Time for a little non-hysterical context
You know Steven Staples' whole Chicken Little routine - aided and abetted by the Canadian media - about the use of non-competitive contracts by DND last year? I'll refresh your memory (pdf):
I figured it would be worth the time to wade through some U.S. government reports to see how Canada compares. I guessed our proportion of non-competitive contracts would be higher than theirs, given the fact that our defence industry has far fewer players than in the U.S. and that our system has less political oversight than theirs.
How wrong I was.
U.S. Department of Defence contracting figures for FY 2003 (pdf) indicate that approximately 70% of the U.S. military's procurement (by dollar spent) was through non-competitive means (approximately $46.3 billion of $66.2 billion total). Even if you consider the number of contracts awarded instead of the values of those contracts, it's almost 42% non-competitive for that year (~31.1K of ~74.2K). In FY 2004 (pdf) those percentages were over 72% by dollar spent (~$53.5B of ~$74B) and 44% by number of contracts (~30.6K of ~70.4K). In FY 2005 (pdf), non-competitive contracts remained up at 71% by dollar value (~$56.9B of ~$80.1B), and again, 44% by number of contracts (~30.5K of ~68.8K).
Looks like Staples didn't tell you the whole story, did he? Context is a useful thing, especially when looking at percentages. It's so useful, I think I'll give you a chart, so you can visualize the discrepancy.
It's worth noting that the highest Canadian number doesn't exceed the lowest American one from the four years charted.
So the next time Staples rears up on his hind legs and tells you DND is screwing up big time, ask yourself what he's not telling you this time.
Update: Thanks to Mark for pointing out in the comments that Dan Ross, the ADM(Mat) has also responded to Staples' accusations with a letter to the editor in the Hill Times.
Main Findings
- More than 40% of military contracts are “noncompetitive,” and the use of uncompetitive contracting is on the rise. A study using the Business Access Canada (formerly Contracts Canada) public database of federal contracts awarded by the Department of Public Works and Government Services for the Department of National Defence (DND) found the following:
- More than 40% of DND contracts in FY2006-07 reported by Business Access Canada were classified as “non-competitive.”
- The percentage in value of all DND contracts classified by Business Access Canada as “noncompetitive” more than doubled over two years between FY2004-05 and FY2006-07.
I figured it would be worth the time to wade through some U.S. government reports to see how Canada compares. I guessed our proportion of non-competitive contracts would be higher than theirs, given the fact that our defence industry has far fewer players than in the U.S. and that our system has less political oversight than theirs.
How wrong I was.
U.S. Department of Defence contracting figures for FY 2003 (pdf) indicate that approximately 70% of the U.S. military's procurement (by dollar spent) was through non-competitive means (approximately $46.3 billion of $66.2 billion total). Even if you consider the number of contracts awarded instead of the values of those contracts, it's almost 42% non-competitive for that year (~31.1K of ~74.2K). In FY 2004 (pdf) those percentages were over 72% by dollar spent (~$53.5B of ~$74B) and 44% by number of contracts (~30.6K of ~70.4K). In FY 2005 (pdf), non-competitive contracts remained up at 71% by dollar value (~$56.9B of ~$80.1B), and again, 44% by number of contracts (~30.5K of ~68.8K).
Looks like Staples didn't tell you the whole story, did he? Context is a useful thing, especially when looking at percentages. It's so useful, I think I'll give you a chart, so you can visualize the discrepancy.
It's worth noting that the highest Canadian number doesn't exceed the lowest American one from the four years charted.
So the next time Staples rears up on his hind legs and tells you DND is screwing up big time, ask yourself what he's not telling you this time.
Update: Thanks to Mark for pointing out in the comments that Dan Ross, the ADM(Mat) has also responded to Staples' accusations with a letter to the editor in the Hill Times.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 12:32 p.m.
3 Comments:
staples is doing the usual torque & smear technique to support an outcome he wants to achieve.
So much of what is procured by the military is consumable stuff - toilet paper to tires. Procurement staff know the market prices and either renew or accept low bids. No need to add an additional layer of procurement on top.
Unless you are trying to discredit the Forces - hello Steve, or have a vested interest in adding new public service unionized staff to the payroll and don't care if the job of getting kit to troops quickly is important.
Some more context--a letter from the Assistant Deputy Minister (Material). DND in the "Hill Times", July (:
"Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives unfairly criticizes government institutions: DND"
Mark
Ottawa
I was in the UK last week watching the news. They were interviewing a police inspector about the ever-increasing gun crime in the UK. He told the reported that the UK crime rate was still very low because it was much lower than the US’s. I laughed my head off. The United States is the 8th worst in the world in that field (per capita) behind South Africa, Colombia, Thailand, Guatemala, Paraguay, Zimbabwe and Mexico and this is the one country this inspector decided to compare to the UK, in order to convince the British public that the UK was not doing that bad.
So Canada is not bad at single sourcing because we are better than the United States?
Post a Comment
<< Home