to the C-130J is that, although it looks like the venerable old C-130, it has yet to officially achieve the same level of operational capability as its forebears."

We'll see what the trade tribunal process has to say about it all. And failing that, the Auditor-General will probably have a thing or two to say.

[jdobbin]

Who was complaining? Names. I want names.

Who are these "losing bidders" and "complainers"you keep referring to?

Raytheon and Northrop Grumman for the CF-18 equipment.

Airbus for the transport craft.

[Visionseeker]

No, it wasn't. And O'Connor used to complain that the military seemed to favour Lockheed all the time. However, when it came down to it, O'Connor approved the purchase despite lower bids elsewhere.

http://www.airapparent.ca/library/full_tex...ealitycheck.htm

Wow, that was quick.

[Michael Bluth]

The Esprit de Corps article is an odd one to be posted by somebody who is using the complaints of the losing contractors to bolster their never-ending harangue against the Government.

From the article...

$4.9 billion is too big a potential contract for the critics to simply walk away from.

Any delay in signing the contract with Lockheed Martin only benefits the European Aerospace bid as their prototype inches towards completion.

So the motivation for the stalling is basically money and stalling for time?

[Visionseeker]

He took a whole 20 minutes to prove my concerns about fairness and transparency.

He linked to www.airapparent.com. A site that borders on the tinfoil hat.

From their "In the News" section.

What exactly is this 'Big Media' of which they speak?

Isn't the media the key to fairness and trasnparency?

The site notwithstanding, the piece is attributed to John Gray, former Ottawa bureau chief for the G&M and one of the least likely people to don foil on his head. The piece in question speaks to O'Connor's lobbying past and demonstrates quite clearly that there's no previous link to O'Connor and Lockheed. I frankly don't understand your reason to bluster.

[jdobbin]

The site notwithstanding, the piece is attributed to John Gray, former Ottawa bureau chief for the G&M and one of the least likely people to don foil on his head. The piece in question speaks to O'Connor's lobbying past and demonstrates quite clearly that there's no previous link to O'Connor and Lockheed. I frankly don't understand your reason to bluster.

It was the one site I could get the Globe and Mail article because it is no longer available free unless you are a subscriber. It wouldn't be the first time a site was complained about without reading what the source of the original material was.

Edited September 12, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

The site notwithstanding, the piece is attributed to John Gray, former Ottawa bureau chief for the G&M and one of the least likely people to don foil on his head. The piece in question speaks to O'Connor's lobbying past and demonstrates quite clearly that there's no previous link to O'Connor and Lockheed. I frankly don't understand your reason to bluster.

Why would a site question 'big media' and then use an article from the same big media?

Do you agree that 'big media' is restricting freedom?

Is bluster an honest response to my question? Or is it an attempt at demonizing somebody with a differing viewpoint from your own?

Again, the source is questionable. The actual story quoted doesn't support what the OP is trying to say it supports.

This article was posted in a weak attempt to question the procurement procedures of the military in this instance, but by your own words it doesn't. I think it should be discounted...

[Visionseeker]

It was the one site I could get the Globe and Mail article because it is no longer available free unless you are a subscriber. It wouldn't be the first time as site was complained about without reading what the source of the original material was.

I am aware that literacy is a growing problem in this country. But I'd always thought that this spoke to peoples' inabilities to read and not their refusal to do so.

[Michael Bluth]

I am aware that literacy is a growing problem in this country. But I'd always thought that this spoke to peoples' inabilities to read and not their refusal to do so.

Far too cool for school with that one.

Did you read my answer to your concerns? Any response or are your going to sit their smugly proving some arcane point that means nothing and ignores the valid questions posed?

[jdobbin]

I am aware that literacy is a growing problem in this country. But I'd always thought that this spoke to peoples' inabilities to read and not their refusal to do so.

Back in June, questions were raised about the lack of tendering being done on contracts.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/06/11/...ng.html?ref=rss

The centre relied on publicly available information from a database of federal contracts awarded by the Department of Public Works and Government Services on behalf of the Department of National Defence.

The report also slammed Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor for his work as a lobbyist for 28 firms, including five of the world's top 10 defence contractors, "almost all seeking government contracts during the period just prior to his appointment as defence minister."

"This report raises the alarm on the use of public dollars, and the need for greater transparency and federal accountability in military contracting," executive director Bruce Campbell said in a news release.

The report's authors urged the government today not to sign any new military contracts valued at more than $100 million pending reports by the auditor general and the Commons Standing Committee on National Defence, expected by the end of the year.

The rush to get equipment bought invariably leads to wasted money and poor decision-making on what should be bought in the first place.

[Visionseeker]

Why would a site question 'big media' and then use an article from the same big media?

How the hell should I know?

Do you agree that 'big media' is restricting freedom?

Uh, I'll take blatant non-sequitors for $300 Alex.

Is bluster an honest response to my question? Or is it an attempt at demonizing somebody with a differing viewpoint from your own?

Demonizing!? Geesus on crutches I haven't the foggiest what your viewpoint is. Do you?

Again, the source is questionable. The actual story quoted doesn't support what the OP is trying to say it supports.

The link he supplied addressed (and clearly refuted) any question of O'Connor having a lobbying relationship with Lockheed. A concise and clear response to the question I had put to him.

This article was posted in a weak attempt to question the procurement procedures of the military in this instance, but by your own words it doesn't. I think it should be discounted...

Don't put words into my mouth. The original article clearly raised questions about procurement (or is CTV also an unreliable source to you?) and my question was whether or not O'Connor had previous ties to Lockheed. In response I was given a link to an item from John Gray that clearly indicated that O'Connor was in no way linked.

Meanwhile, you go off on a rant about the supposed unreliability of the source without even reading the piece. If there's anything that should be discounted in this thread, it is your presumptive opinion.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Visionseeker

[Michael Bluth]

Don't put words into my mouth.

Any other instructions on how I am supposed to behave?

The original article clearly raised questions about procurement (or is CTV also an unreliable source to you?) and my question was whether or not O'Connor had previous ties to Lockheed. In response I was given a link to an item from John Gray that clearly indicated that O'Connor was in no way linked.

Yet, dobbin used said link to 'prove' his argument that O'Connor behaved inappropriately in the procurement process. Re-read post #4.

Meanwhile, you go off on a rant about the supposed unreliability of the source without even reading the piece. If there's anything that should be discounted in this thread, it is your presumptive opinion.

I'm ranting, but your well-considered response to my question about the reliability of the source was...

How the hell should I know?

Who exactly is ranting?

My issue was that evidence that confirmed that Lockheed was not a former client of Gordon O'Connor's was 'supplemented' by dobbin with an unsupported attack by dobbin in the same post. Again see post #4. I am questioning the never ended attacks on the Government by dobbin and the distortions of the truth that he takes to prove his falsehoods. His sources are weak. Yet, when I ask an honest question about them you swear and avoid the question.

Your too cool for school lines about non-sequitors ignores legitimate questions. If you want to attack the Conservatives withouth question try Rabble.

[jdobbin]

The original article clearly raised questions about procurement (or is CTV also an unreliable source to you?) and my question was whether or not O'Connor had previous ties to Lockheed. In response I was given a link to an item from John Gray that clearly indicated that O'Connor was in no way linked.

Prior to coming to office, O'Connor lobbied for an open and fair process for military contracts. With 40% of the contracts being untendered even when they cost in the millions, it hardly ranks as fair for the taxpayer.

And now the trade tribunal has pointed out problems with the lack transparency of the Lockheed contract.

[Visionseeker]

Any other instructions on how I am supposed to behave?

Lets start with no putting words in my mouth. After all, the longest journey begins with one step.

Yet, dobbin used said link to 'prove' his argument that O'Connor behaved inappropriately in the procurement process. Re-read post #4.

I'm ranting, but your well-considered response to my question about the reliability of the source was...

I'd invite you to reread it. Carefully and slowly. For that post is his response to my specific question as to whether or not O'Connor is tied to Lockheed.

Who exactly is ranting?

Nice. Use the quote out of sequence. Must be a new form of dislexia.

My issue was that evidence that confirmed that Lockheed was not a former client of Gordon O'Connor's was 'supplemented' by dobbin with an unsupported attack by dobbin in the same post. Again see post #4. I am questioning the never ended attacks on the Government by dobbin and the distortions of the truth that he takes to prove his falsehoods. His sources are weak. Yet, when I ask an honest question about them you swear and avoid the question.

Uh, jdoddin supplied the evidence that Lockheed was not a former client of O'Connor's IN POST #4. I invite you to read and reread it until that basic fact sinks in.

Your too cool for school lines about non-sequitors ignores legitimate questions. If you want to attack the Conservatives withouth question try Rabble.

You utterly failed to read the article in the posted link, one that actually supports your cause as it were, and instead fixate as to the reliability of the source. Then go flailing about to try to cover-up your intellectual bankruptcy by pointing to the very post that defeats your own argument. If you want to go about defending the conservatives, I suggest you try Treehouse so that you can work at your level.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Visionseeker

[Michael Bluth]

Uh, jdoddin supplied the evidence that Lockheed was not a former client of O'Connor's IN POST #4. I invite you to read and reread it until that basic fact sinks in.

I acknowledged that.

I also pointed out that he additionally used the post to attack O'Connor's credibility without support.

How about re-reading the post your self until that basic fact sinks in?

Or is that telling you what to do?

Are you saying this attack of his was warranted? Or in your haste to mock and belittle have you not been able to let anything sink in?