Canadian military will wait until 2023 for new pistols, says latest gov't update
- Thread starter 1ABNDT
- Start date
Actually you got it partially wrong. We have to act like we re-invent something new and different but generally just go along with someone else's "research". Makes the bureaucrats think they actually did some work. Fat chance.
The issue here is that whoever wrote the tender failed to do their quality assurance on the technical requirements. When you get a requisition it will often say "I want to buy x from y company because we like them and there is a store down the street", It's the contracting authority's job to say
"no get me a proper Statement of Requirement" to ensure you aren't going to end up in front of the CITT for real or perceived unfair practices. The words "or equivalent" added after any requirement, along with the various alternatives clauses make the CITT far more inclined to feel you acted fairly and in good faith. Even in cases where you options are a great item A and a garbage item B, you need to write the tender in a way that the ACTUAL requirement (not something arbitrary) is the reason item B fails to meet the specification. Fairness in procurement is important when it comes to government money and if it is being done correctly, by the book then it should be fair to taxpayers and industry (although sometimes ####ty for the client government entity who sometimes thinks they should be allowed to shop based on their personal preferences even when it represents poor stewardship of tax dollars). People complain about the government procurement process until they own a business and then they are happy to be treated fairly by those who their tax dollars pay.
Having been on both sides of the table during procurement processes (industry and government) I have to say the process isn't broken, it's just the people involved are still human and therefore prone to human error/bias that often jams up the process.
TL;DR
The Technical Authority over reached, the Contracting Authority allowed it (both could have been accidental, rather than malicious) and now you get a super slow procurement.
"no get me a proper Statement of Requirement" to ensure you aren't going to end up in front of the CITT for real or perceived unfair practices. The words "or equivalent" added after any requirement, along with the various alternatives clauses make the CITT far more inclined to feel you acted fairly and in good faith. Even in cases where you options are a great item A and a garbage item B, you need to write the tender in a way that the ACTUAL requirement (not something arbitrary) is the reason item B fails to meet the specification. Fairness in procurement is important when it comes to government money and if it is being done correctly, by the book then it should be fair to taxpayers and industry (although sometimes ####ty for the client government entity who sometimes thinks they should be allowed to shop based on their personal preferences even when it represents poor stewardship of tax dollars). People complain about the government procurement process until they own a business and then they are happy to be treated fairly by those who their tax dollars pay.
Having been on both sides of the table during procurement processes (industry and government) I have to say the process isn't broken, it's just the people involved are still human and therefore prone to human error/bias that often jams up the process.
TL;DR
The Technical Authority over reached, the Contracting Authority allowed it (both could have been accidental, rather than malicious) and now you get a super slow procurement.
Except that is not at all what is happening here. The govt wants a particular item and they drafted a proposal to buy what they wanted but at the expense of other competing products so it is back to the drawing board.
look at the bidder package, particularly appendix c. It is still only open to the P320 and possibly the Masada.
look at the bidder package, particularly appendix c. It is still only open to the P320 and possibly the Masada.
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
Submitting a TDP is a normal part of the bid process. There is a lot of difference between submitting a TDP that allows the buyer to evaluate the technical compliance of the bid, and submitting enough information to facilitate manufacturing.
In previous iterations of the tender, there was a requirement that the supplier was providing ONLY their design, and Colt Canada under the MSP would actually manufacture the pistols. This tender was absurd. It was absurd to think any company would bid on this for numerous reasons, and the predictable result was no one bid.
A subsequent iteration of this tender allowed for a bidder to make their own pistols, but CC under the MSP would have access to the full TDP in order to be able to manufacture the pistols and part if needed, and there was no restriction on what CC could do with that data. Once again this tender resulted in no one bidding, because even though a company could supply their own pistols, they were still essentially creating a competitor in that A) CC does not currently make handguns, but could get into the business with the supplied TDP, and 2) with Colt International in the throws of Bankruptcy filings, there was a moral hazard that a desperate CI, with no legal constraints imposed by the Canadian Government, could use the TDP as it sees fit in all of its other products.
The current iteration of the tender is much more limited in the TDP to be provided, and CC will not be involved in manufacturing of anything, but will conduct some or all of the performance testing. I suspect they would finally get bidders on this tender, not withstanding the technical requirements that lack some justification.
In any event, the assumption that pistols will get delivered in 2023 is laughable.
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
This is not a case of paralysis by analysis.
DND thinks it can just decide what pistol it wants in an arbitrary manner, and then craft an "open tender" with requirements that are so tight only one company can meet it.
If it wants to sole source it, then they need to justify it properly and use the correct process for sole source, which would immediately be challenged anyways by other companies who have a case to make that they are being left out.
Bottom line is there are lots of good pistols out there, there is no justification for a sole source, and there is likewise no justification for the current specifications that amount to a de facto sole source.
Wanting the Same Pistol that the US has, does have some merit with regards to interoperability. If Canada wanted to do that then we could just use existing international trade agreements and ask the US Army to exercise its contract options to buy and additional 20,000 units which canada would then purchase from the US Army. The problem is our specs are not identical to what the US has.
When you get into the weeds, there were lots of things in the last tender that made no sense.
DND wanted a pistol with modular frames and interchangeable grip sizes, but the only size they were buying was medium. They wanted the manufacture to guarantee that there was an established market for 'competitive' sourcing of additional sizes later. This would lead to a situation where you are either buying OEM grips, and the OEM is in an uncompetitive situation where they can literally charge the CROWN whatever they wanted for grips, or they wanted the OEM to guarantee that there were third parties making after market grips, which is of course something that the OEM could not possibly guarantee, but it would actually be against their interest to guarantee because they would have to guarantee the existence of their competitors.
The tender required that the grip size be changeable by the operator, AND to have a fully removeable FCU. Requiring grip size to be variable makes sense for all the difference sized hands there are in the CAF. Specifying the manner in which grips are changed is unnecessary, and specifying that grips can be changed by back strap but must also have a fully removeable FCU is entirely redundant and without justification.
It could have made sense if CAF ONLY wanted the FCUs, barrels and slides, and told line units to adopt a BYOGrip policy. Or maybe each member of CAF gets measured and issued their own personal grip which they retain, and only the FCU and slide bits get issued when required.
The FCU requirement was a blatant attempt to disqualify Glock.
The requirement to not require a trigger pull on dissassembly is much easier to substantiate, and likely would have disqualified Glock anyways. I don't know if Glock makes a pistol that does not have this requirement.
I don't love Glocks, but Glock deserves a fair chance to bid, and CAF needs a good enough pistol and they needed it ten years ago. The procurement folks need to stop mucking around and just get on with a fair process and accept the results.
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
The problem is the Military doesn't know how to choose equipment in a fair and transparent process.
If the military was left alone to do their own thing every procurement would be a sole source and the Canadian Taxpayers would get seriously gouged left and right.
Third Rail
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
If we have been trying to get a new pistol since 2011, can we chalk it up to incompetence and government bureaucracy then?
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-gurney-on-military-sidearms
Thunderhog
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- East Kootneys
In all seriousness: why should it be fair and open to all manufacturers?
If the military decides to hold a competition, then sure, set up a fair and transparent competition.
But if the military has decided that it wants a modular pistol that is largely identical to the equipment used by its closest and largest NATO ally, then why should there be a competition over anything other than price and vendor? Put out a request for M17/18 spec pistols. Let MD Charlton, or SIG-USA, or whomever, quote a price. If that price is within a satisfactory range, and there's no kickbacks or payoffs, then who cares?
Does the military do this with nuts and bolts? Do they have competitions where they spray sample nuts and bolts with sal####er and drop 10# weights on them? Or do they ask for proposals for vendors to supply standard #8 screws, nuts, and washers?
If the military decides to hold a competition, then sure, set up a fair and transparent competition.
But if the military has decided that it wants a modular pistol that is largely identical to the equipment used by its closest and largest NATO ally, then why should there be a competition over anything other than price and vendor? Put out a request for M17/18 spec pistols. Let MD Charlton, or SIG-USA, or whomever, quote a price. If that price is within a satisfactory range, and there's no kickbacks or payoffs, then who cares?
Does the military do this with nuts and bolts? Do they have competitions where they spray sample nuts and bolts with sal####er and drop 10# weights on them? Or do they ask for proposals for vendors to supply standard #8 screws, nuts, and washers?
- Location
- WMU248 near Edmonton
The Canadian government would apparently rather have them throwing rocks.
Grizz
don't laugh....
I pack a slingshot when I deploy sometimes you just want to get some attention, sometimes there is a dog that needs discouraging
A pistol, a F,ing pistol purchase that makes Canada a international laughing stock. The Germans took a look eastward and what is going on with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and in three weeks, yes three weeks, decide to purchase 35 F-35 !! Meanwhile Canada continues to flounder along trying to buy a simple f,ing hand gun !!
