Military Contract for CF-18

[jdobbin]

For that post is his response to my specific question as to whether or not O'Connor is tied to Lockheed.

The fact that the trade tribunal has had to step in indicates that O'Connor approved the contract prematurely and did not have an open and transparent process to get the best technical bid with the lowest price.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...38-ab59a2aa0213

The government announced in March that Lockheed Martin had won the contract with its pod, known as Sniper. At the time, Public Works Minister Michael Fortier said the deal was an example of the government acting as quickly and efficiently as possible to support Canadian troops and promote Canadian interests.

But after the award was announced, one of the losing bidders, U.S. aerospace firm Northrop Grumman, filed a complaint with the tribunal about how the winning bid was evaluated.

Northrop Grumman and another bidder, U.S. firm Raytheon, have pods that are currently being used on F-18 fighter jets. Representatives from both those firms note that the Lockheed Martin Sniper pod was not in use on F-18s at the time the company won the Canadian contract.

The tribunal determined that the Northrop Grumman complaint was valid "in part" and it has recommended that Public Works re-evaluate the proposals of all three bidders by the end of this month.

This is a serious error. How is it that the more expensive bid was picked for a piece of equipment that was not in use with that type of aircraft?

[Army Guy]

I think this may be the reason, it sounds like a superior product.

sniper

[Michael Bluth]

I think this may be the reason, it sounds like a superior product.

sniper

It appears that the technically superior product was picked.

Thanks for the link Army Guy.

[jdobbin]

I think this may be the reason, it sounds like a superior product.

Hey weaponeer,

It might be an excellent product. The Trade Tribunal believes that the two other competitors with working units onboard F-18 aircraft at the time were available for a better price. Apparently, they fulfilled the technical merits as outlined in the specifications given by the department of Defence.

Canada is the only nation listed as buying them for the F-18. At the time of the contract, the pods had not been tested on that type of aircraft. The pods on that competing aircraft were ones being used around the world on F-18s.

The Tribunal didn't stop this contract lightly. Their mandate is to analyze contracts such as these for their merits and their price.

Edited September 12, 2007 by jdobbin

[weaponeer]

Hey weaponeer,

It might be an excellent product. The Trade Tribunal believes that the two other competitors with working units onboard F-18 aircraft at the time were available for a better price. Apparently, they fulfilled the technical merits as outlined in the specifications given by the department of Defence.

Canada is the only nation listed as buying them for the F-18. At the time of the contract, the pods had not been tested on that type of aircraft. The pods on that competing aircraft were ones being used around the world on F-18s.

The Tribunal didn't stop this contract lightly. Their mandate is to analyze contracts such as these for their merits and their price.

Hi Jdobb,

This rant is not directed at you:)

Once again I see that people just don't get it. IT IS ABOUT GIVING THE TROOPS THE RIGHT EQUIPMENT TO FIGHT WARS!!!! Stop with the who got what contract crap!!!

Single source purchasing is based on the gov't going to their military experts (soldiers, sailors & airmen) and asking them what they need to accomplish the job. It is called trust, the gov't asked the fighter world what is the best product for PGM and they were told by the FIGHTER PILOTS that it is the SNIPER POD. We were supposed to buy 36 to outfit 80 fighters, now we'll be stuck with fewer, cheaper shittier pods........... way to go Canada, thanks once again!!!! Once again we'll be at the big show with the worst crap you could get us because you wanted to save $20 million to give to welfare people, even though there's not enough people in Alberta to fill all the jobs....

This gov't has single sourced many purchases, GOOD!! Only an IDIOT would buy a tactical airlift plane other than the C130J, it is the best on earth. We are only getting 17, so lets get the best 17 we can!!! Only an IDIOT would buy a strategic airlift plane other than the C17, it is the best on earth. We are only got 4, so we got the best 4 we could!!! We single sourced the Leopard 2 tanks, best in the world, thanks to the input of our armored troops...

The SNIPER pod was picked for the CF18 because it is the best targeting pod available. It is the ONLY tgt pod that has both an air to ground and air to air capability. You can slave the pod seeker to the fire control radar and visually ID planes at extreme ranges, you can see and ID ground tgts at extreme ranges. This cuts down on "FRIENDLY FIRE" in a big way. It costs more because it is better, just like a BMW cost more than a Kia!! It also has data link capability so you can transmit tgt images real time, via satcomm anywhere you want. The CF18 was to be the first Hornets to get it, it is on the F16, and USAF F15E, and is going on to the USN F18 fleet soon. As well the RAF uses it on their Tornados.... but it is asll moot now...

[bush_cheney2004]

...Once again I see that people just don't get it. IT IS ABOUT GIVING THE TROOPS THE RIGHT EQUIPMENT TO FIGHT WARS!!!! Stop with the who got what contract crap!!!

Indeed...a far better turn of events than pissing away $500 million in contract termination penalties and getting no new rotary wing aircraft at all. Booya!

[jdobbin]

Single source purchasing is based on the gov't going to their military experts (soldiers, sailors & airmen) and asking them what they need to accomplish the job. It is called trust, the gov't asked the fighter world what is the best product for PGM and they were told by the FIGHTER PILOTS that it is the SNIPER POD. We were supposed to buy 36 to outfit 80 fighters, now we'll be stuck with fewer, cheaper shittier pods........... way to go Canada, thanks once again!!!! Once again we'll be at the big show with the worst crap you could get us because you wanted to save $20 million to give to welfare people, even though there's not enough people in Alberta to fill all the jobs....

I'm sorry that it came down to this. After what happened in Winnipeg in the 1980s with the CF-18 contract, people in this province are pretty sensitive to how contracts are awarded. Back then, the best technical and the lowest bid came from Bristol Aerospace.

If the government is just going to make a political decision on what to purchase, it usually tells the manufacturer that price is no object. Price and technical merits are always an issue. The taxpayer can't be taken to the cleaners by suppliers who know the tendering process is not going to be followed.

I want the Forces to have the best equipment but the tender on this contract said that three manufacturers met the specifications and two of them bid lower than the winning bid. If the technical merits are met, price trumps and should be the winning tender.

[Michael Bluth]

I'm sorry that it came down to this. After what happened in Winnipeg in the 1980s with the CF-18 contract, people in this province are pretty sensitive to how contracts are awarded. Back then, the best technical and the lowest bid came from Bristol Aerospace.

If the government is just going to make a political decision on what to purchase, it usually tells the manufacturer that price is no object. Price and technical merits are always an issue. The taxpayer can't be taken to the cleaners by suppliers who know the tendering process is not going to be followed.

The analogy to the CF-18 contract is weak.

The Mulroney Government admitted that Bristol had the best technical bid.

There is no evidence that the Harper Government *clearly* rejected the technically superior bid.

The tecnical merits aren't an issue here. For objective observers anyways.

[jdobbin]

I think this may be the reason, it sounds like a superior product.

sniper

By the way, it appears this link is no longer working.

The main issue the Tribunal raised was that three of the bidders met the qualifications the military asked for. Two of them bid lower than the winning bid.

The lowest bidder should have won the contract.

edit: the link is working now.

I don't know that you can judge the superiority of this product based on this link.

One defence analyst said the technology was comparable with Raytheon's system.

http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/Article.cfm?...chiveIssueID=23

For American purchasers, price was a major issue why Lockheed was picked. In Canada's case, the price was higher.

Edited September 13, 2007 by jdobbin

[bush_cheney2004]

The main issue the Tribunal raised was that three of the bidders met the qualifications the military asked for. Two of them bid lower than the winning bid.

The lowest bidder should have won the contract.

Why? Have you explored and confirmed all aspects of the RFP and responses (technical, cost, and schedule)? What is the track record for past procurements from all contractors? Which contractor provides the best scenario for post-award performance, viability, spares, life cycle support, etc.

There is a lot more that goes into such a decision than just lowest bid.

[weaponeer]

I'm sorry that it came down to this. After what happened in Winnipeg in the 1980s with the CF-18 contract, people in this province are pretty sensitive to how contracts are awarded. Back then, the best technical and the lowest bid came from Bristol Aerospace.

If the government is just going to make a political decision on what to purchase, it usually tells the manufacturer that price is no object. Price and technical merits are always an issue. The taxpayer can't be taken to the cleaners by suppliers who know the tendering process is not going to be followed.

I want the Forces to have the best equipment but the tender on this contract said that three manufacturers met the specifications and two of them bid lower than the winning bid. If the technical merits are met, price trumps and should be the winning tender.

I know the whole Cf18 issue with Bristol was political. I saw an excerpt from a recent interview with PM Mulrony where he admitted it was an error. The bottom line is that we are dealing with equipment we will be using in combat. We have a small military, we are a rich country, there is no reason not to have the forces properly equipped. We have been dragging our feet on this issue for years, now we have a gov't that says enough!!

We in the military are constantly asked these days about required equipment and capabilities. I have been involved in several of these inquiries and have given my honest opinions. We the troops do not want equipment we do not need. It gets in the way, costs time and money we can ill afford. The SNIPER pod is worth the costs, it has superior capability to the others, that is why the Air Force wanted it. The Air Force cancelled some other unnecessary capabilities and upgrades to the CF18 in order to aquire the SNIPER pod. The money in question was already allocated to the CF18 upgrade program so there was/is not going to be a money savings, just a capability shortfall.

The Air Force compared the three pods and chose the SNIPER, after all we are the experts in this.

On a side note, nice to hear from you JDOBB, I will be home Oct 15, can't wait!!!

[jdobbin]

The Air Force compared the three pods and chose the SNIPER, after all we are the experts in this.

On a side note, nice to hear from you JDOBB, I will be home Oct 15, can't wait!!!

If the military had already made a choice about the equipment in advance, there should never have been a bidding process.

The Trade Tribunal determined that all three met the specifications as outlined by the Defence department and therefore were eligible to submit bids. Once the specifications were met, the issue became one of money and who bid lowest was to get the work.

The military needs to save every penny it can to be able to procure other resources. The $20 million or so dollars that one project costs over a competitor's bid is money denied to other vital areas in the military.

For example, three companies submit work for a new rifle. All meet the standards as set by the military for weight, size, reliability and a host of the other factors. Those three companies submit bids and the highest bid wins the work. Why would the highest bid win after all three companies were determined to be eligible for the work? The military can't suddenly say that they preferred the higher bidder all along. If the bidding system is to work, the lowest price for the equipment is the final decider after eligibility is determined.

The military has needs but it also has limited dollars to do the job asked of it. Opening up contracts to bids helps keep the costs down and makes money available for other areas. The rules on how to bid and who wins bids has to be transparent and fair. In the case of the CF-18 equipment, an independent adjudicator has determined it was not.

Keep up the work and stay safe. Welcome home in October!

[Michael Bluth]

If the military had already made a choice about the equipment in advance, there should never have been a bidding process.

The Trade Tribunal determined that all three met the specifications as outlined by the Defence department and therefore were eligible to submit bids. Once the specifications were met, the issue became one of money and who bid lowest was to get the work.

Repeating the same line ad nauseum contributes nothing to the bid.

Do you have any evidence the military had already made a choice about the equipment in advance?

Or is it yet again a case of a 'supposition' being made that conveniently paints the Government in the worst possible light?

ETA Army Guy's link is working just fine.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[Army Guy]

jdobbin:

If the military had already made a choice about the equipment in advance, there should never have been a bidding process.

Thats not how the government purchases equip.

1. DND decides it needs a piece of equipment (in this case a POD for the F-18) or anything over 5,000.00 it sends that requirement in the form of a spec sheet up to PWSG (a cilvilain government dept), PWSG then places that requirement on the MER ( a government web site available to anyone with a computer) anyone can submit or bid to get this contract...anyone that can prove it can supply or meet that contract....

2. after a certain amount of time all bids are gathered up processes and checked out...PWSG then arranges for DND to test all the equipment in question...DND sumits it's findings (which one it likes) back thru PWSG who then forwards it up the government , who will make the final say....

My piont is this DND does not chose the type or manufacturer it wants, or perfers...it submits a spec sheet, and a process is followed....DND may submit which company or piece it perfers after it has tested all the bidders proto types...but that does not mean that is the equipment we are going to get, Our government has the final say on everything....And policitics plays a major role in what we get regardless of what DND says.

The Trade Tribunal determined that all three met the specifications as outlined by the Defence department and therefore were eligible to submit bids. Once the specifications were met, the issue became one of money and who bid lowest was to get the work.

Ever purchased a car strictly on price, The spec sheets submitted are very broad in terms to allow for maxium perticipation.

other factors come into play as well, durability of the product, is it at the end of it's growth ability(IE can it be improved, or added to), is it a proven product, can they produce them on time, is it interoperatable with other DND equipment, or systems... the list is endless....but all of these are second to the governments decision.

on the government side of things there are these considerations. Can it be built in Canada, will it create jobs, where in the country will it create jobs, can taxes be gained from it, can tax incentives be applied, will it be good for the party, will Canadians accept the purchase...etc etc...and that list is endless...

For example, three companies submit work for a new rifle. All meet the standards as set by the military for weight, size, reliability and a host of the other factors. Those three companies submit bids and the highest bid wins the work. Why would the highest bid win after all three companies were determined to be eligible for the work? The military can't suddenly say that they preferred the higher bidder all along. If the bidding system is to work, the lowest price for the equipment is the final decider after eligibility is determined.

Price is only one factor, not the end all factor...To many times have we purchased equipment for the military strictly for polictical reasons, take a look at our LSVW SMP truck, the spec sheets had to be rewritten serveral times to even allow it's entry, it was chosen so we could have it built in Canada by western star in BC ...not because it passed DND's testing, it actually failed all it's DND's tests, until final DND was told to take it down to the desert in the states. this truck is a peice of ....t

And examples of this type of purchase is in the dozens....

What the whole process needs is to be streamlined, not wieghed down by more rules and regulations....it should be made more like the US military model.

[Topaz]

I, for one, can't feel sorry for two companies that are own by the Carlyle Group!! Who knows maybe the one other is too!!

[weaponeer]

If the military had already made a choice about the equipment in advance, there should never have been a bidding process.

The Trade Tribunal determined that all three met the specifications as outlined by the Defence department and therefore were eligible to submit bids. Once the specifications were met, the issue became one of money and who bid lowest was to get the work.

The military needs to save every penny it can to be able to procure other resources. The $20 million or so dollars that one project costs over a competitor's bid is money denied to other vital areas in the military.

For example, three companies submit work for a new rifle. All meet the standards as set by the military for weight, size, reliability and a host of the other factors. Those three companies submit bids and the highest bid wins the work. Why would the highest bid win after all three companies were determined to be eligible for the work? The military can't suddenly say that they preferred the higher bidder all along. If the bidding system is to work, the lowest price for the equipment is the final decider after eligibility is determined.

The military has needs but it also has limited dollars to do the job asked of it. Opening up contracts to bids helps keep the costs down and makes money available for other areas. The rules on how to bid and who wins bids has to be transparent and fair. In the case of the CF-18 equipment, an independent adjudicator has determined it was not.

Keep up the work and stay safe. Welcome home in October!

Prior to my extended vacation here in Afghanistan, I worked on the CF18 modernization project. The Airforce tested the pods, and the SNIPER was the best. So much so in fact, the Airforce decided to for go some of the other capabilities the CF18's were to get in order to pay for it. In short, the Airforce diverted monies already allocated to the CF18 upgrade to pay for SNIPER, a much more important capability, there was to be no cost savings.

The other companies product did not get picked, Airforce pilots tested it, they like the SNIPER better, that is all there is to this. The losing companies have a case of sour grapes and sued, and the trade tribunal caved in.

Canada did not win here, we have lost a major capability, an excellent way to make our small Airforce way more capable. We once again failed to trust the military and let them do their jobs... which is the major reason our military is in the state it is in, and a major reason we have suffered some casualties in Afghanistan..........

[jdobbin]

My piont is this DND does not chose the type or manufacturer it wants, or perfers...it submits a spec sheet, and a process is followed....DND may submit which company or piece it perfers after it has tested all the bidders proto types...but that does not mean that is the equipment we are going to get, Our government has the final say on everything....And policitics plays a major role in what we get regardless of what DND says.

Ever purchased a car strictly on price, The spec sheets submitted are very broad in terms to allow for maxium perticipation.

other factors come into play as well, durability of the product, is it at the end of it's growth ability(IE can it be improved, or added to), is it a proven product, can they produce them on time, is it interoperatable with other DND equipment, or systems... the list is endless....but all of these are second to the governments decision.

on the government side of things there are these considerations. Can it be built in Canada, will it create jobs, where in the country will it create jobs, can taxes be gained from it, can tax incentives be applied, will it be good for the party, will Canadians accept the purchase...etc etc...and that list is endless...

Price is only one factor, not the end all factor...To many times have we purchased equipment for the military strictly for polictical reasons, take a look at our LSVW SMP truck, the spec sheets had to be rewritten serveral times to even allow it's entry, it was chosen so we could have it built in Canada by western star in BC ...not because it passed DND's testing, it actually failed all it's DND's tests, until final DND was told to take it down to the desert in the states. this truck is a peice of ....t

And examples of this type of purchase is in the dozens....

What the whole process needs is to be streamlined, not wieghed down by more rules and regulations....it should be made more like the US military model.

Somehow the bidding process was screwed up. The Trade Tribunal didn't overturn this bid for sheer whim.

According to them, all three companies fulfilled what DND's spec sheet was and were eligible to bid. Once that happened, the choice was supposed to be based on price.

The U.S. system runs without flaws?

[jdobbin]

The other companies product did not get picked, Airforce pilots tested it, they like the SNIPER better, that is all there is to this. The losing companies have a case of sour grapes and sued, and the trade tribunal caved in.

Canada did not win here, we have lost a major capability, an excellent way to make our small Airforce way more capable. We once again failed to trust the military and let them do their jobs... which is the major reason our military is in the state it is in, and a major reason we have suffered some casualties in Afghanistan..........

The Sniper may have indeed been the best product. However, the way the bid was set up left the contract open to dispute.

If the Sniper was the only product capable of doing the job the military wanted, it should have been sole-sourced. How the bid was set up made it seem like all three companies were capable of fulfilling the role of supplier to the Airforce. The Tribunal ruled that if that was the case, the contract should have been about price.

[weaponeer]

The Sniper may have indeed been the best product. However, the way the bid was set up left the contract open to dispute.

If the Sniper was the only product capable of doing the job the military wanted, it should have been sole-sourced. How the bid was set up made it seem like all three companies were capable of fulfilling the role of supplier to the Airforce. The Tribunal ruled that if that was the case, the contract should have been about price.

Hi JDOBB,

Here's a good read on the subject.......

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/doc-dnd-amirs-pod.htm

[geoffrey]

I, for one, can't feel sorry for two companies that are own by the Carlyle Group!! Who knows maybe the one other is too!!

It's ok, it's Liberals after all sitting on the board of Carlyle, not Conservatives. Nothing to see here, move along.

[Michael Bluth]

The Sniper may have indeed been the best product. However, the way the bid was set up left the contract open to dispute.

If the Sniper was the only product capable of doing the job the military wanted, it should have been sole-sourced. How the bid was set up made it seem like all three companies were capable of fulfilling the role of supplier to the Airforce. The Tribunal ruled that if that was the case, the contract should have been about price.

But that wasn't the case.

Probably why this has become a non-issue...

[jdobbin]

Hi JDOBB,

Here's a good read on the subject.......

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/doc-dnd-amirs-pod.htm

Hey weaponeer,

I read the link. The product does sound like a good one.

Perhaps next time, the bid will be set up so that it is not overturned by an outside party. The Trade Tribunal never said that the Sniper was not a good product. They faulted the transparency and clarity of the bid and said that competing bids had legitimate issues regarding how it was rewarded.

The system was set-up to protect that taxpayer and to make manufacturers compete for work. To do that, the process has to be set-up so that bids that don't meet the specs are dropped and the ones that do meet the specs compete on price.

Edited September 15, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

Perhaps next time, the bid will be set up so that it is not overturned by an outside party. The Trade Tribunal never said that the Sniper was not a good product. They faulted the transparency and clarity of the bid and said that competing bids had legitimate issues regarding how it was rewarded.

The trade tribunal does not appear to have final authority in this case.

Dep't of Defence will look at their ruling and respond to the tribunal's. But nothing I have read, or seen posted here, indicates that the ministry must, or is, halting the programming.

According to their own spokesperson:

Work to date on the project has not halted as a result of this determination.

So 'overturned' is not quite an accurate description of the results of this case.