J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Wrong thread, but interesting reading.
Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ship AOPS
- Thread starter Privateer
- Start date
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 10,157
- Points
- 1,160
OOPS!! [:-[
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 10,157
- Points
- 1,160
Irving is not great at posting progress, here is what I can find on twitter
Mega Block 2 almost complete
Mega block 1 underway
Mega Block 2 almost complete
Mega block 1 underway
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 10,157
- Points
- 1,160
thanks just liked your page
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
Chief Stoker: Your photo library is fabulous. Thanks for sharing this.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 10,157
- Points
- 1,160
Getting a bit heated between Irving and Bourque http://bourque.org/irvingletter.html
I think he is more concerned about asking questions that Irving should be answering, even if some of the technical details are incomplete. I think one of the natures of the letter is that he left the questions open, and if there is a reasonable response to the questions at hand, it is now on Irving to explain things in it's response.
The bigger picture and, in my opinion, more important point of the letter is to open up some transparency from Irving & hold it accountable? I think the Canadian public by and large - for those who care - actually DO have some questions about why so much money is being awarded to Irving.
Is it reasonable and being used responsibly? Great, please show us!
Is it unreasonable, and being squandered somehow? Great, again please show us!
Here on the forums we have some very knowledgeable people (For example, Chief Stoker & Underway, just to name 2 off the top of my head) - who absolutely know what they are talking about. We have an opportunity to ask questions to people who have a lot more working knowledge of this entire thing than most other people.
The general public isn't quite so lucky, and there hasn't been a lot of clear answers from any of the involved parties that clearly explains to the public why/where/how some of these funds are being used.
Good on the media to attempt to hold Irving accountable, even if some of the technical details are off. :2c:
The bigger picture and, in my opinion, more important point of the letter is to open up some transparency from Irving & hold it accountable? I think the Canadian public by and large - for those who care - actually DO have some questions about why so much money is being awarded to Irving.
Is it reasonable and being used responsibly? Great, please show us!
Is it unreasonable, and being squandered somehow? Great, again please show us!
Here on the forums we have some very knowledgeable people (For example, Chief Stoker & Underway, just to name 2 off the top of my head) - who absolutely know what they are talking about. We have an opportunity to ask questions to people who have a lot more working knowledge of this entire thing than most other people.
The general public isn't quite so lucky, and there hasn't been a lot of clear answers from any of the involved parties that clearly explains to the public why/where/how some of these funds are being used.
Good on the media to attempt to hold Irving accountable, even if some of the technical details are off. :2c:
- Reaction score
- 7,737
- Points
- 1,160
Good post CBH99.
The thing about this project is that, since it is entirely publicly commissioned and publicly funded then the suppliers should have no reasonable expectation of commercial confidence.
It doesn't seem to me unreasonable to expect a line-item by line-item detailing of costs in the public domain. The vendors to Irving are hardly likely to complain as they publish MSRPs on equipment, hourly rates and contractual arrangements on finalized contracts as a matter of form.
The thing about this project is that, since it is entirely publicly commissioned and publicly funded then the suppliers should have no reasonable expectation of commercial confidence.
It doesn't seem to me unreasonable to expect a line-item by line-item detailing of costs in the public domain. The vendors to Irving are hardly likely to complain as they publish MSRPs on equipment, hourly rates and contractual arrangements on finalized contracts as a matter of form.
- Reaction score
- 827
- Points
- 1,160
Irving is in it to make profit nothing more so is all the other shipyards such as Seaspan and Davie. The government is the one who pays the money for the expected product, if Irving can deliver for the specified funds then the public has no business where the money is going as Irving is a private company. If they can't deliver or need more money then yes some transparency is in order. There's also the business of competitiveness between companies as well. Irving will never give that information up, nor would I expect them to. Don't chastise Irving, go after the government who accepted the bid.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
Chief Stoker: Well said. From what I understand of the progress of the AOPS construction, the Canadian taxpayer is getting what the Government contracted for on their behalf. This was not a cost plus arrangement at its inception.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 10,157
- Points
- 1,160
Chief Stoker said:
Except we would all know how Irving would have reacted if they didn't get that bid, you want to suck on the public Teat, get used to the light.
- Reaction score
- 7,737
- Points
- 1,160
I have nothing against profits being earned. I like profits myself.
And, to an extent that Irving, like the scorpion, is only acting according to its nature.
Having said that, and I guess I am agreeing with you to an extent, the biggest issue was the lack of "an informed client". While Irving may, or may not have cause to believe that they are providing value for money, the government bureaucrats who evaluated and negotiated this contract had, in my belief, insufficient background to adequately evaluate the costs of transferring production to a Canadian firm. This is equally true of the Seaspan decision.
I say this secure in the knowledge that many seasoned industry observers have expressed surprise at the costs being considered.
Having said that I would agree that the contract is in place and the ships must be delivered. My only thought is that Irving should not be deciding if it gets to supply 5 or 6 hulls. The expectation should be that they are supplying 6 hulls and will have to justify in detail why they can't afford to build the 6th. Likewise Seaspan should be held to supplying 3 JSS hulls and, again, have to justify in detail why they can't afford to supply the 3rd.
Both of those grey areas can not be solely discretionary for the vendors. If the vendors discover they only have funds to build 5.1 or 2.1 hulls, or 5.9 or 2.9 hulls - who gets the overage in funds and who decides what the overage is?
Those matters need to be a matter of public record. And, I would suggest, can only be answered by detailed costing.
And, to an extent that Irving, like the scorpion, is only acting according to its nature.
Having said that, and I guess I am agreeing with you to an extent, the biggest issue was the lack of "an informed client". While Irving may, or may not have cause to believe that they are providing value for money, the government bureaucrats who evaluated and negotiated this contract had, in my belief, insufficient background to adequately evaluate the costs of transferring production to a Canadian firm. This is equally true of the Seaspan decision.
I say this secure in the knowledge that many seasoned industry observers have expressed surprise at the costs being considered.
Having said that I would agree that the contract is in place and the ships must be delivered. My only thought is that Irving should not be deciding if it gets to supply 5 or 6 hulls. The expectation should be that they are supplying 6 hulls and will have to justify in detail why they can't afford to build the 6th. Likewise Seaspan should be held to supplying 3 JSS hulls and, again, have to justify in detail why they can't afford to supply the 3rd.
Both of those grey areas can not be solely discretionary for the vendors. If the vendors discover they only have funds to build 5.1 or 2.1 hulls, or 5.9 or 2.9 hulls - who gets the overage in funds and who decides what the overage is?
Those matters need to be a matter of public record. And, I would suggest, can only be answered by detailed costing.
- Reaction score
- 827
- Points
- 1,160
Chris Pook said:
Perhaps the government doesn't want the costs to come out. Its hard to say about how many ships will be built, right now five with the option for a 6th if there is enough money. We are planning for six and they haven't at this stage of the project saying its not a go. The government probably didn't have sufficient background to negotiate the contract, but its not like they could of built offshore either and so you are left with just a few yards. If there isn't a 6th hull well I would expect the government to examine the books in that case.
