Is the government serious? Does it really expect Canadians to buy into its new structure to oversee its response to the Auditor General’s concerns? The government continues to treat Canadians like naïve children willing to swallow anything given to them.
Had the government truly wanted to chart a new course it would have put in place a credible team to oversee the action plan and it would have committed to undertaking an open, fair and transparent competitive process. The fact is, it did neither.
Many of the same people who were responsible for the current debacle are still in charge. Rona Ambrose, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) is accountable for ensuring integrity in the procurement process. It is this minister and her officials who demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to do so throughout this process that are now being given more responsibility to oversee the process.
Does this make sense to anyone?
As the AG pointed out in paragraph 2.81 of his recent report, “PWGSC did not demonstrate due diligence in its role as the government’s procurement authority. Although it was not engaged by National Defence until late in the decision-making process, PWGSC relied almost exclusively on assertions by National Defence and endorsed the sole-source procurement strategy in the absence of required documentation and completed analysis.”
Simply put, PWGSC capitulated to the wishes of DND.
On June 1, 2010 Dan Ross, ADM (Materiel) at DND wrote to Tom Ring, ADM Acquisitions at PWGSC to justify DND’s sole-source recommendation. Based upon this 13 line, 150 word letter PWGSC gave its blessing to spend untold billions of the taxpayers’ money.
The letter was not even factually correct. Contrary to what is claimed in the letter, the F-35A does not “meet the mandatory operational requirements of the CF.” Also, recall that Dan Ross is the individual that on Sept. 19, 2006, 4 years before the military’s “statement of requirements” (SOR) was finalized, recommended to Gordon O’Connor, Minister of National Defence, that “the JSF family of aircraft provides the best available capabilities to meet Canadian operational requirements”. Not only was the SOR not yet available, but in 2006 the F-35 was in its embryonic stages of development. At that time there were no guarantees as to what the aircraft’s final capabilities would look like.
Do we really expect that these same people will come forward now and admit that they abdicated their responsibilities, that they perverted the process to meet their own agenda, that they misinformed the public with respect to the jets’ costs and capabilities and that all of the rationales that they provided for acquiring these jets were not true?
The government contends that there is no need to pursue a competition because the F-35 is the only jet that meets its requirements. There are three main flaws with that argument.
First, the F-35 does not meet all of the requirements. For example, the technical requirements connected with a pilot’s helmet mounted display have not yet proven to be feasible.
Second, these requirements were fixed or wired so that only the F-35 could meet them. As mentioned above, following the recommendation made to the minister in 2006 to replace the CF-18s with the F-35, can anyone really be surprised that the 2008 Canada First Defence Strategy referred to the need for “next-generation fighter aircraft” or that the 2010 SOR was crafted with only the F-35 in mind?
Third, what would occur if the U.S. decided to cancel this program? Would our government then say that there is no possible replacement for our CF-18s? Of course not. We would do then what we should do now. Conduct an open, fair and transparent competitive process. If the F-35 is indeed the best aircraft at the best price it will win the competition.
If the government were serious, it would have:
Appointed a trusted minister not tainted by the past (i.e., from outside DND, PWGSC or Industry Canada) to lead the initiative.
Appointed a trusted DM not tainted by the past (i.e., from outside DND, PWGSC or Industry Canada) to report to the minister and lead the bureaucratic effort.
Agreed to provide quarterly updates to parliament.
Agreed to provide annual independent audits.
Prepared “terms of reference” specifying that the government is committed to undertaking an open, fair and transparent competitive process to sustain a Canadian Forces fighter capability. As an immediate first step, it would have committed to modify the statement of requirements to allow for such a process to begin.
Agreed to prepare and make public realistic cost estimates before parliament rises. These estimates are readily available. The information gained by the recent visit of the bureaucrats to the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office coupled with information assembled through discussions with the Pentagon, through a review of their Selected Acquisition Reports (SAR), through discussions with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and through a review of their GAO reports will provide a solid foundation for the estimates. I would also advise the government that rather than continually understating the costs it should provide the highest, most comprehensive reasonable forecast along with any appropriate explanatory notes. It is much better to come in under the estimate then having to justify why its cost estimate is low. As these cost forecasts change (as they inevitably will) the government should keep the public informed. Better that we hear and read about it from the government than through third parties.
The government’s seven-point action plan and its terms of reference are a continuation of the same government strategy we have seen to-date. Namely, obfuscate, delay and confuse. Appear to be responding to public concerns but in reality maintain the status quo.
Canadians know right from wrong, truth from fiction, honesty from deception. Why doesn’t the government? Or does it simply not care?
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Alan Williams
Had the government truly wanted to chart a new course it would have put in place a credible team to oversee the action plan and it would have committed to undertaking an open, fair and transparent competitive process. The fact is, it did neither.
Many of the same people who were responsible for the current debacle are still in charge. Rona Ambrose, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) is accountable for ensuring integrity in the procurement process. It is this minister and her officials who demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to do so throughout this process that are now being given more responsibility to oversee the process.
Does this make sense to anyone?
As the AG pointed out in paragraph 2.81 of his recent report, “PWGSC did not demonstrate due diligence in its role as the government’s procurement authority. Although it was not engaged by National Defence until late in the decision-making process, PWGSC relied almost exclusively on assertions by National Defence and endorsed the sole-source procurement strategy in the absence of required documentation and completed analysis.”
Simply put, PWGSC capitulated to the wishes of DND.
On June 1, 2010 Dan Ross, ADM (Materiel) at DND wrote to Tom Ring, ADM Acquisitions at PWGSC to justify DND’s sole-source recommendation. Based upon this 13 line, 150 word letter PWGSC gave its blessing to spend untold billions of the taxpayers’ money.
The letter was not even factually correct. Contrary to what is claimed in the letter, the F-35A does not “meet the mandatory operational requirements of the CF.” Also, recall that Dan Ross is the individual that on Sept. 19, 2006, 4 years before the military’s “statement of requirements” (SOR) was finalized, recommended to Gordon O’Connor, Minister of National Defence, that “the JSF family of aircraft provides the best available capabilities to meet Canadian operational requirements”. Not only was the SOR not yet available, but in 2006 the F-35 was in its embryonic stages of development. At that time there were no guarantees as to what the aircraft’s final capabilities would look like.
Do we really expect that these same people will come forward now and admit that they abdicated their responsibilities, that they perverted the process to meet their own agenda, that they misinformed the public with respect to the jets’ costs and capabilities and that all of the rationales that they provided for acquiring these jets were not true?
The government contends that there is no need to pursue a competition because the F-35 is the only jet that meets its requirements. There are three main flaws with that argument.
First, the F-35 does not meet all of the requirements. For example, the technical requirements connected with a pilot’s helmet mounted display have not yet proven to be feasible.
Second, these requirements were fixed or wired so that only the F-35 could meet them. As mentioned above, following the recommendation made to the minister in 2006 to replace the CF-18s with the F-35, can anyone really be surprised that the 2008 Canada First Defence Strategy referred to the need for “next-generation fighter aircraft” or that the 2010 SOR was crafted with only the F-35 in mind?
Third, what would occur if the U.S. decided to cancel this program? Would our government then say that there is no possible replacement for our CF-18s? Of course not. We would do then what we should do now. Conduct an open, fair and transparent competitive process. If the F-35 is indeed the best aircraft at the best price it will win the competition.
If the government were serious, it would have:
Appointed a trusted minister not tainted by the past (i.e., from outside DND, PWGSC or Industry Canada) to lead the initiative.
Appointed a trusted DM not tainted by the past (i.e., from outside DND, PWGSC or Industry Canada) to report to the minister and lead the bureaucratic effort.
Agreed to provide quarterly updates to parliament.
Agreed to provide annual independent audits.
Prepared “terms of reference” specifying that the government is committed to undertaking an open, fair and transparent competitive process to sustain a Canadian Forces fighter capability. As an immediate first step, it would have committed to modify the statement of requirements to allow for such a process to begin.
Agreed to prepare and make public realistic cost estimates before parliament rises. These estimates are readily available. The information gained by the recent visit of the bureaucrats to the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office coupled with information assembled through discussions with the Pentagon, through a review of their Selected Acquisition Reports (SAR), through discussions with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and through a review of their GAO reports will provide a solid foundation for the estimates. I would also advise the government that rather than continually understating the costs it should provide the highest, most comprehensive reasonable forecast along with any appropriate explanatory notes. It is much better to come in under the estimate then having to justify why its cost estimate is low. As these cost forecasts change (as they inevitably will) the government should keep the public informed. Better that we hear and read about it from the government than through third parties.
The government’s seven-point action plan and its terms of reference are a continuation of the same government strategy we have seen to-date. Namely, obfuscate, delay and confuse. Appear to be responding to public concerns but in reality maintain the status quo.
Canadians know right from wrong, truth from fiction, honesty from deception. Why doesn’t the government? Or does it simply not care?
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Alan Williams
No comments:
Post a Comment