Minister Anand announces investment of up to $3.7 billion to supply operational clothing and footwear to the Canadian Armed Forces

[Navy_Pete]

This post right here explains why we need to bring back a separate Ordinance organization within DND that is out of arms reach of PSPC and TBS.

We're not sourcing office furniture for a Fisheries workplace. Most military items we buy cannot be sourced from Canadian, Indigenous, or Green companies, and I would love to see a GBA+ Assessment on an NLAW or Javelin.

This is what happens when you let burecrats rule by committee

Agree, but I think a standalone procurement organization for DND would simply inherit the same policies and requirements unless we had someone that really knows the GoC with the giant intestinal fortitude to jettison a lot of it, or at least change the 'musts' into 'mays'.

GBA+ can actually be pretty useful for equipment people use/wear; it's a lot easier to make sure something fits people if you look at what size your people are. That all trickles down into basic human factors engineering, which is things like monitor height, spacing etc, which seems stupid until you see something well done compared to something poorly done. But completely stupid for buying widgets and components for an existing system.

The indigenous procurement requirements are just frustrating; outside of big projects that have ITBs, which can include incentives for including Indigenous businesses (which has lead to a number of companies supplying NSS ships). For most procurements though we have no capability to direct anything, and it's actually against CITT and GoC procurement rules for lowest compliant bidders. It's really just a check in the box exercise that does nothing but take time, so it's pretty performative. That feedback keeps getting submitted but we still have to fill out the forms that we can't do anything with (and don't have HR resources anyway to figure out if there is any indigenous company that could fill the need anyway).

 

[KevinB]

Agree, but I think a standalone procurement organization for DND would simply inherit the same policies and requirements unless we had someone that really knows the GoC with the giant intestinal fortitude to jettison a lot of it, or at least change the 'musts' into 'mays'.

GBA+ can actually be pretty useful for equipment people use/wear; it's a lot easier to make sure something fits people if you look at what size your people are. That all trickles down into basic human factors engineering, which is things like monitor height, spacing etc, which seems stupid until you see something well done compared to something poorly done. But completely stupid for buying widgets and components for an existing system.

Garbage in, garbage out. The original Tac vest was a human factors input piece. If the people designing it don’t understand the actual role, the equipment is garbage - the fact people had the gall to sit in front of Infantry NCO’s and claim it was more efficient and we just where doing it correctly, well that left me with a pretty poor taste in my mouth.

The indigenous procurement requirements are just frustrating; outside of big projects that have ITBs, which can include incentives for including Indigenous businesses (which has lead to a number of companies supplying NSS ships). For most procurements though we have no capability to direct anything, and it's actually against CITT and GoC procurement rules for lowest compliant bidders. It's really just a check in the box exercise that does nothing but take time, so it's pretty performative. That feedback keeps getting submitted but we still have to fill out the forms that we can't do anything with (and don't have HR resources anyway to figure out if there is any indigenous company that could fill the need anyway).

There are generally 3 ways to run an acquisitions contract.
1) Best Performer
2) Best Value to the Government
3) Lowest Price Technically acceptable.

This excludes Sole Source via JNA (Justification, Notice Award)

BP is very easy, but very few entities are allowed to do that, and generally those are NDA contracts for Black entities.

BV can be terribly confused, because if the weighting of all the input criteria aren’t public and pre existing, it’s a train wreck. BV’s should include the different performance criteria, costing, support as applicable and industrial offsets etc.

LPTC, while theoretically very easy, unless the SoW is written very very clearly, one tends to get trash, and if your SoW/Requirements are too limited it’s viewed as a scam on a Sole Source without proper justification.

 

[MJP]

Garbage in, garbage out. The original Tac vest was a human factors input piece. If the people designing it don’t understand the actual role, the equipment is garbage - the fact people had the gall to sit in front of Infantry NCO’s and claim it was more efficient and we just where doing it correctly, well that left me with a pretty poor taste in my mouth.

We the CAF team played a large role in the trials saying yup it is GTG. Like many trials we paid lip service to it and paid the price. It didn't help that the most recent widescale operational experiences were in Bosnia wearing the Tac Vest predecessor that was pure hot garbage (why yes I would love a big ass pouch just under my neck in the back) and a good portion of the user feedback was from non-combat arms folks. So much so that when they rolled out the Tac Vest despite it being an ergonomic nightmare that wasn't compatible with anything industry, we all gloomed on to it!

It is irony that many folks that many folks moved to TT MAV or equivalent which was for all intents and purposes just modern 82 pattern webbing!

Like boots the worse parts is we are at conservatively 12-15ish years since the deficiencies (beginning of our mission in the southern AFG for arguments sake) and we still don't have a solution on the table. Lots of small buys and ad hoc things here and there but the CA has dithered away so much time trying to figure this one out to the point of it becoming the absurd.

This was the answer from the Technical Authority from a UCR in 2007

THE TECHNICAL AUTHORITY DSSPM 2-15 HAS RECEIVED THE COMMENTS REGARDING TACTICAL LOAD CARRYING NSN: 8416-21-920-3711 FROM CLOTH THE SOLDIERS PROJECTS OFFICER DSSPM 8-9/C IS AS FOLLOWS:

THE TACTICAL VEST MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, DESIGN CRITERIA AND GOALS THAT CLOTHE THE SOLDIER WAS TO ACHIEVED. THE TV GAINED A 80+% ACCEPTANCE FROM THE TROOPS. THE AFGHAN MISSION IS FAR MORE DANGEROUS, DEMANDING AND CHALLENGING TO CANADIAN SOLDIERS THAN THE PREVIOUS PEACE KEEPING MISSIONS ON WHICH THE TV REQUIREMENTS WERE BASED ON. CERTAINLY, THE TV VEST REQUIREMENTS ANSWERED A GENERAL ARMY FITTING PHILOSOPHY. WE CAN SAY THAT THE TV STILL HAS A ROLE IN THE ARMY.

HOWEVER, THE AFGHANISTAN MISSION REQUIRES SPECIFIC LOAD CARRYING CAPABILITIES SPECIALLY FOR THE SOLDIER AT THE FRONT END. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PLEAS FOR CHANGES TO THE TV COMING FROM THE THEATRE ARE VALID. AN ANALYSIS OF THE OVERALL MISSION LOAD CARRIAGE REQUIREMENT IS BEING CONDUCTED TO PROVIDE MISSION SPECIFIC LOAD CARRYING CAPABILITY. MOTS AND COTS CAN FULFILL THESE IMMEDIATE AND SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS THE READY AVAILABLE AMMO AND GEAR REQUIREMENT FOR THE AFGHANISTAN MISSION HAVE CHANGED THE NATURE OF THE ORIGINAL REQUIREMENT SET AND REQUIREMENT STATED. THEREFORE, ANY TV DESIGN RESEARCH AND ALTERATION ARE CONSIDERED PRODUCT IMPROVEMENTS AN BY ITS NATURE AN NP FUNCTION.

 

[KevinB]

We the CAF team played a large role in the trials saying yup it is GTG. Like many trials we paid lip service to it and paid the price. It didn't help that the most recent widescale operational experiences were in Bosnia wearing the Tac Vest predecessor that was pure hot garbage (why yes I would love a big ass pouch just under my neck in the back) and a good portion of the user feedback was from non-combat arms folks. So much so that when they rolled out the Tac Vest despite it being an ergonomic nightmare that wasn't compatible with anything industry, we all gloomed on to it!

It is irony that many folks that many folks moved to TT MAV or equivalent which was for all intents and purposes just modern 82 pattern webbing!

Like boots the worse parts is we are at conservatively 12-15ish years since the deficiencies (beginning of our mission in the southern AFG for arguments sake) and we still don't have a solution on the table. Lots of small buys and ad hoc things here and there but the CA has dithered away so much time trying to figure this one out to the point of it becoming the absurd.

This was the answer from the Technical Authority from a UCR in 2007

THE TECHNICAL AUTHORITY DSSPM 2-15 HAS RECEIVED THE COMMENTS REGARDING TACTICAL LOAD CARRYING NSN: 8416-21-920-3711 FROM CLOTH THE SOLDIERS PROJECTS OFFICER DSSPM 8-9/C IS AS FOLLOWS:

THE TACTICAL VEST MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, DESIGN CRITERIA AND GOALS THAT CLOTHE THE SOLDIER WAS TO ACHIEVED. THE TV GAINED A 80+% ACCEPTANCE FROM THE TROOPS. THE AFGHAN MISSION IS FAR MORE DANGEROUS, DEMANDING AND CHALLENGING TO CANADIAN SOLDIERS THAN THE PREVIOUS PEACE KEEPING MISSIONS ON WHICH THE TV REQUIREMENTS WERE BASED ON. CERTAINLY, THE TV VEST REQUIREMENTS ANSWERED A GENERAL ARMY FITTING PHILOSOPHY. WE CAN SAY THAT THE TV STILL HAS A ROLE IN THE ARMY.

HOWEVER, THE AFGHANISTAN MISSION REQUIRES SPECIFIC LOAD CARRYING CAPABILITIES SPECIALLY FOR THE SOLDIER AT THE FRONT END. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PLEAS FOR CHANGES TO THE TV COMING FROM THE THEATRE ARE VALID. AN ANALYSIS OF THE OVERALL MISSION LOAD CARRIAGE REQUIREMENT IS BEING CONDUCTED TO PROVIDE MISSION SPECIFIC LOAD CARRYING CAPABILITY. MOTS AND COTS CAN FULFILL THESE IMMEDIATE AND SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS THE READY AVAILABLE AMMO AND GEAR REQUIREMENT FOR THE AFGHANISTAN MISSION HAVE CHANGED THE NATURE OF THE ORIGINAL REQUIREMENT SET AND REQUIREMENT STATED. THEREFORE, ANY TV DESIGN RESEARCH AND ALTERATION ARE CONSIDERED PRODUCT IMPROVEMENTS AN BY ITS NATURE AN NP FUNCTION.

Trials - yes when the PPCLI or RCR say no to something it’s then sent to the 22eR to be blessed.
Or if the Vandoos even consider it hot garbage, it’s sent to a Service BN.

The fact the CAF designs and acquires gear for non full scale warfare still is mind boggling to me. Design for war fighting and it can be used for less demanding applications.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This post right here explains why we need to bring back a separate Ordinance organization within DND that is out of arms reach of PSPC and TBS.

We're not sourcing office furniture for a Fisheries workplace. Most military items we buy cannot be sourced from Canadian, Indigenous, or Green companies, and I would love to see a GBA+ Assessment on an NLAW or Javelin.

This is what happens when you let burecrats rule by committee

We had a quite efficient organization about 80 years ago - Department of Munitions and Supply - BUT:

First: it needed a real, politically 'popular' crisis (2nd Word War was about big enough) to sustain it; and​

Second: it too often ran roughshod over good business practices.​

​

Organizations like PSPC and, especially, TBS, keep admirals and generals in the CAF and senior officials in DND from becoming powerful kleptocrats - which, I believe, is their natural inclination. To that point: quite simply, I'm 100% convinced that at least 95% of all our admirals and generals and likely more than 75% of our senior officials cannot be trusted to manage a lemonade stand on a hot summer day.

 

[OldSolduer]

The fact the CAF designs and acquires gear for non full scale warfare still is mind boggling to me. Design for war fighting and it can be used for less demanding applications.

I am still puzzled as to why the CAF acquires equipment - like trucks - that are somewhat underpowered to start with, then up armor them, putting even more strain on the power train. AND then wonder "why are these vehicles breaking down all the time"?

 

[KevinB]

I am still puzzled as to why the CAF acquires equipment - like trucks - that are somewhat underpowered to start with, then up armor them, putting even more strain on the power train. AND then wonder "why are these vehicles breaking down all the time"?

Garbage In = Garbage Out
The requirements writers generally haven’t looked at actual deployment conditions.

The Iltis with its V-4 was a prime example when the German and Dutch had a 6 cylinder…

It’s not unique to DND though. Lots of entities don’t use a lot of forethought in requirements, or the requirements are ignored for Political reasons (queue the Griffon).

 

[Furniture]

Garbage In = Garbage Out
The requirements writers generally haven’t looked at actual deployment conditions.

The Iltis with its V-4 was a prime example when the German and Dutch had a 6 cylinder…

It’s not unique to DND though. Lots of entities don’t use a lot of forethought in requirements, or the requirements are ignored for Political reasons (queue the Griffon).

I've been dealing with the aftermath of a project that had poorly written requirements, done by non-experts who seemed to think they were experts.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Garbage in, garbage out. The original Tac vest was a human factors input piece. If the people designing it don’t understand the actual role, the equipment is garbage - the fact people had the gall to sit in front of Infantry NCO’s and claim it was more efficient and we just where doing it correctly, well that left me with a pretty poor taste in my mouth.

Had a really interesting discussion with some defence scientist that was involved in one of the kevlar helmet replacements; they had a really interesting anecdote where the design did great on all the bench tests in the spec, then kept breaking in the field. THey went out to see what was happening and realized it was from people using it as a seat (which was no big deal with the steel helmets they were replacing) so they had to add a new requirement.

Always stuck with me, but I think is why you need experienced users in the project side of things, and why it's important to have uniformed people working on our support side in ADM(Mat) doing LCMM jobs.

There are generally 3 ways to run an acquisitions contract.
1) Best Performer
2) Best Value to the Government
3) Lowest Price Technically acceptable.

This excludes Sole Source via JNA (Justification, Notice Award)

BP is very easy, but very few entities are allowed to do that, and generally those are NDA contracts for Black entities.

BV can be terribly confused, because if the weighting of all the input criteria aren’t public and pre existing, it’s a train wreck. BV’s should include the different performance criteria, costing, support as applicable and industrial offsets etc.

LPTC, while theoretically very easy, unless the SoW is written very very clearly, one tends to get trash, and if your SoW/Requirements are too limited it’s viewed as a scam on a Sole Source without proper justification.

For sure, fully agree. For 3, even with perfectly clear SoWs (ie 60 of widget x, no substitions allowed) still can be a challenge at times with all the rules and trade agreements.

Really big, long term contracts can incorporate 2) more, but generally I think it's hard with the GoC because we have so many departments involved, so 'best value' will have contradicting requirements.

The application of 'relational contracting' is an interest one too; basically means that either party can walk away if they can't work together and the dispute resolution doesn't work. I think we would have exercised that a few times.

 

[Halifax Tar]

This post right here explains why we need to bring back a separate Ordinance organization within DND that is out of arms reach of PSPC and TBS.

We're not sourcing office furniture for a Fisheries workplace. Most military items we buy cannot be sourced from Canadian, Indigenous, or Green companies, and I would love to see a GBA+ Assessment on an NLAW or Javelin.

This is what happens when you let burecrats rule by committee

We used to have this:

Department of Munitions and Supply - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And then this:

Department of Defence Production (Canada) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And then this:

Minister of Supply and Services - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We also had this:

Imperial Munitions Board - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[rmc_wannabe]

We used to have this:

Department of Munitions and Supply - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And then this:

Department of Defence Production (Canada) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And then this:

Minister of Supply and Services - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We also had this:

Imperial Munitions Board - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If we're reverting ranks and uniforms post Unification, can we do structures next?

Maintain what works, revert back to what hasn't become a monster with 2 heads?

 

[Halifax Tar]

If we're reverting ranks and uniforms post Unification, can we do structures next?

Maintain what works, revert back to what has become a monster with 2 heads?

I'm just saying we used to have organizations that worked for our procurement and supply of material.

It might also help if some GOFOs would lay their swords on the table and give the Gov a public blasting for the state of our equipment.

Be damned their careers. And then hide behind the protection of a media who loves controversy. We should name a new ship HMCS VAdm Norman.

Sacrifice yourself for the good of the organization. I'm told to do it all the time, lead the way GOFOs.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm just saying we used to have organizations that worked for our procurement and supply of material.

It might also help if some GOFOs would lay their swords on the table and give the Gov a public blasting for the state of our equipment.

Be damned their careers. And then hide behind the protection of a media who loves controversy. We should name a new ship HMCS VAdm Norman.

Sacrifice yourself for the good of the organization. I'm told to do it all the time, lead the way GOFOs.

Ah, but this is the modern, 21st century CF and what's sauce for the goose is definitely not applicable to the ganders.

 

[KevinB]

Ah, but this is the modern, 21st century CF and what's sauce for the goose is definitely not applicable to the ganders.

Sad and telling.

 

[KevinB]

Had a really interesting discussion with some defence scientist that was involved in one of the kevlar helmet replacements; they had a really interesting anecdote where the design did great on all the bench tests in the spec, then kept breaking in the field. THey went out to see what was happening and realized it was from people using it as a seat (which was no big deal with the steel helmets they were replacing) so they had to add a new requirement.

I would have just put out a ‘don’t sit on helmet’ message

Always stuck with me, but I think is why you need experienced users in the project side of things, and why it's important to have uniformed people working on our support side in ADM(Mat) doing LCMM jobs.

110%. In the ideal world each unit will have a G-8 Force Mod cell (a SGT/WO), and at Bde there will be a larger group to collate those that has some sort of formal Combat Capabilities Development training, that can write a formal requirement to go forward from the field force to DLR - IMHO the CAF has it assbackwards in a lot of ways based on my experiences with DLR, who most often are so out of touch with the field force one often wonders if they actually served in the trade they allegedly represent.

For sure, fully agree. For 3, even with perfectly clear SoWs (ie 60 of widget x, no substitions allowed) still can be a challenge at times with all the rules and trade agreements.

Really big, long term contracts can incorporate 2) more, but generally I think it's hard with the GoC because we have so many departments involved, so 'best value' will have contradicting requirements.

The application of 'relational contracting' is an interest one too; basically means that either party can walk away if they can't work together and the dispute resolution doesn't work. I think we would have exercised that a few times.

One reason down here there are often dual awards - one entity may not get a single delivery order, but the option is there for the life of the contract.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I would have just put out a ‘don’t sit on helmet’ message

I guess it was one of those things where they figured it was easier to change the requirement than to have someone forget. Probably indirectly added some weight but maybe made it more durable overall?

Did stick with me though on the importance of meshing actual usage with requirements (even if it means changing usage). On the navy side, means with the major underlying design changes to new ships, we need to look at those and adapt tactics to the equipment, but more in the 'take advantage' of it kind of way, so it's overall an improvement. We do that with weapons and comms but less so with battle damage and fire fighting, as we tend to start with the SOPs from the old ships instead.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A little old-school operations research/systems analysis - where you actually go into the "workplace" and observe how things are done, rather than how someone says they ought be done - would be OK, too.

 

[KevinB]

A little old-school operations research/systems analysis - where you actually go into the "workplace" and observe how things are done, rather than how someone says they ought be done - would be OK, too.

That would involve leaving the cubicle for more than just seeing troops on the parade square to show shiny new kit they won’t see for years…
Most appear to find the dirt and grime of actual usage to be revolting…

 

[Underway]

Had a really interesting discussion with some defence scientist that was involved in one of the kevlar helmet replacements; they had a really interesting anecdote where the design did great on all the bench tests in the spec, then kept breaking in the field. THey went out to see what was happening and realized it was from people using it as a seat (which was no big deal with the steel helmets they were replacing) so they had to add a new requirement.

Always stuck with me, but I think is why you need experienced users in the project side of things, and why it's important to have uniformed people working on our support side in ADM(Mat) doing LCMM jobs.

Working in the PMO for the ships was one of these exercises and its why they bring sailors in to review all the designs. Example in the original 3DM, the chart table on the bridge was located such that if the OOW had to hustle between bridge wings during a person overboard they had a high probability of dislocating their hip, as the chart table jutted out and required them to manouver around it. I had some chairs moved to allow for a straight line to be taken to avoid this problem.

In this case the design of the space and human factors analysis was just as, if not more important then the equipment meeting the specs.

 

[CBH99]

I'm just saying we used to have organizations that worked for our procurement and supply of material.

It might also help if some GOFOs would lay their swords on the table and give the Gov a public blasting for the state of our equipment.

Be damned their careers. And then hide behind the protection of a media who loves controversy. We should name a new ship HMCS VAdm Norman.

Sacrifice yourself for the good of the organization. I'm told to do it all the time, lead the way GOFOs.

I couldn't agree more, especially now that the government's SOP is well known to both the public and the media.

Take a stand (Make sure you choose the battle wisely) and put the sword on the table.

After VAdm Norman's fiasco, as well as all of the other occasions where the government has directed the RCMP to investigate this person or that person - only to pay large settlements in the end - I would say the GOFO has a pretty good chance if surviving at this point.

The fact that the government still hasnt figured out that 'directing the RCMP to target an individual it doesn't like' IS the very definition of political meddling is mind boggling...