From the Department of Stupefyingly Obvious Statements
Alan Williams, retired procurement bureaucrat with DND, opened his mouth and let the pearls of wisdom gush out about the government's recent aircraft purchasing decisions:
Well, duh. Nice of you to join the rest of us in the real world, Mr. Williams.
Sole sourcing should rarely, if ever, be used in purchases of this sort. But the fact that DND has no other option for many of its immediate and pressing materiel needs is indeed an indication of "something wrong in the overall procurement system." That something has been wrong for a very long time, in case Mr. Williams hadn't noticed.
Williams goes on to say that General Hillier is straying outside his lanes:
Mr. Williams seems to be oblivious to the context of that discussion, and as I've said previously, procurement decisions are not made in a vacuum.
Let me venture into what-if territory to illustrate. Pretend that the Canadian Forces never divested itself of a heavy-lift helo capability in 1991, that we kept our small fleet of earlier-model CH-47 Chinooks. Pretend that we had upgraded those helos as time went by, or that we had executed a phased obsolescence plan that saw new choppers exchanged for old gradually as wear and use required. Suppose that Mr. Williams and Gen Hillier are having that same conversation with CF squadrons operating heavy-lift helos effectively wherever the Canadian government has them deployed, and that the discussion deals with an important, but not urgent need coming years down the road instead of right now.
In that scenario, do you see the CDS telling an ADM he needs Chinooks on a sole-sourced basis? Not bloody likely. "We'll give you our operational requirements, you buy the damned kit" is what I'd expect. Why? Because Gen Hillier wants the best equipment for his troops at the best price possible as much as anyone else in government.
But here's where Hillier and the bureaucrats part ways: Canada's top soldier isn't willing to let troops languish without an essential capability just to squeeze an extra five points out of the purchase price. I've known some real leaders over the years, and while I don't want to put words in his mouth, I have no doubt the CDS sees his troops' need, feels it in his bones, can't get it out of his head. He knows that a competitive process that exhaustively tests and evaluates, followed by intense and hard-nosed negotiations is the best way to procure the equipment he needs in most cases. But he also knows that in far too many cases today, the CF hasn't got that luxury - the troops need what they need, and they need it yesterday.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record: adults understand that sometimes the decisions we face aren't between bad and good, but between bad and worse. You make the best decision you can with the information available to you at the time and live with the consequences. In this case, that means buying kit in a way you wouldn't if you had any buffer to fall back upon at all. Because the time to have engaged in a best-practices, exhaustive competition for much of this equipment was years ago - that train has left the station.
You don't like the procurement decisions, Mr. Williams? Either do I. But they're the best options we have at this point, so I suggest you suck it up like the rest of us, pay your taxes and stop sniping from the sidelines. Even better, I suggest you use that formidable intellect and unmatched experience you have to find a way to make sure that the CF is never again put in a position where it needs to engage in a "hasty" rather than a "deliberate" attack on its capital acquisition needs.
Update: Edward Campbell, posting at Army.ca, has also called Mr. Williams to task. Here's a particularly commendable snippet:
Mr. Williams' criticism is analogous to a policeman giving a ticket and a scolding to a driver who, when faced with a child running after a ball in the street, swerves immediately to avoid: "Do you realize you changed lanes without doing a proper shoulder check and hand-over-hand movement on the wheel?"
I wonder if Mr. Williams has any understanding of the concept of urgency at all.
"These de facto sole-sourced contracts show there is something wrong in the overall procurement system," Mr. Williams said.
Well, duh. Nice of you to join the rest of us in the real world, Mr. Williams.
Sole sourcing should rarely, if ever, be used in purchases of this sort. But the fact that DND has no other option for many of its immediate and pressing materiel needs is indeed an indication of "something wrong in the overall procurement system." That something has been wrong for a very long time, in case Mr. Williams hadn't noticed.
Williams goes on to say that General Hillier is straying outside his lanes:
When General Rick Hillier became Chief of the Defence Staff in February, 2005, he and Mr. Williams had a meeting during which Gen. Hillier laid out his desire for a specific helicopter built by Boeing.
"He told me, 'Alan, we need Chinooks,' " Mr. Williams said. "I said, 'Rick, your job is to define the requirements, and my job is to work the system and find the optimum solution to meet your needs."
Mr. Williams seems to be oblivious to the context of that discussion, and as I've said previously, procurement decisions are not made in a vacuum.
Let me venture into what-if territory to illustrate. Pretend that the Canadian Forces never divested itself of a heavy-lift helo capability in 1991, that we kept our small fleet of earlier-model CH-47 Chinooks. Pretend that we had upgraded those helos as time went by, or that we had executed a phased obsolescence plan that saw new choppers exchanged for old gradually as wear and use required. Suppose that Mr. Williams and Gen Hillier are having that same conversation with CF squadrons operating heavy-lift helos effectively wherever the Canadian government has them deployed, and that the discussion deals with an important, but not urgent need coming years down the road instead of right now.
In that scenario, do you see the CDS telling an ADM he needs Chinooks on a sole-sourced basis? Not bloody likely. "We'll give you our operational requirements, you buy the damned kit" is what I'd expect. Why? Because Gen Hillier wants the best equipment for his troops at the best price possible as much as anyone else in government.
But here's where Hillier and the bureaucrats part ways: Canada's top soldier isn't willing to let troops languish without an essential capability just to squeeze an extra five points out of the purchase price. I've known some real leaders over the years, and while I don't want to put words in his mouth, I have no doubt the CDS sees his troops' need, feels it in his bones, can't get it out of his head. He knows that a competitive process that exhaustively tests and evaluates, followed by intense and hard-nosed negotiations is the best way to procure the equipment he needs in most cases. But he also knows that in far too many cases today, the CF hasn't got that luxury - the troops need what they need, and they need it yesterday.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record: adults understand that sometimes the decisions we face aren't between bad and good, but between bad and worse. You make the best decision you can with the information available to you at the time and live with the consequences. In this case, that means buying kit in a way you wouldn't if you had any buffer to fall back upon at all. Because the time to have engaged in a best-practices, exhaustive competition for much of this equipment was years ago - that train has left the station.
You don't like the procurement decisions, Mr. Williams? Either do I. But they're the best options we have at this point, so I suggest you suck it up like the rest of us, pay your taxes and stop sniping from the sidelines. Even better, I suggest you use that formidable intellect and unmatched experience you have to find a way to make sure that the CF is never again put in a position where it needs to engage in a "hasty" rather than a "deliberate" attack on its capital acquisition needs.
Update: Edward Campbell, posting at Army.ca, has also called Mr. Williams to task. Here's a particularly commendable snippet:
If Gen. Hillier’s ‘civilian counterparts aren't exercising appropriate oversight these days’ then they have only themselves and their political masters to blame. But, I do not believe that any such failure exists. Kevin Lynch, the Clerk of the Privy Council, the most senior civil servant in the country, has (perhaps by silence) approved everything DND has done. That is, as it must be, good enough for every bureaucrat in Canada. Civilian oversight is alive and well – it is just that decades of neglect have some home to roost and Canada must now face the fact that there are limited choices when suitable kit is required on an urgent basis. [my emphasis]
Mr. Williams' criticism is analogous to a policeman giving a ticket and a scolding to a driver who, when faced with a child running after a ball in the street, swerves immediately to avoid: "Do you realize you changed lanes without doing a proper shoulder check and hand-over-hand movement on the wheel?"
I wonder if Mr. Williams has any understanding of the concept of urgency at all.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 11:05 a.m.
7 Comments:
Accurate assessment Torch, but it seems to assume that the "normal" procurement process is foolproof - we all know it isn't. Also, it's easy for the critics to pick at the alledged added cost of sole-sourcing, but what is the cost of a Herc going down somewhere between Camp Mirage and Kanadahar with 60 souls on board?
Is replacing an aging airframe in a hurry really more expensive...Air Force maintainers do a great job, but they are not magicians.
Well said, Doug. Sometimes more time doesn't produce a better result - as you say, there are no guarantees.
I think it's safe to say, however, that over time, a more thorough and competitive process will yield better results than a less thorough and competitive one. SOP's, best-practices, whatever you want to call them simply play the averages.
One fact that seems to escape Mr. Williams is something that apparently escapes a lot of people: our troops are fighting a war. Period. End of story. They need the best gear that is available *now*, and the cost be damned. Lives have always been at stake (viz: the Sea King accidents over the years - I wonder if Chretien could have been charge with murder for cancelling the EH-101 if a Sea King crew perished because the aircraft was past its life-span), but the need is about as immediate as it gets. The niceties of government procurement (and the bureaucratic empires that have grown out of them) must be pushed aside. The life of a single of ours soldiers is not worth "x" dollars of savings because we ran a competitive process that lasted for three years when the need was now. Gen Hillier is right on the money. Mr. Williams is yesterday's man, unable to see the real world.
Bad analogy Dave. When I buy a car I shop around and then I decide what to buy. I do not put out a tender to 5 car companies and then wait as they put in their bids and have someone else pick me the best car for the money. I shop and then I buy what I want. Is the military really any different? Yes, more money is involved then a $20k car, but where is the trust in the professionals picking what they think is the right tool for the job?
Did you ever "sole source" a car puchase?
No, but the choice in cars is much greater than the choice in military equipment of any given category, and a car purchase is rarely as time-sensitive with respect to the ability to deliver promptly as a defence contract. Not only that, but you can always rent or borrow until your own car is delivered.
Do you shop your car insurance every single year? Because if not, you're sole-sourcing it to the incumbent insurer - they're only one-year contracts most of the time.
I agree with your point that, generally speaking, competition on defence contracts is better than no competition at getting value for money. But there are exceptions to every rule: that's why ACAN's and SOIQ's are built into the procurement rule-book - for situations where there's a lack of significant choice in the market and where the purchase is time-sensitive.
In my opinion, the Globemaster and Chinook ACAN's were reasonable. The tactical transport is being handled on an SOIQ, and I expect the FWSAR purchase will be as well.
The real key here is DND getting the specs right - differentiating between what's essential, what's important, and what would simply be a nice frill.
The only helicopters the troops in Afghanistan might get yesterday are not made in the US, so they will have to wait. Because when the choice is between buying what is available now, and Chinooks which will only become available in three years, no matter how much Hillier feels it in his bones, we are going to wait for the American product, because our troop will get the best, or nothing at all. Just talking of buying Russian is a sin.
http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/news/Afghanistan/Afghan_MH-47E_airlift_1a.jpg
But leasing them with civilian contractor pilots is ok.
Taxpayer, your overriding cheapness is unseemly when it comes to the CF. You would have them continue to "make do" as they have for decades now, although we ask more and more of them every day. Your position says a lot about your character, and none of it good.
Post a Comment
<< Home