Critics and opposition MPs say the exclusion—which will prevent a private-sector firm the government plans to hire for the review from seeing cost assumptions and forecasts from the main F-35 project office in the U.S.—will prevent the experts conducting the review from being able to judge whether the National Defence cost estimates for buying and maintaining the stealth jets are accurate.
The Hill Timesnoticed a footnote reference buried in the middle of a key section of the government’s plan for a new secretariat to oversee the procurement project to replace Canada’s aging CF-18 fighter jets, and confirmed with the Public Works Department that the one-sentence footnote at the bottom of the secretariat’s lengthy terms of reference will deny the independent review access to original information provide to National Defence by the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Office in Washington, VA.
“Noting that acquisition and sustainment assumptions received from the U.S. Joint Strike Fighter program office will not be included in this review,” says the footnote, buried at the bottom of the last annex the government statement that otherwise sets out detailed powers and responsibilities of the new secretariat.
The estimated costs of buying and operating 65 F-35 stealth fighters the government announced two years it would acquire are in the eye of a storm Auditor General Michael Ferguson ignited when he issued a report last April 3 accusing National Defence of failing to “exercise due diligence” as it selected the F-35 and submitted costs estimates to the federal cabinet and Parliament.
The report cited Public Works for failing to “demonstrate due diligence” as it succumbed to pressure from National Defence and accepted a brief 150-word letter from DND as evidence that the F-35 was the only aircraft that could meet operational requirements for an F-18 replacement, which at the time National Defence had not yet fully established.
Mr. Ferguson accused the Department of National Defence of withholding more than $10-billion worth of operating costs when the department informed Parliament in last March that the fleet of 65 F-35s would cost an estimated $14.7-billion to acquire and sustain over a 20-year period.
Those estimates were based on a 2009 cost forecast from the annual F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Office report to Congress on the troubled project, beset with delays and soaring new expenses over the past three years. The fighter project office, following the annual report to the U.S. Congress, later provides Canada and eight other countries that are partners with the U.S. in the project, a version of the same costs that are specific to the F-35 version they plan to purchase, minus research and development costs the U.S. Department of Defence is shouldering.
As part of its reaction to Mr. Ferguson’s report, the government promised the new F-35 secretariat, formally now titled the National Fighter Program Secretariat, would table the latest 2011 cost estimates from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program within 60 days from the time National Defence received them. Canadian defence officials visited the F-35 project office last May 2 for their costs briefing.
But Ms. Ambrose (Edmonton-Spruce Grove, Alta.) disclosed last week the government would miss its first tabling deadline because the secretariat needs extra time to ensure the new cost estimates are complete, that they provide a “full project update” and that new estimates had to be “independently verified.”
“This additional time will allow for the completion of the independent review that will be commissioned by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and that will help set a consistent life-cycle costing framework that will be used to report costing estimates for this project,” the Public Works Department said in a statement it also issued that day.
“This will enable the Department of National Defence to more effectively report costs to Parliament and the public as well as ensure that the estimated life cycle costs associated with the program can be examined through an independent review process,” the statement said.
Two military procurement experts, including a former National Defence assistant deputy minister in charge of procurement, said they were surprised and skeptical of the plan to deny the independent review of the original information it needs to validate the National Defence estimates.
“If you can’t go back to the true source, I don’t understand how someone that’s doing a review can certify as to the accuracy of the information,” said Alan Williams, the former procurement assistant deputy minister who is a vocal critic of the government’s decision to acquire the F-35 fleet without a competition for the contracts.
“The cost to buy something, the cost to maintain it and the cost to operate it, I would expect that that’s what they want to make sure, that the cost assumptions in particular, the ones that DND has been quoting, are in fact reasonable,” Mr. Williams told The Hill Times.
“The logic is ‘let’s go back to the source,’” he said.
A University of Ottawa military procurement expert said the question of how an independent review could verify National Defence estimates without seeing the information those estimates are based on is “a very good question.”
“If we’re going to be sympathetic to them, it’s either classified or the information has to be reified through a Canada specific situation,” Prof. Philippe Lagassé told The Hill Times.
“Therefore DND, being the expert in terms of likely sustainment and acquisition costs and timing of the Canadian Forces, will arrive at a better or more accurate assessment of what it’s going to cost Canada, that’s one possibility,” he said.
Mr. Williams said none of the information used to calculate estimated costs—the F-35 is still in its testing and development state—is classified. He noted specific details are annually released to Congress by the U.S. Department of Defence and that the U.S. Congress Government Accountability Office also produces regular updates as part of its spending watchdog role for U.S. lawmakers.
The latest Government Accountability Office report came out last Thursday, June 14, comprising 52 pages of rising costs and problems and including two recommendations for action by U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration.
The report was packed with specific information about F-35 capabilities and technology, including a failure to overcome problems with perhaps the most important claim to F-35 air combat superiority—a revolutionary computerized sensory helmet visor that gives the lone pilot unprecedented control over weaponry and avionics and 360-degree vision around the aircraft.
“These shortfalls may lead to a helmet unable to fully meet war-fighter requirements—unsuitable for flight tasks and weapon delivery, as well as creating an unmanageable pilot workload, and may place limitations on the JSF’s operational environment, according to program officials,” says the public report to Congress.
NDP MP Matthew Kellway (Beaches-East York, Ont.) told The Hill Timesthat exclusion of original cost estimates and assumptions from the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office—where five Canadian Forces officers are assigned—means the government has broken its promise the F-35 costs would be closely scrutinized.
“This is a very obvious breach of their own seven-point plan (in response to the auditor general’s report), with the refusal to release to the public figures that are thoroughly scrutinized in place of yet another set of their own manufactured figures,” Mr. Kellway said.
“If ever there was a thought that Minister Ambrose would bring some integrity and confidence to this file, it has been dispelled with lightning speed,” he told The Hill Times.
Liberal MP Gerry Byrne (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, Nfld.) said exclusion of the cost data from the independent review shows the government is continuing to withhold information about the project, and said it contrasts sharply with the information flow in Washington, D.C.
“While increased openness is being practised by the U.S. on their own project, our government is flailing desperately to keep the drapes closed on the aircraft, and the cost that Canadian taxpayers will pay for,” Mr. Byrne said. “North of the 49th parallel, communications protocols are trumping disclosure and any critical analysis of whether this is the right aircraft for our domestic and international defence missions and whether or not it will even be able to be airborne by the time we will need them in 2019.”
The media relations office at Treasury Board had not responded as of 4 p.m. Monday to a request emailed last Thursday for an explanation of the footnoted exclusion to the U.S. F-35 cost estimates.
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: Tim Naumetz
No comments:
Post a Comment