September 24, 2019 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

Want to Win Government Business? Don’t be too ‘Commercial-Centric’

Governments may be open for business, but that doesn't mean doing business with a government is necessarily easy. Government procurement is complex - this is not by happenstance. The rules on public procurement stem from a number of sources including law (trade agreements, the common law and legislation) and policy. It can be a painful and costly learning curve for companies that want to sell goods and services to the country's largest buyers if they don't understand the rules.

Government decision-makers are answerable to a very wide range of stakeholders, including the Canadian voters who put them in office and the Canadian taxpayers who fund their operations. In a public procurement, it's not just about getting the best deal – it is also about meeting the broader public interest and achieving long-term policy objectives.

The Goal is to Promote Fairness

Competition is the rule in public procurement because it offers a fair, open and transparent environment, and meets the public objective that all potential suppliers get a fair kick at the can to sell to government. This is important when you consider that, for example, the Department of National Defence is the largest Canadian purchaser of goods and services from the Canadian defence industry.

Canada has implemented several trade agreements in the past few years, including the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), and the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) (which replaced the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT)). Understanding how these agreements impact procurement is even more important for suppliers and their federal, provincial and territorial government customers, as well as for the municipal, academic, school and hospital (MASH) sector which may now be subject to trade agreements for the first time or subject to additional or new rules brought about by these new trade agreements.

Prepare your RFP Response Team for a Long Haul

Businesses must understand the processes that come into play in public procurements, such as the need to resource their RFP response team for a long period of time or the impact of failing to meet mandatory RFP requirements (disqualification from the procurement process).

Learning to manage the length of time it takes to progress through a procurement cycle, and to navigate the processes, is a big challenge. In business, relationships matter, but developing a good working relationship with key decision makers in government departments or agencies can be difficult since government tends to have greater workforce mobility and people change in and out of roles frequently. Further, dealing with government means complying with lobbying law and conflict of interest rules. In many jurisdictions, discussions about procurement requirements outside of public solicitation processes is considered lobbying, as it is attempting to sell products or services to the government. Conflict of interest rules may also preclude certain people from doing business with government officials.

Approaching public procurement with a "commercial-centric" view often leads to frustration. The federal government does understand "how business works," but there are still many aspects of a public procurement that are not (and cannot be) commercially focused, including those related to complying with applicable trade agreements, protecting the public interest, and serving policy objectives such as regional development and economic diversification. Companies participating in a public sector procurement process face unique compliance requirements that don't come into play with a typical private commercial transaction.

Expect Heightened Security Requirements

With the increasing attention being paid to cybersecurity and data protection, companies will find they are now subject to more stringent security requirements, including an increased requirement for product functionality and security control disclosure in advance of their products or services being accepted by government buyers. This level of disclosure can extend through to greater access to the underlying technology used so that the customer itself can test for, and understand, cyber-threat vulnerabilities.

Whether this is your first foray into the world of government procurement – and you need to understand the rules of public procurement so that you can properly understand the RFP documents and the plethora of government policies – or you have a broader interest focused on influencing government policy and direction as it relates to your business or your industry, knowing how to best position your organization to take advantage of both possible routes is critical to a successful government procurement business. Waiting until you have lost a bid is too late to effect a change for your organization's benefit.

Be Proactive with the Right Advice

Regardless of your focus, knowing how the system works and how to best advocate for your interests is a crucial and part of any successful business plan. Working with a legal team that has knowledge and experience in all of these areas and can assist with strategic planning and approach from start to finish is critical to success.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4d2ced7d-7e1a-47f0-bf39-ced9b8a0b39d

On the same subject

September 4, 2020 | Local, C4ISR, Security

Royal Military College staff, students won't know until mid-September if personal info compromised in cyber attack
David Pugliese Students and staff at the Royal Military College won't know until mid-September whether their personal information has been compromised, more than two months after a cyber attack forced the shutdown of the organization's computers. An extensive review of information contained on the college's computer-based academic network is underway, according to the Department of National Defence. That network is used for general administration, student communications and research. “Initial indications are the extent of the compromise appears limited primarily to non-classified administrative information and correspondence,” DND spokeswoman Christina Kasper said in an email. “When the review is complete, a general statement based on findings will be shared with all network users regarding the extent of the compromise.” The cyber attack took place July 3. “If, during the course of the assessment, it is determined any personally identifiable information was compromised, individual network users who were found to be at risk will be immediately and directly contacted by the chain of command,” Kasper added. She noted that the office of the Privacy Commissioner was notified about the incident at the college in Kingston, Ont. RMC professors have been told not to access or retrieve their files on college computers, even with a USB stick. Staff and students have also been trying since July 3 to find out if their personal data has been compromised. But an email summary of an Aug. 25 town hall that took place to discuss the computer attack acknowledged very little information is being provided by the college. “Very few specific concerns were addressed in the town hall other than the presentation of the computer network issues that transpired and the way ahead for re-implementation of the RMC network,” the email to staff noted. “Personal data loss was mentioned as a possibility that had been brought up in the media. There is currently an ongoing investigation with the goal to determine define what may have transpired and to inform any that may be affected. No other details were provided.” Global News reported Aug. 18 that what appears to be data from the Royal Military College was leaked on the dark web. Many of the files appear to include student progress reports, acceptance letters, as well as a myriad of financial documents like tax receipts and budgets for various departments, Global News noted. DND has not confirmed whether the information on the dark web came from the college's computers. The college's academic computer system is separate from the operational computers used by DND and the Canadian Forces and corporate networks were not affected by the attack. “All early indications suggest this incident resulted from a mass phishing campaign,” said DND spokeswoman Jessica Lamirande. “This incident has not affected any classified systems or classified research at the Royal Military College.” The RCMP's National Cyber Crimes unit is investigating. Lamirande said the Royal Military College expects its fall academic term to begin as scheduled on Sept. 8. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/royal-military-college-staff-students-wont-know-until-mid-september-if-personal-info-compromised-in-cyber-attack/wcm/78796df3-0eb7-42a2-a057-e148b63c65ec/
May 5, 2023 | Local, Aerospace

Arcfield Canada announces Team Northern Sentry for Canada?s CF-18 avionics in-service support program - Skies Mag
Team Northern Sentry will provide MRO, engineering support services, cyber material assurance, supply chain management, logistics support analysis, and obsolescence management for the RCAF's CF-18 avionics systems.
July 20, 2020 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

Why it is time for smart protectionism
Put simply, Canadian governments have a responsibility to practise smart protectionism where the risks to Canadians' personal security and national security are high. Free trade is good economics. Protectionism is bad. Global supply chains are efficient. Favouring domestic goods, services and industries is inefficient. Canada has long adhered to these orthodoxies. And most of the time it makes sense to do so. However, through the COVID-19 pandemic, both the public and private sectors have seen weaknesses associated with heavy or total reliance on foreign sources and global supply chains for essential goods, notably personal protective equipment (PPE). As of June 2, for example, the Government of Canada had ordered close to 122 million N95 masks from international suppliers, yet 12 million had been received and 9.8 million of those failed Canadian standards. We are learning the hard way that foreign sources cannot necessarily supply the products we need in the time, quantity or quality required during a national or global emergency. China, as the dominant global producer of many of these PPE supplies, has become the focal point for an emerging debate around domestic control over certain goods, technologies, and services. A recent report from the Henry Jackson Society in the U.K., for example, has argued the “Five Eyes”—the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand—are far too reliant on Chinese sources for all kinds of strategically important goods, and that this is a threat to the national security of those countries. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, too, has warned that Canadian companies that produce certain critical technologies are vulnerable to foreign takeovers by entities with agendas hostile to Canada's interests. This is not just an issue with China, though. In Canada, we like to believe that in national or global crises we can rely on the U.S. or other allies for help. Canada, in other words, would be at or near the front of the line with allies. The COVID-19 pandemic, and the behavior of the U.S. and European countries, suggests this is naive. Italy, a founding EU member, requested and was denied face masks from the EU's stockpile at the peak of their COVID-19 outbreak. In April, a presidential executive order gave the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency the power to “allocate to domestic use” several types of PPE that would otherwise be exported. U.S. produced masks bound for Germany, a close American ally, were reportedly diverted back while in transit. Ultimately, Canada was exempt from the U.S. order, but this episode should tell us that global emergencies can lead to “home front comes first” attitudes, even among our closest allies. Fundamentally, the issue comes down to one of efficiency versus necessity. Sometimes, in some areas of the economy, security of supply is more important than efficiency. While this thinking is new to most companies and governments in Canada, it is not new to Canadian companies working in defence and national security. The Canadian defence industry has long highlighted the need for focused sovereign production and control in key national security capabilities—in part to ensure security of supply—as our allies in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere have been doing for generations. The argument has fallen largely on deaf ears. There seems to be a greater aversion in Canada to any kind of protectionism than among our more pragmatic allies. There is also a belief that Canada can always rely on obtaining critical supplies from the U.S., owing to both our close trading relationship and bi-lateral defence agreements dating from the 1950s that purport to establish an integrated North American defence industrial base. Canada puts too much faith in these beliefs, to our peril. While we can still hold free trade and integrated global supply chains as the goal, we also need to recognize that this view of the economy does not always serve our national interests. Put simply, Canadian governments have a responsibility to practise smart protectionism where the risks to Canadians' personal security and national security are high. Christyn Cianfarani is president and CEO of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI). The Hill Times https://www.hilltimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/072020_ht.pdf

All news