It now takes, on average, 199 months — more than 16 years — from start to finish for military acquisitions, the examination of 55 equipment projects found. It was written in 2011, but there has been no improvement in the meantime, say Defence Department sources.
The analysis, obtained by the Citizen, throws into question the claims by Conservative minsters that their government has significantly reduced the amount of time to buy military equipment.
Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose told the Commons last week that “since 2006, our government had reduced the average major military procurement process to 48 months. This is five years faster than under the former Liberal government.”
However, the DND analysis found that in 1998 under the Liberal government the average acquisition time for equipment was 190 months. But several years later, after initiatives to improve the situation were brought in by Alan Williams, then assistant deputy minister at the Defence Department in charge of procurement, the figure dropped to 96 months and then to 89 months.
Those reductions were made under Liberal prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin.
The DND analysis shows that by 2010-11 the time it took to buy equipment had climbed to 199 months.
The increase could be caused by a larger number of equipment projects on the go, a lack of skills among staff, or the complexity of the procurement system, the analysis suggests.
But it added: “It is impossible to pinpoint what is delaying the cycle time, further in-depth analysis needs to be conducted to review the whole acquisition process. Progress has not been made in reducing the overall acquisition cycle time.”
Ambrose has noted that under the Conservative government, successful procurement programs included the C-130J aircraft, tactical armoured vehicles, and the upgrade of armoured vehicles. And on the weekend, government officials said Public Works stands by its claim that procurement times on major equipment projects have improved.
Defence procurement, however, has become a political albatross for the government, which has spent billions of dollars on new equipment, purchasing helicopters and transport planes as well as tanks and armoured vehicles.
But Canadian-based defence firms have complained they have little to show for the government’s multi-billion dollar re-equipment program as the bulk of the work has gone to U.S. companies.
Last week, a report from the government’s special adviser on procurement, Tom Jenkins, pointed out that DND procurement policies brought in four years ago have actually hindered Canadian firms from bidding on some Canadian contracts.
A number of major equipment programs have also bogged down. The program to purchase new supply ships went off the rails in 2008, with ships now not expected until 2017.
Last summer, the government took the unprecedented step of intervening and putting a temporary halt to the purchase of military trucks after it was discovered the Defence Department tried to spend more than $300 million extra on the program without permission.
The purchase of new search-and-rescue aircraft, started in 2004, has floundered and the planes are not expected for another two to three years. The army’s plan to buy a close combat vehicle had to be restarted at least twice because of problems.
The government’s decision to buy the F-35 fighter jet bogged down after Auditor General Michael Ferguson issued a report that concluded Defence Department officials withheld key information from Parliament about the purchase, underestimated costs and didn’t follow proper procurement rules. The government has now said it is open to looking at other fighter jets.
The DND analysis pointed to a number of challenges procurement staff are facing, including government cutbacks, the rapid pace of technological change, the increasing need to consider political and economic factors and a “high level of Auditor General and media scrutiny.”
Over the last four years, the Defence Department has gained a reputation in some government circles of playing fast and loose with procurement rules.
Former DND procurement chief Williams, who left the public service in 2005, said it is disappointing that procurement times are increasing.
“We had made fairly dramatic improvements in getting the times down” in 2003 and 2004, he said, “but all that progress has been reversed.”
Williams said he believes the problems can be traced to the Conservative government’s decision to make a number of large purchases without competition.
“When you start doing sole-source procurements you give the upper hand to the company,” he said. “That’s why it drags on and on because you have no leverage in contract negotiations.”
Other issues raised in the DND analysis include a lack of staff to manage the equipment projects and inadequate training for procurement officials.
That undercuts statements made by DND’s public affairs officials to the Citizen in 2008. They claimed the department was successful in dealing with recruiting and training enough procurement staff.
The analysis recommends the DND procurement staff look at improving how they figure out costs and the approval and delivery schedules for equipment programs.
In an email Public Works stated: “The difference in these figures can be explained by the different phases for actual projects of military equipment by the respective departments. The procurement metric used by Public Works reflects a timeline from government decision to contract award.”
The email added: “The project metric used by DND reflects a timeline from project initiation to equipment delivery which is clearly a longer process. In fact, in some cases, the process goes beyond equipment delivery to include Full Operational Capability and finally to project closeout.”
Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: DAVID PUGLIESE
No comments:
Post a Comment