Canadian military will wait until 2023 for new pistols, says latest gov't update

pubb said:
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?
Click to expand...

There is no short answer but the longer one is Treaties, Free Trade Agreements, Stewardship, and Fairness.

-Canada is often treaty bound to do things certain ways (for example using local indigenous vendors to fulfill contracts in Comprehensive Land Claim Areas).
-Free trade agreements apply at various points but after about $250k for goods ALL the FTA's apply.
-Stewardship means respecting taxpayer funds and is the fundamental principle of the whole procurement process. It means protecting Canada from legal liability while getting value for money spent.
-Fairness goes hand in hand with stewardship. The process is designed to allow anyone with a viable product to bid. This also prevents Major Bob from taking kickbacks from the military industrial complex because he doesn't get an opinion on what he buys or who he buys it from once the Technical Specs are submitted in the form of a Statement of Requirement.

In a perfect world the TA, CA and client are all from different groups but sometimes that doesn't quite go to plan
 
Somebody should tell them the pistols are black and brown and maybe they will get some of the diversity and inclusion money from the budget.
 
But that's just it: the what and who are different. We spend a great deal of time and energy discussing and specifying the "what" when the real questions are "who" and "how much". So the brass decide they really like the P320 so they craft a specification in which one of the most popular guns in the world and the recent pick of the developed world's most powerful military is the only realistic option. Which means SIG can basically name their price.

Or, we shop like any rational organization would: we go to pre-selected manufacturers and say, "we are considering your product. We need X units of Y spec. Put together a proposal". We publish the request so that if anybody else wants to bid, they can. And then the powers that be can make a decision on what they buy and who they buy it from. Maybe the SIG at $500/unit is a better deal than a Masada at $495/unit.

So if the brass really want the SIG, they're going to have to justify why a serialized FCU is a critical element that would warrant a say $50/unit premium over a Glock. And if they can demonstrate why additional expense is warranted, there may be legitimate value in the more expensive unit.


YoungGun85 said:
This also prevents Major Bob from taking kickbacks from the military industrial complex because he doesn't get an opinion on what he buys or who he buys it from once the Technical Specs are submitted in the form of a Statement of Requirement.
Click to expand...
 
Either pick the SS or go with the handgun that finished 2nd, the glock is not modular in any way and why it finished 3rd in the Military trials.
 
YoungGun85 said:
There is no short answer but the longer one is Treaties, Free Trade Agreements, Stewardship, and Fairness.

-Canada is often treaty bound to do things certain ways (for example using local indigenous vendors to fulfill contracts in Comprehensive Land Claim Areas).
-Free trade agreements apply at various points but after about $250k for goods ALL the FTA's apply.
-Stewardship means respecting taxpayer funds and is the fundamental principle of the whole procurement process. It means protecting Canada from legal liability while getting value for money spent.
-Fairness goes hand in hand with stewardship. The process is designed to allow anyone with a viable product to bid. This also prevents Major Bob from taking kickbacks from the military industrial complex because he doesn't get an opinion on what he buys or who he buys it from once the Technical Specs are submitted in the form of a Statement of Requirement.

In a perfect world the TA, CA and client are all from different groups but sometimes that doesn't quite go to plan
Click to expand...

oh and the fun of being the CA and having to explain all this to the TA who has no idea what their job really is and need the CA to hold their hands through the entire process, so when you end up handing the file over to PSPC it is a viable file with a SOW/SOR that can be published. Most TA's come to me thinking that I'm going to write their SOR/SOW for them, I basically end up just sending back their drafts with long list of questions, until they manage to get something reasonable together.
 
pubb said:
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?
Click to expand...

This is the problem. The military doesn't get to decide what it wants. The military decides what it needs. This is a basic principle of procurement.

By deciding what they want, rather than simply stating a problem and asking industry to propose solutions, they are closing themselves off to innovation, both in terms of HOW to solve the problem, and in terms of what tools are available ot solve the problem in the manner that the military thinks it needs to solve.

When a person walks into a store and says I need a drill with a 1/4" drill bit, they don't actually need a drill. What they need is a 1/4" hole in something. Maybe they would be better served by a drill press. Or a CNC router table.

The responsibility of the buyer in government procurement to is to accurately and honestly state the problem. Not dictate a solution. This is where 95% of procurements I have seen go off the rails.

The Air Force has been bickering over jet fighter replacements for two decades. The lobbyists and special interests are trying to tell the airforce while it needs their product. If the air force simply and honestly stated the problem, ie ability to detect, identify and engage airborne threats throughout all of Canada's sovereign territories, the obviously solutions would be a superonic unmanned aerial weapons platform.

In the case of the handgun, the military shouldn't even be stating it needs a pistol. What it needs is to provide the soldiers the capability to neutralize hostile threats at short ranges with a rapidly deployable weapon system that is lightweight and easily carried, or something that effect. State a maximum weight. State a maximum time for the person to retrieve the item from storage and engage a target. State a requirement that the item be ergonomically designed to account for the variety of shapes and sizes of soldiers and their hands. etc etc.

State the Problem. State the limitations that act to narrow the range of options. Let industry propose solutions. Then evaluate those solutions against your stated performance requirements.

When the military just says we want what we want and if we don't get it we will get upset, is a recipe for getting gouged, and law suits.

Your solution of Letting MD Charlton, Sig USA, and others all provide options for essentially the same pistol is just a sole source in sheeps clothing. Sig can sell direct. Or they can sell to the MD Charlton. Either way sig gets to name their price. There is nothing to keep them honest. All of a sudden a 600 pistol costs 1200.

How does the military determine what a satisfactory range is? What if the military thinks 3x retail value is a normal Range? What if the tax payers disagree? How do you know there are no kickbacks or pay offs?

Why should it be fair and open to all manufacturers? Because if it isn't, there is a much greater incentive for kick backs and pay offs.

Being open to all bidders isn't a problem. If a supplier doesn't have a solution to the problem then they don't bid, and thats on them. the point of a fair and open competition is to let everyone who has a potential solution to be allowed to submit it for consideration. This is what keeps people honest. This is what keeps costs down, and this is what ensures the end user gets the best value for the money.
 
How idiotic is it that Glock who uses a 40 year old design can dictate what Canadian requirements there are for a modern made pistol? All this because Glock was disqualified because of the removeable trigger group and needing to pull the trigger to disassemble requirement. The simple fact of the matter is there are a new, modern pistols that do meet these requirements now. Glock doesn't becase its a forty year old design. Its not for Glock to dictate what the Canadian requirements should be when other pistol manufacturers like Sig Saur, Beretta, IWI, Steyr can meet the requirements.
 
Ebola said:
How idiotic is it that Glock who uses a 40 year old design can dictate what Canadian requirements there are for a modern made pistol? All this because Glock was disqualified because of the removeable trigger group and needing to pull the trigger to disassemble requirement. The simple fact of the matter is there are a new, modern pistols that do meet these requirements now. Glock doesn't becase its a forty year old design. Its not for Glock to dictate what the Canadian requirements should be when other pistol manufacturers like Sig Saur, Beretta, IWI, Steyr can meet the requirements.
Click to expand...

You should read the CITT ruling that struck down the procurement as flawed.

First, Glock didn't dictate anything.
Glock asked if the procurement was fair.
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal made a finding that itwas not.

it doesn't matter if there is a pistol that meets the removeable trigger group requirement, or whether glock can meet it.

The point is that the requriement was nonsense, it was without justification, and it was obviously calculated for the sole purpose of excluding solutions that would otherwise meet all the requirements.

Glocks design doesnt meet the removeable trigger mech requirement because Glock, like most companies, don't invent solutions to non-problems.

Glock doesn't get to decide what the requirements are. Canada does. Glock exercise its right to simply have the tender reviewed to ensure it conforms to the rules, and the Tribunal agreed the procurement failed to meet the rules.

Canada now has to rewrite its rules to be justified and fair. Glock may or may not meet the revised criteria either. The tender wasn't struck down because GLock didn't meet it.
 
"And you can rest assured that we will f**k it up so badly it will look like borderline sabotage! And the cost? Don't worry about that either, we'll make sure we pay out the nose for something sub-par and borderline non functional THEN insist on troops hanging a PEQ15 off it NO EXCEPTIONS!"
 
The problem with that is that the needs/wants analysis SHOULD happen before the procurement phase. The need is for a pistol. Why? Because they should have already decided that a phased plasma rifle in 40W range would require too much additional training or for any other reason.

Once you decide on a pistol, put it out for tender and consider other options: The brass may really want the P320. But consider other options: so if Glock comes in at $100 less per unit, the brass will have to make a business case for why a $400 Glock is less value or less capable or less acceptable than a $500 P320.


Cameron SS said:
This is the problem. The military doesn't get to decide what it wants. The military decides what it needs. This is a basic principle of procurement.

By deciding what they want, rather than simply stating a problem and asking industry to propose solutions, they are closing themselves off to innovation, both in terms of HOW to solve the problem, and in terms of what tools are available ot solve the problem in the manner that the military thinks it needs to solve.

When a person walks into a store and says I need a drill with a 1/4" drill bit, they don't actually need a drill. What they need is a 1/4" hole in something. Maybe they would be better served by a drill press. Or a CNC router table.

The responsibility of the buyer in government procurement to is to accurately and honestly state the problem. Not dictate a solution. This is where 95% of procurements I have seen go off the rails.

The Air Force has been bickering over jet fighter replacements for two decades. The lobbyists and special interests are trying to tell the airforce while it needs their product. If the air force simply and honestly stated the problem, ie ability to detect, identify and engage airborne threats throughout all of Canada's sovereign territories, the obviously solutions would be a superonic unmanned aerial weapons platform.

In the case of the handgun, the military shouldn't even be stating it needs a pistol. What it needs is to provide the soldiers the capability to neutralize hostile threats at short ranges with a rapidly deployable weapon system that is lightweight and easily carried, or something that effect. State a maximum weight. State a maximum time for the person to retrieve the item from storage and engage a target. State a requirement that the item be ergonomically designed to account for the variety of shapes and sizes of soldiers and their hands. etc etc.

State the Problem. State the limitations that act to narrow the range of options. Let industry propose solutions. Then evaluate those solutions against your stated performance requirements.

When the military just says we want what we want and if we don't get it we will get upset, is a recipe for getting gouged, and law suits.

Your solution of Letting MD Charlton, Sig USA, and others all provide options for essentially the same pistol is just a sole source in sheeps clothing. Sig can sell direct. Or they can sell to the MD Charlton. Either way sig gets to name their price. There is nothing to keep them honest. All of a sudden a 600 pistol costs 1200.

How does the military determine what a satisfactory range is? What if the military thinks 3x retail value is a normal Range? What if the tax payers disagree? How do you know there are no kickbacks or pay offs?

Why should it be fair and open to all manufacturers? Because if it isn't, there is a much greater incentive for kick backs and pay offs.

Being open to all bidders isn't a problem. If a supplier doesn't have a solution to the problem then they don't bid, and thats on them. the point of a fair and open competition is to let everyone who has a potential solution to be allowed to submit it for consideration. This is what keeps people honest. This is what keeps costs down, and this is what ensures the end user gets the best value for the money.
Click to expand...
 
pubb said:
The problem with that is that the needs/wants analysis SHOULD happen before the procurement phase. The need is for a pistol. Why? Because they should have already decided that a phased plasma rifle in 40W range would require too much additional training or for any other reason.

Once you decide on a pistol, put it out for tender and consider other options: The brass may really want the P320. But consider other options: so if Glock comes in at $100 less per unit, the brass will have to make a business case for why a $400 Glock is less value or less capable or less acceptable than a $500 P320.
Click to expand...

With respect, you are still missing the point.

How do you know a phased plasma rifle in the 40w range would require any additional training? The end user is not to decide what is acceptable or what is not before the tender. that is literally the point of the tender.

DND should not be developing a requirement in order to rule out a potential option. that is exactly what got them in trouble the last time. What they need to do is state an actual operational requirement that is rooted in the realities of how the equipment will be used. If that rules out an option than so be it.

For Example, I don't want a phased plasma rifle because its too different, is unreasonable.

As opposed to: Phased plasma rifles don't meet our operational requirement that any proposed solution must utilize NATO STANAG ammunition types.

You say "once you decide on a pistol...". Once again, that is what the tender is for.

If the users say we really want a P320, then they have already violated the spirit of our procurement rules.

On your final point, its not that hard, nor is it uncommon, to see a tender that is based on a best value decision making model rather than a lowest cost compliant model. If amount of time to retrain is a concern, this is easy to build in.

If DND wants to leave the door opento spending more on a firearm because there is value for the money, the procurement can easily be structured that way. And many big ticket tenders are structured that way.
 
But that is not how any rational person or organization does business. My point is that the tender shouldn't happen until the needs/wants analysis has been done.

To use your 1/4" drill bit analogy, I need to come to the conclusion that my situation requires the ability to make 1/4" holes, figure out the most appropriate method based on my operating conditions and budget, then go shopping. Once I figure out that I need a 1/4" drill bit, then I narrow down my options based on lots of factors including that I don't want to spend $37 on a single drill bit, but I also don't want to spend $0.16 on one either because its likely a POS.

And it would be fine to come up with a weighted matrix of sorts, where some things such as accuracy or reliability or service life are minimum standards and not negotiable, but a separate FCU provides added value that may be worth, say $5 per unit. And different size backstraps are worth $3/unit but different size grip modules are worth a $10/unit price difference.

So, the brass may prefer the P320 but Glock met all of the minimum standards and gave a price far lower than SIG, so we go with Glock.


Cameron SS said:
With respect, you are still missing the point.

How do you know a phased plasma rifle in the 40w range would require any additional training? The end user is not to decide what is acceptable or what is not before the tender. that is literally the point of the tender.

DND should not be developing a requirement in order to rule out a potential option. that is exactly what got them in trouble the last time. What they need to do is state an actual operational requirement that is rooted in the realities of how the equipment will be used. If that rules out an option than so be it.

For Example, I don't want a phased plasma rifle because its too different, is unreasonable.

As opposed to: Phased plasma rifles don't meet our operational requirement that any proposed solution must utilize NATO STANAG ammunition types.

You say "once you decide on a pistol...". Once again, that is what the tender is for.

If the users say we really want a P320, then they have already violated the spirit of our procurement rules.

On your final point, its not that hard, nor is it uncommon, to see a tender that is based on a best value decision making model rather than a lowest cost compliant model. If amount of time to retrain is a concern, this is easy to build in.

If DND wants to leave the door opento spending more on a firearm because there is value for the money, the procurement can easily be structured that way. And many big ticket tenders are structured that way.
Click to expand...
 
pubb said:
But that is not how any rational person or organization does business. My point is that the tender shouldn't happen until the needs/wants analysis has been done.

To use your 1/4" drill bit analogy, I need to come to the conclusion that my situation requires the ability to make 1/4" holes, figure out the most appropriate method based on my operating conditions and budget, then go shopping. Once I figure out that I need a 1/4" drill bit, then I narrow down my options based on lots of factors including that I don't want to spend $37 on a single drill bit, but I also don't want to spend $0.16 on one either because its likely a POS.

And it would be fine to come up with a weighted matrix of sorts, where some things such as accuracy or reliability or service life are minimum standards and not negotiable, but a separate FCU provides added value that may be worth, say $5 per unit. And different size backstraps are worth $3/unit but different size grip modules are worth a $10/unit price difference.

So, the brass may prefer the P320 but Glock met all of the minimum standards and gave a price far lower than SIG, so we go with Glock.
Click to expand...


a good solicitation for tender will have a list of mandatory requirements which a bid must have to be considered compliant

then you will have a lot of criteria that is weighted to allow you to score the bid

so the process is receive all bids and determine which bids are compliant

take the compliant bids and determine each bid's score

then things get a little more complex, based on the criteria set out in the solicitation package the financial part of the bid is weighted against the bid's score to determine the weighted score "best value for money" and the lowest compliant bid may not be the best value for money.

However its way easier to just set up the solicitation for lowest compliant bidder then there is no need to score bids and compare prices.

Also sending out a RFQ (request for quote) where you have a specific SOR is easier when you come to the selection the a request for proposal (RFP) where you are asking industry to come up wit a solution for a requirement.

yes procurement is a bit byzantine
 
woodchopper said:
a good solicitation for tender will have a list of mandatory requirements which a bid must have to be considered compliant

then you will have a lot of criteria that is weighted to allow you to score the bid

so the process is receive all bids and determine which bids are compliant

take the compliant bids and determine each bid's score

then things get a little more complex, based on the criteria set out in the solicitation package the financial part of the bid is weighted against the bid's score to determine the weighted score "best value for money" and the lowest compliant bid may not be the best value for money.

However its way easier to just set up the solicitation for lowest compliant bidder then there is no need to score bids and compare prices.

Also sending out a RFQ (request for quote) where you have a specific SOR is easier when you come to the selection the a request for proposal (RFP) where you are asking industry to come up wit a solution for a requirement.

yes procurement is a bit byzantine
Click to expand...

When did the Canadian government start worrying about "best value for the money"? Usually it is the opposite. - dan
 
You are the single whiniest mofo I have ever encountered. You complain about anything having to do with Canada or the government. Your posts are utterly negative and depressing. Honestly, if you are that unhappy here, go elsewhere.

dan belisle said:
When did the Canadian government start worrying about "best value for the money"? Usually it is the opposite. - dan
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom