FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities

[SeaKingTacco]

And I assure you, whatever your opinions, you don't know the half of it. But a big problem is simply the willingness to apply penalties to begin with. And in this case, a real problem is that nobody is willing to simply cancel the contract and sole source stubby Js as we probably should have done.

Even when the penalties are applied in full, they don’t necessarily achieve the outcome PSPC thinks it will…

 

[ytz]

Even when the penalties are applied in full, they don’t necessarily achieve the outcome PSPC thinks it will…

One of the fundamental problems we have is pricing risk. We gotta be prepared to pay more if we want the ability to impose higher penalties or blacklist poor performers. There's less political willingness for that. Not PSPC's fault.

 

[ytz]

Will the previous PM be penalized for their poor performance on the file as well, maybe by having to return some of that performance pay , in addition to them being shuffled over to a less visible file?

What did the PM do wrong? It was the same team that delivered the C-17 ahead of schedule and under budget. Arguably the best air PMO crew we had at the time. Blame the specs and contract authorities. Things which the PMO doesn't control.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

One of the fundamental problems we have is pricing risk. We gotta be prepared to pay more if we want the ability to impose higher penalties or blacklist poor performers. There's less political willingness for that. Not PSPC's fault.

PSPC, in my experience, are hopeless optimists.

Industry has battalions of lawyers and will work every clause, sub-clause and semi-colon to their benefit.

 

[calculus]

One of the fundamental problems we have is pricing risk. We gotta be prepared to pay more if we want the ability to impose higher penalties or blacklist poor performers. There's less political willingness for that. Not PSPC's fault.

Could not agree more. All things being equal, it's a good general rule "you get what you pay for".

 

[Nvlgzr]

Even when the penalties are applied in full, they don’t necessarily achieve the outcome PSPC thinks it will…

Has the GoC in recent times every applied a penalty?

 

[captloadie]

I'm not speaking of the entire team, just the individual who caused significant issues during the implementation.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Has the GoC in recent times every applied a penalty?

Yes.

 

[ytz]

PSPC, in my experience, are hopeless optimists.

Industry has battalions of lawyers and will work every clause, sub-clause and semi-colon to their benefit.

Well yeah. It costs money to retain that kind of talent. Money that the government is not willing to spend.

When the government decided to sue over MHP, the DJC had to bring in outside counsel because the government wasn't actually used to suing others and more used to being on the receiving end. They had to bring in some sharks from Bay Street.

 

[SupersonicMax]

What did the PM do wrong? It was the same team that delivered the C-17 ahead of schedule and under budget. Arguably the best air PMO crew we had at the time. Blame the specs and contract authorities. Things which the PMO doesn't control.

The PMO caved to industry pressures to accept aircraft that didn’t meet spec (many of them were regulatory specs). I have seen the train get off the rails (from 2018 until 2022) from a front row seat. It was not pretty and it was pretty sad….

 

[ytz]

The PMO caved to industry pressures to accept aircraft that didn’t meet spec (many of them were regulatory specs). I have seen the train get off the rails (from 2018 until 2022) from a front row seat. It was not pretty and it was pretty sad….

PMO can't make that decision by themselves. That requires concurrence from much higher. I know of some of the defects (like the CARP example above) with first hand knowledge too. It's unfortunate that nobody has stepped up to cancel the order.

 

[lenaitch]

Well yeah. It costs money to retain that kind of talent. Money that the government is not willing to spend.

When the government decided to sue over MHP, the DJC had to bring in outside counsel because the government wasn't actually used to suing others and more used to being on the receiving end. They had to bring in some sharks from Bay Street.

Most corporations do that as well. 'Independent legal advice' and all that. Besides, why keep experienced litigators on the payroll for only occasional use (if you could; those who are or want to be litigators won't stay in an in-house role).

 

[ytz]

Most corporations do that as well. 'Independent legal advice' and all that. Besides, why keep experienced litigators on the payroll for only occasional use (if you could; those who are or want to be litigators won't stay in an in-house role).

The federal government is a lot bigger than most companies. And honestly, they actually do have reason to sue or blackball too. The government just never does it, except in the most egregious of circumstances. And this has created a culture of impunity amongst suppliers and contractors.

 

[lenaitch]

The federal government is a lot bigger than most companies. And honestly, they actually do have reason to sue or blackball too. The government just never does it, except in the most egregious of circumstances. And this has created a culture of impunity amongst suppliers and contractors.

I agree; I just question the ability of the government to retain a stable of litigators on the payroll to do it in-house. The percentage of lawyers who actually spend a significant amount of time doing 'trial' work (criminal & civil) is very small, probably single digit percentage. The ones that are really successful attract income the government couldn't hope to pay on a salary basis.

When you start an action against a party, you'd better play to win; doing it hoping they will settle out is a risky strategy. If the government takes on a big corporation, rest assured that company will hire the best counsel they can find - they won't be using in-house. If they take on a small party and win, the headline might read 'Acme Company files for bankruptcy after losing government lawsuit'. They might fully deserve it but it's still a headline the spinfolk would want to avoid.

Politicians and bureaucrats are so risk-averse I doubt there are many cases where they could be convinced that the case is a slam-dunk. I'm not a lawyer but have been told that contract law can be maze in a fog.

Probably the only area the government takes on someone in court on a halfways regular basis is taxation matters. That is a highly specialized area and I honestly don't know if they you in-house or outside counsel. Thankfully, I've not had to find out.

Blackballing I like as well, but they have created such byzantine procurement rules, including appeal procedures, in the name of transparency and fairness I imagine it is extremely difficult.