News   Oct 02, 2024
Ontario Line 3 Fully Under Construction as Don Valley Bridge Work Starts
 411     1 
News   Oct 02, 2024
Tridel Celebrates 90 Years Looking to Its Past, Present, and Future
 379     0 
News   Oct 02, 2024
Resubmission Bumps Mid-Rise to 12 Storeys on Lake Shore in Long Branch
 444     0 

40% of military contracts non-competitive

simply Dan

simply Dan

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
850
Reaction score
5
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/06/11/militaryspending.html

40% of military contracts non-competitive: report

Ottawa awarded more than 40 per cent of its military contracts over the last year without fully competitive bidding, and the value of these contracts has doubled over the past two years, says a report released Monday.

The report by the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found more than $16 billion in major military equipment contracts had a "limited tendering process."

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.

They also urged that ministers involved in defence contracts, especially the defence minister, should wait at least five years after leaving the department before accepting work with government contractors.

The issue of defence procurement has been in the news since the Conservatives announced last year $17 billion in new equipment spending.
 
oy vey...

I get very antsy when I hear about reports like this, given what can happen in the defence industry when companies aren't held to very high standards of competition, timetables etc. Here in the US the Coast Guard has had to basically scrap a $100Bn fleet renewal programme because it was about a decade behind schedule and massively over-budget, generally a total debacle. Governments let defence contractors get away with murder on this stuff all the time....
 
Here's the thing, and the reason that the overruns endemic to the defence sector are absurd. Boeing is the world's largest military aerospace contractor, and also one of the big 2 commercial planemakers. Would Air Canada buy 30-odd 787s if there were a risk of massive delays and overruns? Of course not. Airbus took a huge bath due to delays in A380 deliveries that would be considered peanuts on the defence side. But the consequences of such screw-ups don't seem to apply with gov't contracts, or much less so.
 
Yeah geez, just like our micorwave ovens that we buy, why shouldn't all of our military equipment/hardware be purchased from China.
 
The article didn't say that any of these contracts have run over budget. In the case of the C-17's and C-130 replacements, the aircraft are already in production. Any extra costs will come from modifications ordered by the military.

With respect to cost overruns: on which specific contracts?
 
The problem is that in some areas there isn't a second source. For the C-130s the only other NATO aircraft in the size hasn't flown a single flight yet (Airbus A400M) but still Airbus lobbyists were hanging in to the end trying to reopen the competition. It's possible the A400M will still not have flown by the time the first CC-130J reaches Canada. As for the C-17/CC-177, the only other possible contender is a Ukrainian/Russian aircraft which doesn't have a NATO databus and given Putin's current tendencies after-sales service might be a bit of a problem.

The C-27 vs CASA295 fixed wing SAR competition is the one where I've felt the tender was written too closely to squeeze the other contender out.
 
I don't expect the military have have all of its contracts tendered competitively. What I want the military to do is clearly spec-out what they need, and then decide what they're willing to pay, and then go to their supplier of choice and get it done.

Also, the fact that 60% of them are shows that an efforts being made in towards competitive tendering. However, if you need new engines for the CF-18s, you've got P&W or nothing. If you need LAVs it's GM Diesel or nothing.
 
The catch is that the Canadian military is fixated on operating seamlessly with the Americans, so they'll go with American equipment every time even if the alternative (usually something from Europe) might be a better deal or more suited to the role.
 
unimaginative2 said:
The catch is that the Canadian military is fixated on operating seamlessly with the Americans, so they'll go with American equipment every time even if the alternative (usually something from Europe) might be a better deal or more suited to the role.
Click to expand...
It's been that way since before the Second World War, and has grown stronger since the post-1945 period. This caused some delay when Britain wanted Canada to build tanks, aircraft and weapons during WW2, as the Canadian factories were in many cases tooled for American specifications and had to be switched over to British specs.
 
It's been that way since before the Second World War, and has grown stronger since the post-1945 period. This caused some delay when Britain wanted Canada to build tanks, aircraft and weapons during WW2, as the Canadian factories were in many cases tooled for American specifications and had to be switched over to British specs.
Click to expand...

Many of those factories were converted automobile and railway factories. Consumption of goods was destined to stay in North America.
 
unimaginative2 said:
The catch is that the Canadian military is fixated on operating seamlessly with the Americans, so they'll go with American equipment every time even if the alternative (usually something from Europe) might be a better deal or more suited to the role.
Click to expand...
Not always so. The new tanks are German Leopard 2A4s and 2A6s. They could have easily got American M1 Abrams tanks, which Australia uses. I'm not sure how seamlessly the two can operate.
 
unimaginative - what we have got from Europe recently hasn't been the best performers - G-Wagens, Upholder/Victoria class, Cormorants with dodgy tails. That said, the Europeans use the NATO databus so interoperability is not really an issue - the issue is being able to deliver the requirement. A400M will probably be a great aircraft but we can't afford to let the Hercules fleet fall apart while waiting for it to fly.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top