Hatchet job
David Pugliese of the Ottawa Citizen is at it again. This article purports to explore the issue of sole-sourcing (simple or de facto) military equipment, particularly aircraft. The article follows typical Canadian journalistic style, giving quotes from "experts" with differing views in the interest of "objectivity". (Why though are "critics" always mentioned but not "supporters"?)
But note the prejudicial and perjorative language that is used to slant the reader's view against sole-sourcing (single quotes indicate words used by people quoted, not Mr Pugliese's):
And just for good measure there is this kitchen sink paragraph:
Nowhere in the article does Mr Pugliese make an effort to describe in any detail the missions the planes must fill, what capabilities they need, when they are needed and why by then, and which aircraft are available in the time-frames. Without such background the article is effectively in a vacuum; the reader cannot assess intelligently why the purchasing decisions are being made (other than for scandalous reasons).
On the other hand Minister of Defence O'Connor certainly left himself open by flip-flopping on the C-130J acquisition. And the fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft purchase deserves a critical look.
But this paragraph of the story sums up the essence of Mr Pugliese's misleading, indeed spinning, approach to reporting:
But note the prejudicial and perjorative language that is used to slant the reader's view against sole-sourcing (single quotes indicate words used by people quoted, not Mr Pugliese's):
disgusted...with disgust..'it's outrageous'...was rigged...questioning the fairness...civilian oversight and accountability have disappeared..complained that CFN [a lobbying company] has had an inside track with the general [CDS Hillier]...civilian oversight over the $4-billion annual defence equipment budget has all but disappeared and the generals [poor admirals! MC] are firmly in charge of the process...'mind-boggling'...allegations that deals have been rigged...C-130J, which A400M officials claim has been plagued with engine and other problems and is based on new technology [Mr Pugliese fails to mention the problems of the A400M and its new technology, including engines]...lacks oversight and may not obtain the best equipment in the shortest time...'The democratic process and competitive process in Canada loses [sic] out in the end'...lose out...'handing them (a contract) on a silver platter'...doesn't buy those explanations...the big losers...shrouded in secrecy...'DND's recent history is not good'...'ripe for abuse'...concern within Canada's defence and aerospace industry that they could be stuck simply providing labourers...concerns that defence contracts have been rigged...What impression do you think all that leaves?
And just for good measure there is this kitchen sink paragraph:
Mr. Conacher [co-ordinator of Democracy Watch] points to the recent Defence Department computer scandal as evidence of a lack of accountability on procurement projects. Last year the RCMP laid charges against a former Defence Department contracts manager and two Ottawa businessmen for their involvement in an alleged scheme that defrauded the federal government of more than $100 million. The contract irregularities were revealed in 2004, but officials with the Defence Department and Public Works knew there were problems with the military computer maintenance deals since 1999 but did nothing.Maybe we should be calling in the Mounties to investigate the aircraft procurements, eh?
Nowhere in the article does Mr Pugliese make an effort to describe in any detail the missions the planes must fill, what capabilities they need, when they are needed and why by then, and which aircraft are available in the time-frames. Without such background the article is effectively in a vacuum; the reader cannot assess intelligently why the purchasing decisions are being made (other than for scandalous reasons).
On the other hand Minister of Defence O'Connor certainly left himself open by flip-flopping on the C-130J acquisition. And the fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft purchase deserves a critical look.
But this paragraph of the story sums up the essence of Mr Pugliese's misleading, indeed spinning, approach to reporting:
Mr. Williams ["former top Defence Department bureaucrat...in charge of military procurement for almost six years"] also warns both the military and taxpayers are going to lose out because of the lack of competition on the large-scale aircraft purchases. Like Mr. Edgar, he argues that competition helps drive down prices and forces companies to make concessions to the military and government that they would not otherwise have to do when they know they are guaranteed to get a contract. Mr. Williams uses the analogy of purchasing a family car: A person doesn't walk into a car dealership, inform the salesman they intend to buy a specific vehicle and then start negotiating for a good price [people don't quite often? I just did because I knew what I wanted and got a standard end of model year discount].Now, if you need that new car in the next couple of years and if a) only one vehicle is being made that suits your needs (C-17J), or b) no other vehicle is available when you need it (C-130J vs. A400M), what do you do? There is a hell of a lot of choice in the family car market; there is a very small range of choice in the military transport aircraft market. I wonder why Mr Pugliese did not raise this with Mr Williams.
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 9:51 a.m.
23 Comments:
The truth is that the SORs for all the aircraft that the CF need should have been written in terms broad enough to allow several companies to compete. The CF could have then studied several proposals, and picked the ones that best suited their needs, based on merit, performance, specifications etc. These choices could very well have ended up being the C-17, the C-130J and the CH-47F.
Yet this was not done. The SORs were written so narrowly that only one aircraft in each category was capable of meeting them, so that no tenders were called for any of them. The CF then issued ACANs, meaning "Advance Contract Award Notice". Instead of accepting tenders, we called for SOCs, which are not the same thing. ACANs are not bids, they are sole source purchases, something the law only allows in very specific cases which were not invoqued in either purchase. The CF, for trying to exploit the Conservatives governments eagerness to please Washington, may very well have compromised their acquisitions, for the time being anyway.
It was like instead of having a beauty contest (tenter), the judges declared a certain lady they liked the winner without looking at any other contestants (ACAN) and called on anyone wishing to contest the decision to submit a Statement of Capabilities (SOC).
Mark, Mark, Mark…..you’re starting to sound like a broken record.
This is one of your typical “analysis” of an article, where you issue your claims that journalists have spins and agendas (particularly with Pugliese articles….boy you have a hate on for this guy don’t you?)
Well let’s look at some of your claims. The article you claim uses “prejudicial and perjorative language that is used to slant” such as “rigged...questioning the fairness...civilian oversight and accountability have disappeared..complained that CFN [a lobbying company] has had an inside track with the general [CDS Hillier]...”
First off, I would imagine the quotes are the quotes. The statements that Gordon O’Connor made while in opposition that the Liberal procurement plan was simply sole sourcing in disguise (he said it was “outrageous” and much much much more stronger language than used in this story) are coming back to haunt him. Is the journalist supposed to alter those quotes or ignore simply them to fit Mark’s viewpoint of the world?
And secondly, critics (opposition politicians, aerospace execs, Williams, etc) are indeed using language like “rigged” and are indeed questioning the fairness and lack of civilian oversight and are complaining about the influence of CFN. Prejudicial language Mark? How about an accurate assessment about how SOME (not all) are viewing the situation?
I’m not saying I agree with their view…..but these people are out there making these claims. Are journalists supposed to ignore these comments made at Senate hearings, in the Commons and in other venues? This issue, as the article points out, is heating up in the political arena. If the Commons hearings on procurement in March do come about, then expect to hear, read and see more of this type of thing. Just because Mark doesn’t want these points of view reported on or in the public domain won’t make it so.
Mark, however, is at his best, when he claims: “Why though are "critics" always mentioned but not "supporters."
This is typical of Mark’s analysis on this blog - selective use of portions of an article to make his point and smear the journalist in question by claiming they are misleading (whether it is Pugliese, Daniel Leblanc or David Adkins or anybody that Mark doesn’t like). Well here’s a few paragraphs from the article in question (which Mark conveniently left out) which show the “supporters” are indeed out in force:
--“Mr. O'Connor, now defence minister, says the procurement process for the C-17, C-130J and Chinook helicopters is fair, open and transparent.”
--“Mr. O'Donnell has questioned the motives of those in the defence industry who raised concerns about his relationship with Gen. Hillier. He has said his relationship with the chief of the defence staff has allowed him to determine that Gen. Hillier only wants the best equipment for the men and women of the military, and his judgment will not be swayed by any particular industry supplier.”
--“But according to Defence Department deputy minister Ward Elcock, Mr. Williams' concerns are unfounded. There is much civilian oversight, and a number of federal departments are involved in ensuring that the right equipment is delivered for the military at the right price.”
---“Paul Labrosse, the Defence official who oversees the major procurement programs announced by the Conservatives last summer, points out there are numerous levels of approval needed from both military and civilian bureaucrats in the Defence Department before equipment projects are moved forward. Later in the process there is oversight by Treasury Board, the Privy Council Office, Public Works as well as input from various federal departments. "It's been my experience that these projects and the requirements that form the basis for them have significant multi-department, very senior level civilian review and challenge before they ever make their way into the political approval process," Mr. Labrosse explained.”
---“Military officers say that since the first A400M transport is still being built and would not be ready for delivery to Canada until well after 2010 at the earliest, there was no other choice but to go with the Lockheed Martin product. They excluded the A400M almost immediately from the competition.”
---“The military, he says (Paul Labrossse), doesn't write requirements to suit a particular piece of equipment. "It has been my experience that the requirements and capability development process is about validating the needs of the Canadian Forces, not about identifying a particular product." Besides, Mr. Labrosse points out, the history of Canadian military procurements is one that has favoured competition over sole-source contracts.”
----“Mr. Labrosse is confident the government will still receive the best value on the upcoming contracts, even though aerospace firms already know the military wants their particular product. "We follow a process of negotiations that allows us insight into the contractor's costs, that allows us to compare our price with other customers' prices, that allows us to validate profit margins," he explains. "We do all the things that are at our disposal with our colleagues at Public Works to make sure the price we're getting is fair and the best possible price that we can get."
---“The military argues it is vital the procurement process be streamlined and that this is being done in regard to the recent aircraft purchases. Gen. Hillier says that in the past it has taken far too long to deliver equipment, up to 15 years for large-scale purchases. The troops, he says, deserve better. "They need it now, not 15 years from now, not 10 years from now, not even five years from now," Gen. Hillier has said on numerous occasions.”
---“But what bothers military personnel, in particular, is the use of defence equipment projects to support job creation throughout the country. They express frustration at being forced to purchase equipment just because the suppliers operate a plant in Quebec or Newfoundland. They also complain such industrial regional benefits, essentially the types of jobs that a company can promise if it receives a defence contract, play too great a role in the selection of equipment.
Others argue the process of using defence procurement to provide jobs for certain parts of the country should be curtailed. In the June 2005 issue of Frontline military magazine, retired Col. Howie Marsh noted that billions of dollars would be spent on Gen. Hillier's plan to re-equip and transform the Canadian Forces for the future and warned pressure would be on government to direct work to certain parts of the country.
"Another challenge is persuading cabinet to stop using the Department of National Defence for the furtherance of non-military objectives," wrote Mr. Marsh, now an adviser to Mr. O'Connor. "The department has long suffered from funding various regional development projects. Cabinet will need to be restrained from using major transformation objectives as the means to rebuild or assist ailing regional economies."
---“Mr. Kane, however, doesn't agree with Mr. Williams and others that civilian oversight is lacking on defence procurements. He argues that both competitive and sole-source contracts can provide the right equipment for the Canadian Forces. The key is for government to have rigorously thought out its approach and then be able to defend it publicly.”
Isn’t it interesting that Mark neglected to mention this material. So the question becomes What’s Mark’s agenda, What’s Mark’s spin?” “Why is Mark misleading on this?”
In my view, the bottom line is this. Mark has his view of the world. Anything that doesn’t conform to that view 100 percent is wrong. Those who don’t conform to that view 100 percent have an “agenda” or a “spin” or are misleading.
All this is fine. Everyone is entitled to their views. Where Mark fails is that he tries to claim that the article (and other articles) are “misleading” whereas in truth it is Mark’s analysis of the article that is deliberately misleading.
Gary: From my first para:
"The article follows typical Canadian journalistic style, giving quotes from "experts" with differing views in the interest of "objectivity". (Why though are "critics" always mentioned but not "supporters"?)"
Thank you for providing the pro side. But you will note that this side contains little or none of the emotive language presented (and not questioned by Mr Pugliese) by the con side. The point I was making is not that Mr Pugliese was only presenting one side. It was that his reporting was loaded in favour of the negative side by the prejudicial language presented. That is why I said that people are described as "critics" but none as "supporters".
As for Minister O'Connor, I wrote this:
"On the other hand Minister of Defence O'Connor certainly left himself open by flip-flopping on the C-130J acquisition. And the fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft purchase deserves a critical look."
And you fail to deal with the essential point of my critique:
"Nowhere in the article does Mr Pugliese make an effort to describe in any detail the missions the planes must fill, what capabilities they need, when they are needed and why by then, and which aircraft are available in the time-frames. Without such background the article is effectively in a vacuum; the reader cannot assess intelligently why the purchasing decisions are being made (other than for scandalous reasons)."
You will also note that, while Mr Pugliese gives a possible date for the A400M's entry into Canadian service, he does not mention the problems both Airbus as a whole and the A400M project itself are having (well documented on this blog). Surely he could have found an "expert" or "critic" to quote on these matters?
Mark
Ottawa
The truth is that the SORs for all the aircraft that the CF need should have been written in terms broad enough to allow several companies to compete.
Aaack. That's so incredibly wrong. Completely bass ackwards. The requirements should be written based upon operational needs, not based upon how many companies can compete. If only one piece of kit fits the job, then so be it.
The real trick here is determining which requirements are real needs and which are just frills on a wish list.
Btw, the C-17 and CH-47 are being managed on an ACAN, but the C-130J purchase is using an SOIQ (Statement of Interest and Qualification). C-17 and Chinook had two and one respondents in addition to DND's stated intent, although none of the other respondents was successful.
Ah, now I get it. I knew your criticisms had to do with some perceived slight by Pugliese against your precious Lockheed Martin C-130J and voila!!!! you just confirmed it.
“You will also note that, while Mr Pugliese gives a possible date for the A400M's entry into Canadian service, he does not mention the problems both Airbus as a whole and the A400M project itself are having (well documented on this blog). Surely he could have found an "expert" or "critic" to quote on these matters?”
So let me get this straight. The article in question is about the politics of military procurement, the concerns raised by a number of people about defence procurement as a whole……..and your criticism is fueled by the fact the article didn’t go off and crap on the A400M!!??
By the way, what gives with your hate for the A400M? Did your Lockheed Martin stock take a dip lately or something because what Airbus has done?
As to your criticisms that the missions of the planes aren’t described in detail in the article…..well the story is about military procurement and claims of contract rigging….indeed its more about the politics of procurement. It’s not an special edition of Aviation Canada on military airlift.
I also find it interesting that you hammer journalists relentlessly for their failing to include pertinent details (according to you anyways) in their articles. But in this blog’s detailed analysis on the CF’s tactical airlift program (consisting mainly of pro C-130J articles and anti-A400M articles) here’s one story I haven’t seen posted:
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/printedition/2007/01/19/bizlockheed0119a.html
C-130J 'not effective,' Pentagon report says
From Staff and News Services
Published on: 01/19/07
Lockheed Martin's C-130J, built at the company's Marietta plant, "is not effective for worldwide operations," according to a Pentagon weapons testing report.
The report says the midsize transport plane has weaknesses in its missile defense system that could make deployment risky in certain areas of the world,
So let’s proceed using the same logic that Mark applies. This high profile story wasn’t posted. Why? Is it because Mark and Damian are relentlessly promoting the C-130J so they deliberately overlooked this article? What’s their agenda? (a favorite Mark phrase). Well I guess that’s obvious now isn’t it.
The requirements should be written based upon operational needs, not based upon how many companies can compete.
Isn't funny that requirements are never written so narrolwly that NO aircraft fit them? They always narrow it down to one. Mmmm
I mean we could want for example for the FSAR an aircraft that hovers, lands on water, has a ramp, flies at 400 kts, has 10 hours endurance and burns no more than 500 kgs of fuel an hour while creating no ozone depleting gases.
Yet we dont. Our specification, by pure chance, always fit ONE aircraft. An we claim that they were not custom made for that aircraft? Please!
Isn't funny that requirements are never written so narrolwly that NO aircraft fit them?
Canadian requirements, maybe, but some countries still say "this is what we need - now go build it if it doesn't already exist." Hence the JSF program, for example.
That you bemoan the CF's refusal to engage in procurement fantasies speaks poorly of your seriousness, "Taxpayer." Because it's fantasy to think that creating an artificial competition when one aircraft is clearly superior to any potential challenger is useful in any way. And it's equally fantastic to think that creating pie-in-the-sky requirements for a non-existent aircraft is in the CF's best interests.
Gary, this constant questioning of our motives here is just asinine. Personally, I didn't post that article because I didn't see it. Here's a link that will actually work for folks without a subscription to the paper you cited (cached page). Good find, btw.
It still doesn't address the main argument I've had with you in the past that the C-130J is better as the "devil we know" than a completely untried paper plane in the A400M.
You say that Mark and I are too trusting of Lockheed Martin claims about the C-130J and not critical enough of the realities of the aircraft. Well, despite what you believe, I would LOVE to have an operational A400M to compare to the LM product. Then we could fly real against real.
Until then, while the C-130J has its flaws, its only possible competitor has...nothing. No real flaws, no real advantages, just the claims of an aircraft manufacturing consortium.
Good grief Gary! One problem--a problem I suspect the Canadian Air Force would like to be the only one:
"weaknesses in its missile defense system".
But you ommited this from the story:
"Four of the planes are flying in Iraq, and they have adequate defenses against older hand-held anti-aircraft rockets used by insurgents there, the report said.
But they might/might be vulnerable to newer systems, such as those used by North Korea, China and Iran, Bloomberg reported.
The report said work on improving the plane's defense systems continues."
Nice try. Care to comment on what the adequacy of the A400M's missile defence systems will be when it enters service?
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/fla/
To the layperson those on the C-130J actually seem more robust.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hercules/
I own no stock in LM.
Mark
Ottawa
Gary, good luck. I mean, you'll get no where, but good luck.
Here's my kick at the can: Mark, you're now looking at the emotive qualities of the quotes? Is it possible that the people who are pissed off about the politics of procurement just give better quotes because they are wound up?
Is the journalist supposed to search far and wide, trying to balance the level of excitement and passion in each quote (This guy was really wound up, hmm.. but this guy is calm, ok his quote is useless... oh look, here comes my boss to fire me.. laa laa)?
A paralel example, one that you are on the passionate side of, can be found in your and other posters discussions about the splitting up of the contract pie (viz.: They just don't get it and Same old, same old). Those of you posting on this subject (one where I happen to agree with you, by the by) sound fired up, energized and very very emotive. The politicians all sound flat, technocratic and like fat pigs at the trough. I demand that you find better sounding politicians, or stop being so emotive!.
In the end, I really don't care which plane wins, as long as it's the best (and that means available, with a proven track record when we need it). I'd also like the entire process to be as transparent and quick as possible. Period.
Now, I'd like it if someone would call me asinine please (the irony of calling someone asinine for questioning the motives of a post about questioning the motives of a newspaper article? So rich as to be heart stopping).
Cameron: Your mind and heart are in the right place. I do not think Mr Pugliese's are.
Mark
Ottawa
Cameron: Your mind and heart are in the right place. I do not think Mr Pugliese's are.
Mark
Ottawa
I HAVE TWO MINDS AND HEARTS?
Holy crap.
Mark, but you aren't sure and have assumed.
This troubles me, and continues to foster this "we" "them" attitude that has lead to the ignorance that you decry in the journalists.
You automatically assume some kind of dark plot, and all of your posters/commentators jump on people for misused terminology. If I were a journalist I wouldn't ask for info from any of you either.
I'm thinking, for example, of the whole "he misused the word gun" "discussion" from a few months ago.
That was a jolly bit of fun. Oh yes it was.
If the estimates were situated, then it should be easy for those who were left out to find a tame reporter to explain this: which specific requirements resulted in the exclusion of aircraft under consideration and excluded others. If there's no actual proof any aircraft have been nefariously excluded, there's no story here.
The SAR plane MUST have a rear ramp. In principle, a seaplane can make a good SAR plane. It can touch down on water and pick survivors up instead fo just dropping SARtechs and liferafts to them. Our Forces used to have Gruman Albatros before the Buffalo. Ever saw a seaplane with a rear loading ramp?
Taxpayer, remind me of the maximum sea state a SAR seaplane can land in, and then the maximum sea state a ramp-equipped SAR aircraft can conduct an airdrop.
Let me give you a hint. That would be sea state 3 for the seaplane landing, and a whole lot higher (sea state 7 or 8) for the airdrop.
There is a remote-control craft (known as SARPAL) that can be airdropped from a C-130 and is capable of handling up to sea state 5.
And of course things don't get any more dicey with an increase in sea state, do they? Naaahhhh. Sea state 3 is plenty good for SAR requirements. Who could imagine people needing rescue in anything beyond waves over 4ft and winds over 15 knots?
Chris, is that operational now?
Good question Cameron. I have e-mailed the company and will let you know when/if I get a reply.
Even if this particular ROV capability is not out there, you can still dump a raft off an airborne ramp in much heavier sea states than 3. And a non-ramp-equipped seaplane does nothing at all for airdrop contingencies which may require generators, fuel, or merely large quantities of medical supplies.
The company says the program was discontinued three years ago when DND decided to move away from the CC-130 SAR platform.
I don't see anything design-wise that ties it to the C-130, so I have asked the company for some clarification on this.
Lines of site mb? Because for all this talk about cameras etc etc it still seems to me that the operator will need to see the people for reference.
That is a pretty good bet. I have not received any follow-up to my second query yet, BTW.
That's just a guess though, wtf do I know about the cc-130?
All of this has gotten me wondering if training a guy to operate/operating something like this would be harder to do than the same with a UAV.
I'm mostly wondering because that kind of psychomotor stuff fascinates me, but it also makes me wonder if the lack of line of sight etc and the cost in making it work might not be the real reason.
If the estimates were situated, then it should be easy for those who were left out to find a tame reporter to explain this: which specific requirements resulted in the exclusion of aircraft under consideration and excluded others. If there's no actual proof any aircraft have been nefariously excluded, there's no story here.
It seems like they found the tame reporter you mentionned the other day. Its seems like the proof has begun to creep out from under the rug. When the CD Director - Air Requirement(DAR)has to write emails asking why the specifications of the strategic aircraft jumped overnight on June 16 2006, days before the SOR was published (June 29) from 19.5 tons to 39 tons, knowing very well that the A400M carries only 37 tons, I'd say Airbus has a pretty good case to cry foul. And that is just the beginning of the story.....
Post a Comment
<< Home