November 28, 2018 | Local, Naval
Andrea Gunn (agunn@herald.ca)
The federal government has spent $11.8 million on legal fees relating to the Canadian Surface Combatant project over the past two years, some of that owing to a large number of amendments to the project's request for proposals.
In an answer to a written question posed last month by a Calgary Conservative MP, Public Services and Procurement Canada confirmed that 88 amendments had been made between July 1, 2016, and Oct. 2, 2018 to the request for proposals for the massive, multibillion-dollar project that aims to replace the Royal Canadian Navy's fleet of frigates.
The request for proposals — the document that interested consortiums would have crafted their bids around — was released to 12 companies that had been pre-qualified to participate in the procurement by Irving Shipbuilding in October 2016. Irving is the prime contractor for the combat portion of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, which includes the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships and the Canadian Surface Combatant, and is tasked with building the 15 warships at its Halifax shipyard. At a projected cost of between $56 and $60 billion, it's the largest and most complex procurement in Canadian history.
There were a number of delays in the closing date for the request for proposals. Originally set for April 2017, the first bids weren't received until last November. In its many technical briefings and media releases from that period, PSPC said the delays were partially as a result of the back-and-forth between industry, government and Irving — feedback which resulted in a number of amendments to the RFP.
“A total of 88 amendments were issued by Irving Shipbuilding between November 1, 2016 and August 13 2018,” the order paper question response reads.
“These amendments were developed and issued to address inquiries from the 12 pre-qualified bidders, and to incorporate process improvements to the competitive RFP so as to maximize the opportunities for bidders to demonstrate the value of their solutions to Canada.”
The response goes on to say the $11.8 million was spent by the government of Canada on project legal fees during the amendment period, but that PSPC is not able to provide a breakdown on how much was spent on the amendments themselves.
PSPC also noted that because Irving issued the RFP, they would have also incurred legal fees.
In the end, three firms submitted bids for the Canadian Surface Combatant and last month the federal government chose a consortium of Lockheed Martin Canada and BAE Systems offering the UK navy's Type 26 global combat ship as the preferred bidder.
Full article: https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/local/feds-legal-bill-nearly-12m-for-warship-work-261231/
December 20, 2023 | Local, Land
“Right now, in Ukraine, we are seeing the fight of tomorrow, where we can learn valuable lessons to help improve our own armed forces,” said Deputy Commander Peter Scott. “Whatever we decide to procure in the future is taking into consideration what’s happening on the battlefield now.”
January 16, 2018 | Local, Aerospace
A European report forecasting a surge in billions of dollars worth of missile and missile defence sales worldwide over the next 10 years could renew Canadian debate over signing on to the U.S. missile defence system, a defence analyst says. The forecasting agency based in Amsterdam is offering a market report on missile systems to global defence production companies that forecasts a rise in the value of sales to $93 billion for 2027 — compared to $55 billion in 2018 — for a total of $725 billion in sales over the decade. In the summary of its industry report, ASDMedia BV says the main driver for missile production, including all types of missiles from ballistic to short range and air-to-air missiles, is an increase in “territorial conflicts.” “The market for missile defence systems is anticipated to be the largest category primarily due to the ongoing procurement of missile systems by countries of the Asia Pacific, North American and European regions,” the report says. The report was published recently, during the escalation of tension over North Korean nuclear missile launches, but prior to the missile attack scare from a false alarm in Hawaii on Saturday. The missile spending forecast could also be of interest to participants in an international conference the Canadian government is hosting in Vancouver this week on the North Korean standoff. Senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, David Perry, says the market forecast of missile sales reflects a concern the Department of National Defence included about missile proliferation in the Liberal government's first national defence policy earlier this year, which at the same time included no specific plans for a response to the problem. Although the Liberal strategy included references to ballistic missile defence and modernizing northern defence warnings systems along with the U.S., it did not take a position on the long-sensitive question of whether Canada should sign on to the U.S. ballistic missile defence system. “It was one of those strange bits of the policy where there was an identification of an increased concern and a threat, but then not really any specific itemization of what was going to be done about it,” said Perry. Perry, who took part in closed-door consultations with experts in the lead-up to the review, said the market forecasts, along with the ongoing North Korea crisis, indicate ballistic missile defence should be renewed in Canadian defence discussions, following a short-lived flirtation with the idea by the last Liberal government in 2005. This past August, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appeared to almost rule out any chance of discussions with the U.S. over ballistic missile defence, but in September said Canada was not considering the idea “for the time being.” “Based on the comments by the Prime Minister, I'm not expecting any urgent movement on ballistic missiles,” said Perry, who argued for Canadian involvement in missile defence during the policy consultations. “I'm curious in a strategic sense, international market observers are saying there's a growing market for this technology because the potential threat of missiles is proliferating, and you've got that (ambiguous) language reflected in the defence policy,” he told iPolitics. The head of Ottawa's Rideau Institute, founded as an advocate for the rule of international law and disarmament, said Perry's desire to renew ballistic missile defence discussions is a reflection of the defence industry's views. “In my view, there isn't actually a debate,” said Rideau Institute president Peggy Mason. “The defence industry lobby keeps raising it, but I think it's absolutely clear that this government, the Liberal government, the Justin Trudeau government, has no interest in reviewing this issue, so long as President Trump is President,” said Mason. “There are so many good reasons not to review it,”Mason told iPolitics, “but just the difficulty of trying to sell this, getting closer to the U.S. on a very controversial and very costly area while President Trump is in office...” https://ipolitics.ca/2018/01/16/report-renew-canadian-debate-u-s-missile-defence-system-defence-analyst/
May 13, 2019 | Local, Aerospace
ELINOR SLOAN, CONTRIBUTED TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL RICK BOWMER/THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Elinor Sloan, professor of international relations in the department of political science at Carleton University, is a fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. For a bid to buy a plane designed to cut quickly through the skies, Ottawa's pursuit of a future-generation fighter jet has been a long and torturous slog. In 1997, Jean Chrétien's Liberal government joined the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, a U.S.-led initiative conceived as a new way for allies to work together to design, develop and produce a fifth-generation fighter aircraft. In 2006, Ottawa signed a formal memorandum of understanding that gave Canada and the other eight partner nations the exclusive right to compete for contracts to produce such aircraft and, since 2007, Canadian companies have won more than US$1.3-billion in defence contracts related to the Joint Strike Fighter. With a production line that will be operating at full capacity starting this year, and is expected to produce about 10 times as many aircraft as exist today over the next few decades, this number promises to grow substantially. Meanwhile, Canada's nearly 40-year-old fleet of fighter jets – the CF-18s – continues to age. In 2010, the Harper government shelved its plan to sole-source buy the Joint Strike Fighter to replace them after a public outcry and a damning auditor-general's report that found significant weaknesses in the process used by the Department of National Defence. Then, when the Liberals took office in 2015 and promised an open and fair competition to replace the CF-18s, it also banned the F-35 from bidding – two contradictory positions. The Trudeau government quietly dropped that ban last year, and pre-qualified four companies to bid on a contract worth at least $15-billion: Sweden's Saab Gripen, Britain's Airbus Eurofighter, the U.S.'s Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and, yes, Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. According to letters released last week, though, the U.S. government threatened to pull the Lockheed Martin F-35 from consideration last year over Ottawa's insistence that Canada receive industrial benefits from the winning bid. In response, Ottawa relaxed its requirement on Thursday: Where bidders once had to commit to spend 100 per cent of the value of the aircraft's acquisition and sustainment in Canada, bids will now only lose points in a three-category scoring system in the review process, instead. With such exhausting twists and incompatible statements, it's little surprise that it took three and a half years of the government's four-year mandate just to get to the formal request-for-proposal stage. But there is a way out of this morass: pursuing a back-to-basics focus on why we need this aircraft and what we need it to do. To do so, we must focus on the proposed jets' promised technical capabilities, which are paramount, and rightly weighted the highest of that three-category scoring system. The second category is cost, which of course is important to any government. The third is creating and sustaining a highly skilled work force within our own borders, a goal enshrined in Canada's industrial trade benefits (ITB) policy, which requires a winning bid to guarantee it will make investments in Canada equal to the value of the contract. Each bid is scored by these three categories, weighed 60-20-20, respectively. However, the Joint Strike Fighter program, which Canada has spent millions to join, does not fit neatly into the ITB policy. In those letters last year, the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin pointed out that Canada's ITB terms are inconsistent with – and indeed prohibited by – the memorandum of understanding Canada signed in 2006, which says partners cannot impose industrial compensation measures. The solution reached on Thursday allows that memorandum to be obeyed, but since Canada will still give higher grades to bids that follow its ITB policy, questions remain as to whether the playing field has really been levelled. All of this is important because of the growing competition between the major powers. Russian bombers and fighters, for example, are increasingly testing the boundaries of Canadian and U.S. airspace. More than ever, the focus needs to be interoperability with the United States, working together on NORAD and helping NATO allies in Europe. As a flying command-and-control platform, rather than a mere fighter, Canada's next-generation jet must work with the United States' most sophisticated systems, and include a seamless and secure communications capability – that is a critical and non-negotiable criterion. Indeed, as DND has said,the United States will need to certify the winning jet meets Washington's security standards. Some may question the federal government's decision to relax the ITB rules, and to grant this certification sign-off. But whatever Canada buys must be able to address threats to us and to our allies until well into the 2060s. Our relationship with the United States, both in terms of geopolitics and military technology, is crucial. Despite our trade tiff, the United States remains our most important strategic partner. Canada can either take an active part in our own security, or leave it to the United States. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-us-needs-to-be-a-key-part-of-canadas-next-gen-jet-procurement/