Nouvelles

Au cours des derniers mois, plus de 30 projets issus du premier appel de propositions de Projets compétitifs sont passés au volet 1b, et IDEeS a signé des contrats d'un million de dollars pour ces projets. Au cours des prochaines semaines, de nombreux autres projets seront affichés sur notre page Web. Nouveaux récipiendaires de financement de Projets compétitifs (en date de décembre 2019) En outre, les Réseaux d'innovation ont signé 12 accords de contribution d'une valeur de près de 18 millions de dollars pour financer de petits réseaux de recherche, ou des micro-réseaux. Ces communautés de recherche augmenteront la capacité scientifique canadienne dans un certain nombre de domaines comme les matériaux de pointe (évitement de la détection et protection physique) et les systèmes autonomes (confiance et obstacles à l'adoption). Voir tous les récipiendaires qui ont nouvellement signé un accord : Réseaux d'innovation – Micro-réseaux récemment financés Environnement protégé relatif à la détection de la corrosion : La rouille ne dort jamais Testez vos meilleures technologies pour détecter la corrosion sur les navires de la Marine royale canadienne (MRC). Le prochain Environnement protégé d'Innovation pour la défense, l'excellence et la sécurité (IDEeS) aura lieu dans les installations du Centre for Ocean Ventures & Entrepreneurship (COVE) à Darmouth, en Nouvelle-Écosse, et sera axé sur la détection de la corrosion sur les navires militaires. COVE est une organisation collaborative qui vise l'innovation dans le domaine des océans. Les participants auront l'occasion de démontrer leurs produits dans le cadre de simulations réalistes, et les participants dont les démonstrations seront réussies auront accès à un vrai navire de la MRC sur lequel ils pourront faire la preuve de leur solution dans un environnement réel. Ne manquez pas l'appel d'intérêt en janvier 2020. Merci, L'équipe IDEeS

ARMY Adams Communication & Engineering Technology Inc.,* Reston, Virginia (W15P7T-20-D-0001); Advanced Technology Systems Co.,* McLean, Virginia (W15P7T-20--D0003); The Boeing Co., Ridley Park, Pennsylvania (W15P7T-20-D-0004); CopaSat LLC,* Tampa, Florida (W15P7T-20-D-0005); GATR Technologies Inc., Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-20-D-0006); DataPath Inc., Duluth, Georgia (W15P7T-20-D-0007); Envistacom LLC, Atlanta, Georgia (W15P7T-20-D-0008); Fairwinds Technologies LLC,* Annapolis, Maryland (W15P7T-20-D-0009); General Dynamics One Source LLC, Fairfax, Virginia (W15P7T-20-D-0010); Globecomm Systems Inc., Hauppauge, New York (W15P7T-20-D-0011); Kratos Technology & Training Solutions Inc., San Diego, California (W15P7T-20-D-0012); NewSat North America LLC, Indian Harbour Beach, Florida (W15P7T-20-D-0013); Nexagen Network Inc.,* Morganville, New Jersey (W15P7T-20-D-0014); PAE National Security Solutions LLC, Fredericksburg, Virginia (W15P7T-20-D-0015); Quantum Research International Inc., Huntsville, Alabama (W15P7T-20-D-0016); Serco Inc., Herndon, Virginia (W15P7T-20-D-0017); STS International Inc.,* Berkeley Springs, West Virginia (W15P7T-20-D-0018); Telecommunication Systems Inc., Annapolis, Maryland (W15P7T-20-D-0019); TMC Design Corp.,* Las Cruces, New Mexico (W15P7T-20-D-0020); Trace Systems Inc.,* Vienna, Virginia (W15P7T-20-D-0021); Tribalco LLC, Bethesda, Maryland (W15P7T-20-D-0022); and Ultisat Inc., Gaithersburg, Maryland (W15P7T-20-D-0023), will compete for each order of the $5,100,000,000 hybrid (cost-no-fee, cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price) contract for the Global Tactical Advanced Communication Systems (GTACS II) and services. Bids were solicited via the internet with 24 received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Jan. 5, 2030. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, is the contracting activity. IOEI-EQM JV,* San Diego, California, was awarded a $35,000,000 fixed-price level-of-effort contract to provide emergency, immediate or rapid-response environmental remediation services at contaminated sites. Bids were solicited via the internet with four received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 11, 2022. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska, is the contracting activity (W9128F-20-D-0020). Young's General Contracting Inc.,* Poplar Bluff, Missouri, was awarded a $9,199,326 firm-fixed-price contract for flood rehabilitation of the Clear Creek-Platte River Right Bank Levee System. Bids were solicited via the internet with four received. Work will be performed in Omaha, Nebraska, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 7, 2020. Fiscal 2020 civil construction funds in the amount of $9,199,326 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska, is the contracting activity (W9128F-20-C-0007). Manson Construction Co., Seattle, Washington, was awarded an $8,396,000 firm-fixed-price contract for dredging of the Mississippi River. Bids were solicited via the internet with two received. Work will be performed in Plaquemines, Louisiana, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 12, 2020. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance-Recovery Act and civil works funds in the amount of $8,396,000 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana, is the contracting activity (W912P8-20-C-0010). Indtai Inc., Vienna, Virginia, was awarded a $7,640,269 modification (P00016) to contract W9124J-17-C-0018 to deliver adult education programs and services. Work will be performed at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, with an estimated completion date of July 27, 2020. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance, Army funds in the amount of $7,640,269 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, is the contracting activity. NAVY Ace Electronics Defense Systems LLC,* Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, is awarded a $64,405,123 single-award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with firm-fixed-price delivery orders for the production and delivery of manufacturing kits, spare parts and first article testing for the hardware component refresh of the Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Control System (AN/SWG-5(V)6). The AN/SWG-5(V)6 upgrade offers new offensive capabilities to upgraded ships in support of the Maritime Strike Tomahawk, addresses obsolescence risks and improves the operability and maintainability of the system hardware. This single-award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract has a five-year ordering period, which, if all line item quantities are ordered, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $64,405,123, with an ordering period to January 2025. Work will be performed in Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, and is expected to be complete by January 2025. Fiscal 2019 other procurement (Navy) funding in the amount of $259,118 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with one proposal received. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Division, Port Hueneme, California, is the contracting activity (N63394-20-D-0002). Engineered Coil Co., doing business as DRS Marlo Coil, High Ridge, Missouri, is awarded an $11,007,314 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, firm-fixed-price contract for up to 103 modular refrigeration systems in support of Naval Surface Warfare Center, Philadelphia Division (NSWCPD). The supplies under this contract cover the Air Conditioning Refrigeration and Thermal Management Control System Branch (Code 411) and the Auxiliary Machinery Systems Division (Code 41) of the NSWCPD. These supplies are in support of CVN 68, CVN 69, CVN 74, CVN 75 and CVN 77. Work will be performed in High Ridge, Missouri, and is expected to be complete by December 2023. Fiscal 2020 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funding for $2,212,490 will be obligated at time of award via an individual task order and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. In accordance with Section 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(1), this contract was not competitively procured (only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements). NSWCPD, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is the contracting activity (N64498-20-D-0002). DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Conmed Corp., Utica, New York, has been awarded a maximum $36,000,000 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for hospital equipment and accessories for the Defense Logistics Agency Electronic Catalog. This was a competitive acquisition with 102 responses received. This is a five-year contract with no option periods. Location of performance is New York, with a Dec. 29, 2024, performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 through 2025 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE2DH-20-D-0027). *Small Business https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2051251/source/GovDelivery/

La Direction générale de l'armement a inauguré le 19 décembre 2019 sur son centre d'expertise et d'essais Techniques aéronautiques à Balma (proche de Toulouse) un cluster d'innovation technique de défense dans le domaine de l'aéromobilité. Baptisé CI-AILE, ce cluster a été créé en associant quatre partenaires régionaux fondateurs : la DGA, l'armée de Terre, l'institut supérieur de l'aéronautique et de l'espace (ISAE-SUPAERO) et la communauté défense du pôle Aerospace Valley dans les régions Occitanie et Nouvelle Aquitaine. Le cluster CI-AILE a pour objectif de détecter, orienter et expérimenter les innovations portées par les acteurs régionaux afin de faire émerger de nouvelles solutions technologiques pour la défense dans le domaine de l'aéromobilité en lien avec l'Agence de l'innovation de défense (AID). Basé en région Occitanie, il pourra bénéficier d'un écosystème riche dans le domaine aéronautique et en particulier dans celui de l'aéromobilité, tout en restant ouvert à des partenariats avec des acteurs implantés dans d'autres régions de France. Le comité stratégique de CI-AILE est co-présidé par le directeur du centre d'expertise et d'essais DGA Techniques aéronautiques, le sous-chef d'état-major plans et programmes de l'armée de Terre, le directeur général de l'institut supérieur de l'aéronautique et de l'espace . Son comité de pilotage comprend un représentant de chaque membre fondateur. Ce nouveau cluster s'inscrit dans l'effort global du ministère des Armées en faveur du soutien à l'innovation, coordonné par l'Agence de l'innovation de défense en lien étroit avec la DGA. CI-AILE est un partenariat dont le fonctionnement repose sur un comité stratégique qui donne les orientations du cluster et un comité de pilotage qui anime et conduit les ateliers technico-opérationnels. Le comité de pilotage de ce cluster est constitué de personnels de DGA Techniques aéronautiques, de la 11e brigade parachutiste basée à Toulouse, du commandement des forces spéciales terre basé à Pau, de l'ISAE-SUPAERO et d'Aerospace Valley. Il se réunira pour la première fois en janvier 2020. Les périmètres attendus de l'innovation dans le domaine de l'aéromobilité sont la captation et l'évaluation de technologies innovantes dans les domaines : - du parachutage de combattants de l'armée de Terre et d'équipements, de mise à terre à partir d'aéronefs (aérolargage, aérocordage...) - de l'embarquement sur aéronefs (voilure fixe et tournante) de combattants de l'armée de Terre et d'équipements (aérotransport, aérocordage...) - de l'équipement du combattant débarqué et embarqué, toutes fonctions opérationnelles confondues, et de son adaptation aux contraintes du parachutiste - des méthodes et des moyens d'essais et de la R&T dans le domaine de l'aéromobilité. Cinq clusters d'innovation techniques ont déjà été créés en 2019 par la DGA autour de ses centres d'expertise et d'essais, CI-AILE étant le sixième : ALIENOR à Saint-Médard-en-Jalles dans le domaine aérospatial GIMNOTE à Toulon et ORION à Brest pour le domaine des techniques navales GINCO à Vert-le-Petit (Essonne) dans le domaine de la maitrise des techniques nucléaire, radiologique, biologique et chimique LAHITOLLE à Bourges dans le domaine des techniques terrestres. https://www.defense.gouv.fr/dga/actualite/la-dga-lance-ci-aile-un-cluster-d-innovation-technique-de-defense-dans-le-domaine-de-l-aeromobilite

This message is to let all our users know that CTTSO plans to implement an updated BIDS site on or around February 15, 2020. While the website address won't change, it will still be https://bids.cttso.gov, you will need to re-register. The current BIDS site will still be available (and have your old account and submission) at https://bids.cttso.gov/archive. We look forward to seeing your new registration and submissions in BIDS this spring! Thank you, BIDS Help

By Charlie Pinkerton; iPolitics Published on Jan 2, 2020 3:02pm Although Canada's defence minister has been tasked with working toward creating a new defence procurement agency to improve the country's often slow-moving system for purchasing military equipment, there's no clear timeline for when the new body will be put in place. In the mandate letter addressed to him by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and published last month, Harjit Sajjan was told that part of his job in this Parliament will be to “bring forward analyses and options for the creation of Defence Procurement Canada,” which the Liberals promised to advance toward in this mandate while they campaigned in the fall's election. “A lot of work has already started on (Defence Procurement Canada) and the goal of this is to make sure that we get the procurement projects done as quickly as possible to make sure the Canadian Armed Forces has what they need,” Sajjan told iPolitics the day before his mandate letter was released. Sajjan also said the Department of National Defence (DND), Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and Public Services and Procurement Canada still need to complete “more work” before a timeline for the creation of the new procurement agency would be set. Some of the first steps of the Trudeau government to improve Canada's military procurement system was in transferring the responsibility of military procurements to being managed internally at DND. When the Liberals published its overhauled defence policy in June 2017, DND said that 70 per cent of procured projects were being delivered past their deadlines. “Cumbersome decision making and approval processes have introduced undue delays. Accountability among departments has been diffuse and at times unclear,” says the Liberals' defence policy (it's titled Strong, Secure, Engaged). As a response, the defence policy declared that DND would internally manage the contracts of all projects of under $5 million — an initiative which it said would reduce departmental approval times by 50 per cent for 80 per cent of all contracts. The defence policy is intended to lead how Canada's military operates beyond this decade. At the same time as developing the new agency for military procurement projects, Sajjan has also been tasked with choosing which company the government will choose to pay almost $20 billion to build Canada's next generation fleet of fighter jets. According to the current timeline laid out by the Canadian Armed Forces, the government will receive the final bid proposals from the three companies it deemed in 2018 as being capable of meeting Canada's needs (which includes Saab, Lockheed Martin and Boeing) early in 2020. If it sticks to its timeline, the government will pick which company will be its fighter jet provider by next year and will receive the first next generation jet as early as 2025. Sajjan's mandate letter includes another procurement-related list item; he's also tasked with advancing the renewal of Canada's naval fleet. There are four major navy procurement projects that are nearing their conclusion. Canada is buying new surface combatants, new Arctic and offshore patrol ships, new joint patrol ships and retrofitting its 12 frigates. The combined cost of these projects is expected to cost taxpayers more than $83 billion. Investments in procured projects account for a large portion of the $32 billion jump in annual defence spending that Canada is planning for by 2027. If achieved in that year, Canada's defence spending as it relates to a portion of the country's gross domestic product (GDP) would equal about 1.4 per cent. Canada currently spends just over 1.3 per cent of its GDP on its military two years ago. It has pledged to NATO to work toward spending two per cent of its GDP on its military, which is a common goal amongst allied countries. Over the past few years, U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly called on Canada to increase its military spending to surpass two per cent of GDP. Global News reported less than a month ago that Canada had multibillion-dollar discrepancies in the last two years in how much it planned to spend on its military and how much it actually spent. According to documents obtained by the publication, it had a discrepancy of $2.29 billion in military spending in 2017-2018 and a shortfall of $4.45 billion in spending last year, compared to what it outlined in its defence policy.

Article by Marcia Mills and Paul Burbank Capital Perspectives Last Updated: January 3 2020 The issues surrounding defence acquisition took a backseat in the run up to the 2019 federal election. As noted by the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, this occurred despite the fact that two of the largest defence procurements in Canadian history – the Canadian Surface Combatants (warships) project and the Future Fighter Capability Program (fighter jets) – are in active procurement mode, spending is falling short of forecast and roughly 70 per cent of the approved projects under the 2017 implementation of the Strong, Secure, Engaged Defence Policy have seen schedule delays 1. Canadian defence procurement is a many-layered affair. Spread across three departments and a central agency (the Department of National Defence; Public Procurement and Services Canada; Innovation, Science and Economic Development; and Treasury Board, respectively), the need to coordinate and align this much bureaucracy is often viewed as one of the significant problems in defence procurement. The two main political parties offered very different solutions to these issues during the election, but provided few details. The Platforms The Conservatives focused on the need to "de-politicize" the procurement process, which would in turn deliver greater value for money and better resources for the Canadian military. To accomplish this, new oversight mechanisms, both in Cabinet and in the Privy Council Office, would be created. 2 Major defence procurements are already subject to oversight by the Defence Procurement Secretariat, a Deputy Ministers Governance Committee and a Ministers Working Group. It is not entirely clear how additional layers of oversight would reduce delay and improve efficiencies, unless the new mechanisms replaced all or some of the current oversight layers. The Liberal platform included a portion on defence procurement that pointed to the creation of "Defence Procurement Canada," to ensure defence projects were delivered on time and with greater transparency. The structure of Defence Procurement Canada was not explained. A bit of speculation is now in order as to what this could mean for defence procurement. The New Cabinet The Liberals formed a minority government and announced their new Cabinet on Nov. 20. While the Ministers of Defence (Harjit Sajjan) and Innovation, Science and Economic Development (Navdeep Bains) remain the same, Treasury Board has a new President and Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) has a new Minister – Jean-Yves Duclos and Anita Anand, respectively. Treasury Board President Duclos moves from a smaller, specific portfolio within Employment and Social Development Canada to now preside over one of the federal government's most powerful central agencies and cabinet committees. He will have a considerable role in ensuring effective financial management and government spending. Minister Anand is a new face in Cabinet and a first-time Member of Parliament for the riding of Oakville, Ont. She is assuming responsibility for, amongst other things, the two single largest purchasing organizations in the federal government (PSPC and Shared Services Canada (SSC)). Going Forward Defence procurement in Canada follows a general ebb and flow – resources are increased during times of conflict and are reduced in times of peace. Restructuring occurs in response to these influences, as well as perceived redundancies, desired efficiencies and the odd scandal or two. Various Minsters and departments have been responsible for defence procurement and production over the past 100 years, including boards or commissions set up during times of war. A new independent department for defence procurement would result in three different departments (SSC, PSPC and the Defence Procurement Canada) managing the vast majority of federal acquisition. This approach would be similar to the stand up of the Department of Defence Production in the '50s. The DDP had a short life. Established in 1951, it was expanded to become the central purchasing organization in 1963 as an interim measure, then disbanded in 1969 with the establishment of the Department of Supply and Services. The amalgamations of various entities continued until 1993, with the creation of the Department of Public Works and Government Services (a.k.a. PSPC). PSPC operates as a central purchasing agent for the government, with exclusive authority under the Defence Production Act to acquire defence supplies for DND. If Defence Procurement Canada is to exist as a departmental corporation or agency, the government would want to launch this new entity early in its mandate so that it can lay claim to any degree of efficiency or success achieved. If so, the new entity would likely remain within PSPC, as the Minister has existing statutory authority to create a supporting departmental corporation or agency under the Defence Production Act. Creating this entity outside of PSPC's current authority would require a significant reorganization of the public service and change to the operations of government of a magnitude greater than that required to establish Shared Services Canada – this would include deciding whether to maintain or decentralize the functions of defence procurement and defence production, as well as significant statutory amendments to provide or reduce, as required, the authority of all Ministers involved. Ministerial mandate letters, which were released in mid-December, shed no additional light on the specific operational structure or corporate identity that Defence Procurement Canada is expected to take. Notable in these letters, however, is a prevailing theme: Minister Anand has the clear responsibility for bringing forward options to Cabinet, but that effort will be supported by a host of respected, senior ministers, including Minister Sajjan (National Defence), Minister Jordan (Fisheries & Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard), and Minister Bains (Innovation, Science and Industry). As all of these Ministries are already involved in defence procurement, their continued support is not surprising. Throughout the history of defence acquisition and production in Canada, large-scale reorganization has been predicated by one of three events: war, post-war reconstruction or scandal. Absent one of these triggers, a minority government may have little appetite (or be able to drum up support from any other party) to stand up a wholly new department, or even a departmental corporation or agency within PSPC itself, on the basis of efficiency and economy alone, particularly in light of the on-going Phoenix debacle and the continued issues at Shared Services Canada. As no new Minister for Defence Procurement Canada was named in the new Cabinet nor were any Additional Ministers within PSPC named for defence or Defence Procurement Canada, it appears that, at least for now, any defence acquisition reorganization is likely to remain on the backburner. Marcia Mills is procurement counsel with the Fasken Ottawa office and has 20+ years of private and public sector experience. She provides clients with legal and strategic advice for all aspects of government procurement, as well as advice on government policies and procurement processes. Paul Burbank is an associate with the Fasken Ottawa office. He works with the Communications Law group to provide advice on telecommunications and broadcasting in Canada. Paul also works with Fasken's Government Relations and Political Law group on strategy and compliance matters. Footnotes 1 The Defence Procurement Outlook for Canada's 43rd Parliament by David Perry, The Global Exchange, 2019 Volume XVII, Issue III; Canadian Global Affairs Institute 2 Global News: With billions at risk, federal parties promise to fix defence, procurement

by Chris Thatcher; Skies Magazine Posted on December 24, 2019 When the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada in June released its blueprint for the next five years, Vision 2025: Charting a New Course, support for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) was one of its core themes. Small companies make up over 90 per cent of the sector and the report argued for greater government support to help them scale up, generate more jobs, and enhance their global competitiveness. That could include new funding to pursue digital business transformation, a reduction in the complexity of government contracting, and greater priority in the value propositions of prime contractors chasing defence procurements. “If our small- and mid-sized companies are left at risk, the negative impacts will be felt across Canada's aerospace industry as a whole,” according to the report, prepared by Jean Charest, a former premier of Quebec and deputy prime minister of Canada. Small companies are viewed as the prime creators of aerospace jobs and, in a sector buffeted by changing technology and new players, many may be more agile and better able to adapt than larger counterparts that must answer to corporate headquarters outside of Canada. But support from original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and governments is essential to their survival, according to a panel of SMEs at the Canadian Aerospace Summit in November. There is no one-size-fits-all to helping SMEs scale up. Companies at different stages of growth require different types of support, they noted. But help with skilled labour shortages and easier access to government programs are common challenges for all. A solid position on a major platform is critical to initial success, but long-term growth requires diversification, observed Barney Bangs, chief executive officer of Tulmar Safety Systems. Located between Ottawa and Montreal in the small community of Hawkesbury, Ont., the company manufactures protective and safety equipment, associated components and in-flight training products. Traditionally, its focus has been 80 per cent defence — Tulmar has been a supplier to a military platform for over 25 years and benefitted from a strong aftermarket. In recent years, though, the company has sought a better balance between military and commercial customers. “As of last year, we were 65 per cent defence and 35 per cent (civilian) aerospace,” he said. Tulmar has also become more of what he called “a solution provider,” integrating components from other suppliers to provide an OEM with a final, certified piece of equipment such as an aircraft seat rather than just the safety harness or seatbelt. “We are doing more in-house and saving customer-costs for the OEM,” said Bangs. Diversification has also been a priority for Apex Industries, a machining, components, subassembly and structures manufacturer in Moncton, N.B. Twelve years ago, its aerospace business was five per cent defence and 95 per cent civil, much of it geared to Bell Helicopter and Bombardier. “We made a conscious effort to diversify into the military side a lot more,” said vice-president Keith Donaldson. “We are very conscious of not allowing our sales to go too high on one platform or with one customer.” Challenged by cost-savings pressures in commercial aviation contracts, military platforms offer a company like APEX “good visibility,” he said. However, militaries have long been trading quantity for technological superiority, meaning fewer platforms and a relatively short production cycle. And ramping up quickly with people and equipment to meet tight delivery schedules is a challenge for small businesses that need other options to justify and sustain the investment when the contract ends. “It is very tough for a SME like ourselves to invest.” However, defence procurement and government programs can go a long way to supporting the scale-up of SMEs, said Patrick Mann, president of Patlon Aircraft & Industries, a technical sales force for global manufacturers of custom components and systems. The scale-up program must be run by single entity within government committed to the Canadian SME community that would be “funded, independent and have the authority to make decisions.” Mann suggested coping what has worked well in other jurisdictions, noting the success of the United States Small Business Administration's set-aside program. “Within that, there is a small business innovation research program which has been highly successful in scaling up SMEs,” he said. The Vision 2025 report called for a federal scale-up program to “provide advice, coaching, networking, value proposition development and consortium-building support to incentivize growth and build capacity–helping firms expand their global footprints and giving them the means and maturity to support OEMs effectively.” The report recommended the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises (OSME) within Public Services and Procurement Canada shoulder that responsibility. “Having OSME at the table as a contributor to the development of government procurement strategies and as a champion of small and medium-sized business interests will help ensure government policies and programs recognize the unique characteristics of small firms,” it stated. “We are a pretty good example of a scale-up of an SME using competitive bid government procurement as a mechanism,” said Mann. However, developments over the past 10 years such as single point of accountability and bundling, where multiple small contracts are combined in one larger procurement that is awarded to one contractor, have been “devasting” to smaller suppliers. “It has been a real issue for us. Again, it is an issue where (OSME) can play a role.” OEMs can bolster government programs by mentoring small companies within their supplier base on management and production processes, especially around digitization, added Donaldson. “OEMs have a lot of that knowledge ... [but] I don't think [they] do enough of that.” He and Bangs both cautioned that the ability to scale up will be contingent on resolving talent shortages. Developing and attracting skilled labour is a chronic problem affecting the entire sector, but it is particularly acute for SMEs in more remote locations that don't have the resources to recruit as widely or navigate the immigration system. “Before we launch a scale-up program with support for financing and working capital, we have to make sure we have our skills done first,” said Donaldson. However the Liberal government opts to respond to the Vision 2025 report, the value of investing in SMEs should be clear. Viking Air, KF Aerospace or IMP Aerospace & Defence were once small companies and are “now thriving global participants,” said Mann. “That is the reason why todays SMEs are an important part of our industry.”

By: Eric Lofgren In 2015, Congress passed middle tier acquisition, or MTA, authorities for rapid prototyping and rapid fielding. Lawmakers expected detailed guidance to follow shortly after. By June 2019, the Government Accountability Office found little clarity on documentation and authority. Congress reacted by threatening to withhold 75 percent of MTA funding in 2020 until the Pentagon released guidance. Dangle the purse strings and compliance follows. The undersecretary for acquisition and sustainment, or USD(A&S), released Department of Defense Instruction 5000.80 on Dec. 30, 2019. The MTA guidance, however, is more likely to pump the brakes on rapid acquisition than propel it forward. Programs designated “middle tier” do not have to follow regulatory processes for requirements and milestone reviews. That can shave years off a program schedule. In return, the prototype must be completed — or system fully fielded — within five years. As of March 2019, there were 35 middle tier programs. The term “middle tier” is perhaps misleading considering nearly half of them exceed the cost thresholds for major weapon systems — roughly $200 million for prototyping or $1 billion for fielding. Many questions remained unanswered until the new policy. How big was a middle tier? What documentation does it require? What is the role of oversight and USD(A&S)? Authority For several years, acquisition authority had been delegated down to the services. While the services only managed 48 percent of major programs in 2014, the figure grew to 90 percent in 2019. DoDI 5000.80 reverses the trend. While the services can approve MTA for non-major programs, only USD(A&S) may approve major programs. Moreover, major programs have far more entrance documentation than non-majors, including approved requirements, an acquisition strategy and a cost estimate. The services may avoid some documentation by disaggregating major systems into multiple MTA programs. For example, two of the Navy's non-major programs are components to Standard Missile-6 Block 1B. The same is true of the Air Force's Airborne Warning and Control System. USD(A&S), however, can still disapprove any MTA program, whether major or non-major. With advisers from all around the Office of the Secretary of Defense, there will be will numerous potential veto points. Each official may extract concessions from MTA programs managed by the services. Even though 31 out of 35 MTA programs are rapid prototyping efforts, the undersecretary for research and engineering, or USD(R&E), has been relegated to a secondary position. All MTA authority rests with USD(A&S). Almost as an affront to USD(R&E), he was given control over a rapid prototyping fund that Congress stopped funding. The outcome reflects a broader weakening of USD(R&E). Congress has reacted negatively to the undersecretary's effort to move fast and reallocate funds to higher value uses. USD(R&E) may lose control of the Missile Defense Agency to USD(A&S). Documentation While MTA exempts programs from traditional requirements and milestone processes, documentation abounds. Each service must create its own requirements process with approval in six months. Joint service requirements are discouraged from using MTA pathways. MTA requirements, however, must still meet the needs determined by four-star generals in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and combatant commands. This may in effect bring the same approvals from the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System process back into MTA. Many of the DoDI 5000.02 processes also apply. Still required are system analyses, sustainment plans, test strategies, cybersecurity, risk assessments, cost estimates and more. Contractors performing on MTA programs must still report cost data. No exemption was made for earned value management systems. Sidestepping many contract regulations — for example, with other transactions authorities — remains a separate process. Most importantly, Congress requires detailed justification in the budget for every MTA program. That means the services must start justifying MTAs at least two years in advance of funding receipt. Many of today's MTA programs spun off existing, budgeted line items. New programs may find a hard time finding funds. The present situation is reminiscent of the time David Packard attempted rapid acquisition between 1969 and 1971. A couple years later, new layers of bureaucracy descended. Similarly, MTA has built within it the seeds of another slow-paced bureaucratic order. Adm. Hyman Rickover's skepticism to the reforms nearly 50 years ago rings true today. As Rickover wrote to Packard in a memo: “My experience has been that when a directive such as the one you propose is issued, most of the effort goes into the creation of additional management systems and reports and the preparation of large numbers of documents within the Service to ‘prove' that the requirements of the directive are being met in order to justify funds for the Service. “So long as the bureaucracy consists of a large number of people who consider that they are properly performing their function of approval and evaluation by requiring detailed information to be submitted through the bureaucracy, program managers will never be found who can in fact effectively manage their jobs.” https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/01/02/too-many-cooks-in-the-dod-new-policy-may-suppress-rapid-acquisition/

By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — While essentially killing the U.S. Army's plan to competitively acquire a replacement for the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle, Congress in its fiscal 2020 defense spending package is injecting more than $100 million to fund the advancement of next-generation combat vehicle technology and is allocated another couple hundred million dollars for technology that will benefit related efforts. The second top modernization priority is the Army's next-generation combat vehicle, and the service's first major move toward modernizing its combat vehicle fleet was to replace the Bradley. But that hasn't gone according to plan after the Army received only one bid from General Dynamics Land Systems in its optionally manned fighting vehicle, or OMFV, competition to replace the Bradley in October. While the Army hasn't said how it plans to proceed, Congress cut $172.8 million from the service's budget request for OMFV, making it appear impossible to fund a competitive prototyping effort. While the Army considers its next steps to replace the Bradley fleet, it's not stopping other technology development efforts to improve its current and future combat vehicle fleets. And congressional appropriators are adding $145 million into next-generation combat vehicle technology development funds on top of the Army's request for $379 million. Under NGCV technology development, Congress is peppering funding into prototyping energy-smart autonomous ground systems, highly electrified vehicles and autonomous vehicle mobility accounts. More funding is being applied to additive metals, manufacturing, structural thermoplastics and advanced materials development to make vehicles more survivable on the the battlefield. Additional funding is included for protection from rocket-propelled grenades and improvised explosive devices, and money will go toward modeling and simulation efforts. Under advanced technology development for NGCV, Congress is adding funding for additive manufacturing to include using it to develop jointless hull technology, hydrogen fuel cells and an ATE5.2 engine. The Army will also get more money to develop carbon fiber and graphite foam technology as well as advanced high strength and lightweight steels. The service will also fund combat-vehicle weight-reduction efforts, additive manufacturing of critical components and advanced water-harvesting technology. Congressional appropriators also added funding for Humvee technology development to include augmented reality systems, a health usage monitoring system, autonomy, torque monitoring and automotive enhancements. More funding was added for NGCV virtual and physical prototyping, too. While not specifically allocated toward NGCV technology development, Congress also has added $246.4 million in ground technology development funding that could apply to future vehicles. That funding includes more work on additive manufacturing to include cold spray technology, materials research including polymers for lightweight armor, protection against the elements and threats, and alternative power development. More plus-ups include funding for sensors for underground detection and also urban subterranean mapping technology as well as unmanned aircraft system-mounted hostile threat detection. While the Army's plan to field a Bradley replacement may be in flux, the service is also looking further into the future at what could ultimately replace its M1 Abrams tank, for example. The technology development work being done within the service now will help paint a picture of what that future vehicle could look like as well as replacements for other combat vehicles in the fleet. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/12/23/congress-injects-millions-to-advance-next-gen-combat-vehicle-technology/