Armoured vehicle program hits snagGovernment rejects every bidder after procurement officers set new protection standards
https://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Armoured+vehicle+program+hits+snag/3415489/story.html
OTTAWA-The multibillion-dollar plan to buy new armoured vehicles for the military, launched with much fanfare last year by the government, has already run into a roadblock, with every vehicle offered now being rejected by Public Works and the Defence Department.
The two departments are now scrambling to fix the problem that defence sources say was caused by poorly written requirements produced by inexperienced procurement officials.
The vehicles rejected include some of those being used in combat by Canada’s allies in Afghanistan.
The issue with the Close Combat Vehicle procurement centres around the Defence Department’s requirement that firms prove that the armour on their vehicles can meet a particular military standard. But the specification being used by DND is so new that the vehicles, while already meeting some of the toughest NATO standards of protection, have not been tested to the new level.
Public Works and the Defence Department will now rewrite the qualifications to drop the reference to the specific standard, instead using existing NATO armour protection levels, sources say.
It’s not clear whether the problem will cause a delay in the procurement.
Vehicles disqualified in the Canadian competition included those offered by German, French, U.S. and British firms.
DND spokeswoman Annie Dicaire said the department could not provide comment Wednesday. Officials with Public Works did not respond to a request for comment.
Government officials, however, have acknowledged that all companies involved in the Close Combat Vehicle competition were informed last Friday that their vehicles did not qualify.
The Close Combat Vehicle was announced in the summer of 2009 by Defence Minister Peter MacKay as one of the army’s top priorities and an example of the government’s commitment to re-equip the military.
Although details on the cost of the project haven’t been released, some estimates have the price tag set as high as $2 billion.
Earlier this year, a defence industry association warned that a lack of experience among government procurement officers was affecting programs and delaying equipment projects.
The Ottawa-based Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries pointed out that the federal bureaucracy was still feeling the effects of downsizing from the 1990s and a hiring freeze on entry-level personnel that was put in place then. “Today, the consequence of these actions is seen in too few officials with defence procurement knowledge and experience,” the association noted in a report released in March.
“Even public servants with procurement knowledge do not, for the most part, have experience on major capital purchases because of the paucity of such purchases in the last 20 years,” it added.
The association recommended a recruitment and training program for a new generation of procurement specialists.
It’s not the first time such problems have surfaced. In 2009, the Defence Department’s own auditor warned about the lack of senior management experience on equipment programs. The auditor’s report also contained details about the lack of training among equipment project leaders, as well as a large number of vacancies in the staff needed to run the programs.
But the Defence Department has long insisted it has the problem under control. In a 2008 e-mail to the Citizen, DND stated it had a training program to improve the skills of procurement officers and had created a pool of procurement specialists who were available to work on various equipment projects.
The Defence Department wants to buy 108 of the Close Combat Vehicles, known as CCVs. There would be an option for the purchase of up to 30 additional vehicles.
The army has argued that the Close Combat Vehicles, which would accompany its Leopard tanks into battle, are a priority for future missions.
But others at the Defence Department have privately questioned whether the CCV project is the best way to spend military dollars when other more important equipment is needed. Some in government have also questioned whether the vehicles should be a priority since the military mission in Afghanistan finishes in July 2011.
The CCV project has already run into problems. Earlier this year, industry was informed that the project was being put on hold while it was being re-evaluated. It was later restarted.
The government expects to award a contract for the vehicles next year, with initial deliveries planned for 2012.