24 septembre 2019 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

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

Sur le même sujet

  • Le Centre canadien pour la cybersécurité publie l’Évaluation des cybermenaces nationales 2023-2024

    28 octobre 2022 | Local, C4ISR

    Le Centre canadien pour la cybersécurité publie l’Évaluation des cybermenaces nationales 2023-2024

    Le Centre canadien pour la cybersécurité (Centre pour la cybersécurité) a publié son Évaluation des cybermenaces nationales 2023-2024, un rapport qui se veut une mise en garde en ce qui concerne le nombre croissant de cybermenaces parrainées par des États et motivées par le gain financier qui sont susceptibles de toucher les Canadiens, et les efforts déployés par les auteurs de menace étrangers pour influencer les Canadiens au moyen de la mésinformation, de la désinformation et de la malinformation dans le cyberespace. Ce rapport fait la lumière sur les cybermenaces les plus courantes qui ciblent les Canadiens et les organisations canadiennes, indique la probabilité que surviennent de telles cybermenaces et explique comment elles évolueront au cours des années à venir. Cette évaluation non classifiée révèle que les rançongiciels sont presque assurément la forme la plus perturbatrice de cybercriminalité à laquelle sont confrontés les Canadiens et qu'ils représentent une menace omniprésente pour les organisations canadiennes. On y indique également que les infrastructures essentielles risquent de plus en plus d'être visées par des activités de cybermenace. Cela dit, s'il n'y a aucune hostilité internationale directe contre le Canada, il est improbable que des auteurs de menace parrainés par des États perturbent volontairement les infrastructures essentielles du Canada. Le Centre pour la cybersécurité estime que les activités de cybermenace parrainées par des États ont des répercussions sur les Canadiens. En effet, les auteurs de menace étatiques peuvent cibler des activistes et des membres de certaines diasporas au Canada, des organisations canadiennes et leur propriété intellectuelle aux fins d'espionnage, et des particuliers pour obtenir un gain financier. Selon ses observations, les auteurs de cybermenace tentent d'influencer les Canadiens en ayant recours à la mésinformation, à la désinformation et à la malinformation (MDM) et on juge que l'exposition de la population canadienne à la MDM augmentera presque certainement dans les deux prochaines années. Par ailleurs, l'évaluation indique que les technologies perturbatrices, comme la cryptomonnaie, l'apprentissage machine et l'informatique quantique, offrent de nouvelles possibilités aux auteurs de cybermenace et constituent, par le fait même, de nouvelles menaces pour les Canadiens. La cybersécurité fait partie des priorités du gouvernement du Canada en raison de l'évolution constante des menaces. Les investissements en ce sens comprennent, entre autres, l'adoption de la Loi sur le CST qui a permis au Centre de la sécurité des télécommunications d'intercepter et de contrer plus efficacement les menaces étrangères. Le budget 2022 a accordé à l'organisme 875,2 M$ pour soutenir sa capacité à contrer et à prévenir les cyberattaques et à se défendre contre elles. Ces investissements protégeront les infrastructures essentielles, les systèmes gouvernementaux et la sécurité nationale du Canada. Pour une première fois cette année, le Centre pour la cybersécurité a également regroupé ses meilleurs avis et conseils pour les Canadiens, les organisations canadiennes et les infrastructures essentielles en tenant compte des menaces à la cybersécurité mentionnées dans l'évaluation. Contexte Il s'agit de la troisième édition de l'Évaluation des cybermenaces nationales du Centre pour la cybersécurité. La première a été publiée en décembre 2018. En plus de l'Évaluation des cybermenaces nationales 2023-2024, le Centre pour la cybersécurité lance également une mise à jour de son document Introduction à l'environnement de cybermenace. Ce document de référence offre de l'information de base sur l'environnement de cybermenace, ainsi que sur les auteurs de cybermenace, leurs motivations, leurs techniques et les outils qu'ils utilisent dans le contexte canadien. À propos du Centre pour la cybersécurité Relevant du Centre de la sécurité des télécommunications, le Centre pour la cybersécurité est l'autorité technique au Canada et la seule source unifiée de conseils, d'orientation, de services et de soutien pour toutes les questions opérationnelles liées à la cybersécurité. Le Centre pour la cybersécurité travaille avec les entreprises et les organisations qui ont été victimes d'un cyberincident pour atténuer les répercussions des incidents de cybersécurité. https://www.canada.ca/fr/securite-telecommunications/nouvelles/2022/10/le-centre-canadien-pour-la-cybersecurite-publie-levaluation-des-cybermenaces-nationales2023-20242.html

  • Defence Department failed to spend $1.2B in funding last year, most due to delays

    11 février 2022 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Defence Department failed to spend $1.2B in funding last year, most due to delays

    OTTAWA - New figures show the Department of National Defence failed to spend more than $1.2 billion of its allotted budget in the last fiscal year, th...

  • Opinion: After Major Mergers, What’s Next For Defense Market?

    25 septembre 2019 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Opinion: After Major Mergers, What’s Next For Defense Market?

    By Byron Callan This year has shaped up as a record one in terms of the volume of major defense transactions so far announced. Considering deals of $100 million or more in announced value where defense is the primary factor, the 2019 total exceeds $61 billion. Of course, the largest single example is the Raytheon-United Technologies Corp. (UTC) merger. There are reasons to expect heightened activity in 2019 and 2020. Some reasons are known and others can be assessed, but one that does not appear to be affecting market expectations is the Raytheon-UTC deal. Since it was announced on June 9, the companies' share prices have declined from the June 7, close: Raytheon's by 4% and UTC's by 5.7%. The S&P 500 has been flat. However, share prices of peers have risen—General Dynamics is up 5.4%, L3Harris Technologies has increased 6.2%, Lockheed Martin and Leidos have climbed 7% and Northrop Grumman is up 14.4%. These price moves may be attributable to safe-haven seeking by investors who were spooked by global economic concerns and trade wars, but the budget deal reached by Congress also was a factor, as were July earnings reports. The price reactions, however, do not suggest that investors are particularly concerned about the impact of the competitive strength of the Raytheon-UTC union and its ability to take market share away from peers. Nor do they suggest that the deal will trigger a rush by defense-focused companies to merge with commercial ones. Were the latter to be the case, the price reactions may have been similar to Raytheon and United Technologies'. There have been other known developments that raise the question of what is next. Kaman Corp. sold its industrial distribution business for $700 million and will seek to redeploy that capital into engineering products businesses, some of which could involve defense. L3Harris signaled in June that it is undertaking a portfolio cleanup after the completion of the merger, and so there should be divestitures from that company. Textron announced in August that it was reviewing “strategic alternatives” for Kautex, which makes blow-molded fuel systems and other parts primarily for the automotive industry. Presuming that it leads to a sale of that business, Textron will have cash, some of which might be spent on defense. There are general factors as well that could spawn sector merger and acquisition activity in 2019-20. One of the biggest is the potential uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the 2020 U.S. elections. Buyers and sellers have to weigh a number of variables. If the current administration is reelected and control of Congress remains split at least through 2022, then it may be safe to assume that the status quo will continue. One variable within the status quo is how contractor portfolios could be affected by the ongoing efforts of the Pentagon to better align its programs with the National Defense Strategy. Like the Army's “night court” process, this may yet spawn a reassessment of specific programs and their future growth outlook. But if the status quo does not prevail, defense contractors could face a wall of uncertainties in 2020 and may choose to act before rather than after these uncertainties are clarified. First, they will have to assess which Democratic candidate could win the primary cycle and then the nomination. If it is a centrist candidate, the Defense Department spending outlook might not change all that much, although exports to some countries might be curtailed and there could be changes in some Pentagon budget priorities, particularly for nuclear forces modernization. A more progressive-leaning candidate might raise the risk of a more subdued defense budget outlook, particularly if fiscal resources are instead directed toward health care, infrastructure, student debt and other nondefense priorities. Second, there will have to be an assessment of whether a Democratic win of the White House could also flip control of the Senate to the Democrats. If there is a Democrat in the White House but a Republican majority in the Senate, the Senate could still check budgets or policies that may be detrimental to defense. It might also block efforts to roll back changes to tax laws made in 2017. A third variable to be assessed is the attitude of a new administration toward defense mergers and acquisitions, contractor financing and risk. A more progressive administration could look very differently at the structure and financial status of contractors. All these variables will lead to different analyses of current and future value in defense. Is it a good time to hunker down and wait to see what happens or to act in the time that remains in 2019-20 before investors and creditors draw their own conclusions? These uncertainties alone suggest that some will act in anticipation of a change rather than just wait and see. https://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-after-major-mergers-what-s-next-defense-market

Toutes les nouvelles