Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Karel Doorman]

So all are aware, I removed a post that linked to a reporter we do not host works of here. I felt that for context I had to bin two posts following. Sorry for any inconvenience.

No problem,if i was wrong or caused inconvenience i'm deeply sorry.

 

[Scott]

No problem,if i was wrong or caused inconvenience i'm deeply sorry.

It's no problem at all. I was making the public post in case the two that followed yours wondered where their posts went.

No more need for apologies, shit happens.

Cheers

 

[Underway]

Well because of the previous misfire here's a story from the CBC on the frigate program delays...

Irving Shipbuilding consults with Ottawa on frigate design delay
Irving president says alleged RCMP investigation of vice-admiral has not affected frigate program
By Murray Brewster, CBC News Posted: Feb 02, 2017 8:25 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 02, 2017 10:30 PM ET

The Trudeau government is considering an extension to a call for bids from defence contractors interested in designing and equipping Canada's next generation of combat ships.

Last fall, the federal cabinet approved the release of a long-anticipated request for proposals for an off-the-shelf warship design and combat systems.

Pre-qualified defence companies lined up for the opportunity to participate in the program, which is expected to run up to $40 billion over three decades.

A deadline of April 27 was set for bidders to submit their plans to Irving Shipbuilding Inc., which was selected in 2015 as the prime contractor.

The Halifax-based company is the federal government's go-to yard for combat ships under the National Shipbuilding Strategy.

But almost from the outset the competition, many of the warship designers complained about what they see as a tight turnaround time, even though the project has been in the industry consultation stage for years.

The notion of an extension is being examined, said Kevin McCoy, president of Irving Shipbuilding.

Ottawa to decide

"It's something we're in consultation with Canada on," he said in an interview Thursday.

"It'll be the government's decision. They'll get a recommendation from us, but we'll arrive at the right answer."

McCoy would not say whether Irving has asked for an extension or how many of the bidders have asked for extra time.

He did, however, downplay the discord among the notoriously cutthroat contenders.

"This is normal in a complex procurement that people think they need more time for a whole host of reasons," said McCoy, who testified before the House of Commons defence committee on Thursday.

A published report two weeks ago in The National Post — citing unnamed sources — said two of the bidders had asked that the entire process be delayed, and two others were considering such a request, in the aftermath of the suspension of the military's deputy commander.

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was ordered to hand over his duties on Jan. 13 and is apparently under RCMP investigation for allegedly leaking classified information that may be related to shipbuilding.

Suspended vice-admiral being investigated for alleged leak of classified shipbuilding data

McCoy said Irving Shipbuilding has no knowledge about what is being investigated, nor has there been an effect on the bidding process.

"It's really not an issue in the [Canadian Surface Combatant] deliberations right now," he said.

Timing crucial

However, if the federal government does grant an extension to the bidding deadline, it raises concerns about keeping the frigate replacement program on track.

One of the questions officials are grappling with is how a delay might affect construction of the new warships, which are meant to replace the navy's 12 Halifax-class patrol frigates built in the 1990s.

The Irving-owned yard is slated to finish work on the navy's Arctic offshore patrol ships in 2019-20 and transition to the surface combatant project.

"We're very mindful of gap," said McCoy, who added work interruption raises the possibility of losing trained shipyard workers to other industrial sectors. "It's one of things we're constantly talking to the government about."

But he said the frigate replacement program is too important to rush.

"We've got to get the procurement right," McCoy said. "We want good submissions. We want the field to be well-represented and we want industry to feel they have been treated fairly."

Not a huge surprise, two bidders have asked for extentions and some stories have suggested that two others were going to ask for extentions.  If its only a couple of months I don't see a major issue.  There's no big surprise that there would be slippage.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

As one of my old friend used to say (and trust me, it's the unofficial motto of commercial litigation lawyers): "It's not because i'm paranoid that they are not out to get me!"

I have learned that in negotiations and in politics, when you want to make a change and either not lose face or not let people notice you are changing, what you do is change your use of vocabulary ever so slightly.

Now, I don't know here if it is a proper reflexion of what is being said by officials or ISL personnel or if it is the journalist's writing but note the subtle changes:

It used to be that the "Canadian Surface Combatant" program was about replacing the fifteen surface warships with three AA/command ships and twelve GP combatant (the terms destroyers or frigates were never used). At the end of this article, the vocab used only mentions twelve replacement ships, and that they are frigates replacements only (GP for the Halifax's).

I think this may be the start of the government seeing us up for (1) less ships and (2) smaller/less capable ones.

But it's just me and I am paranoid when it comes to defence spending. :nod:

 

[jmt18325]

I kind of figured we'd only get 12, since that's been the general trend in western navies.  That doesn't mean that they'll be less capable though, and nothing that was said speaks to that.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Type 26 update--note Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! at end:

Major investment scrapped at Upper Clyde's last yards

SHIPBUILDING in Scotland will wither in the global marketplace, it has been claimed, after BAE Systems scaled back much-vaunted investment plans that would have been a “game-changer” for the industry

The defence giant has confirmed it will no longer invest in a major new outfitting hall to build new frigates for the Royal Navy.

Instead it will this summer begin a series of less dramatic investments at both its facilities, Govan and Scotstoun, to enable it to carry out what is now a smaller contract than first mooted.

Shipbuilding insiders stress that scrapping the giant shed, planned for Govan, is just the latest move to downgrade multi-million-pound investments on the Clyde mooted before the Scottish independence referendum in 2014.

Analysis: Why shipbuilders take the long view

The investment in shipbuilding had been much-trumpeted ahead of the vote on Scotland's future. Nine months before the ballot, Charlie Blakemore, who is now operations director of BAE Systems, could not have been more upbeat: "It will provide a capacity that is world-class," he said.

"We will be able to compete in a more level playing field."

Last year, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon boasted that the order for Type 26 frigates - eight rather than an originally proposed 13 - would secure jobs on the Clyde for 20 years. But unions believe underinvestment is threatening the yards' long-term future after that job is done.

The trade union convener for the yards, Duncan McPhee, said: "BAE is investing in infrastructure which is essential for the Type 26 programme and in facilities for employees which is welcome.

“However, the investments are not on the scale we had hoped for. This is not the game-changer it could have been and we have long argued that this is a missed opportunity to provide world class shipbuilding facilities in Glasgow which would have helped us secure future export contracts.

“Unfortunately, it still means we are constructing ships outside rather than under cover, which is not the way modern shipyards should operate."

...Irving of Nova Scotia, is building a warship dock hall similar to the ones abandoned by BAE Systems and is currently advertising to lure skilled Clydeside shipbuilders to Canada [emphasis added]...
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15101460.Major_investment_scrapped_at_Upper_Clyde_s_last_yards/?ref=twtrec

Current planning:

Work on eight Type 26 frigates to begin in Summer 2017
...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-37861162

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Underway]

Type 26 update--note Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

Maybe we should call Australia and do a swap.... here are some type 26's you are looking at if you send a few subs our way.  I mean if the all singing and dancing shipyard at Irving is going to be everything the Scottish think it is....

 

[Underway]

The bid due date has been pushed back 2 months to June 22.

http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2017/02/17/bidding-for-surface-combat-ships-set-back/

Nestor Arellano  Feb 17 2017

Bidding for the Navy’s Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) program has been pushed back to the summer, according to the federal government.

The submission of proposals for the $26.2 billion program to source 15 new maritime combat ships for the Royal Canadian Navy was originally due on April 27th this year.

Twelve pre-qualified bidders had the opportunity to provide input on drafts of the request for proposal as well as the final version, prior to the RFP’s release on Oct. 27, 2016, according to the Public Service and Procurement Canada.

However, the PSPC and Irving Shipbuilding Inc., the prime contractor for the program, yesterday released a statement saying submissions will now be received until June 22nd.

According to the PSPC and Irving, companies interested in the project had requested the extension.

“In order to meet the requirement of the Royal Canadian Navy and provide economic benefits to Canada, it is important to ensure that the government receives the maximum number of bids that meet technical requirements and of high-quality economic benefits to Canada,” the statement said. “At this point, based on feedback from industry, an extension is the best course.

With this extension, the targeted completion for the procurement process remains the fall of 2017, with ship construction starting in the early 2020’s, according to the PSPC.
In addition to requests for an extension to the closing date, the procurement department said, bidders also submitted a range of questions about the procurement.

As of February 10, 2017, bidders submitted 164 questions and received 88 responses.  Bidders have until March 10, 2017, to submit additional questions, according to the PSPC. All questions received prior to this date will receive a response.

 

[MilEME09]

though that doesn't fix the problems, I think the fact that the Italians are threatening to pull out due to the colossal problems in managing the program should alarm people.

 

[jmt18325]

though that doesn't fix the problems, I think the fact that the Italians are threatening to pull out due to the colossal problems in managing the program should alarm people.

They're threatening to pull out because they want to build some of the ships.  That was never part of the deal.  Let them go.

 

[Underway]

They're threatening to pull out because they want to build some of the ships.  That was never part of the deal.  Let them go.

Evidence, please...

All the bidders "want" to build some of the ships esp DCNS.  So it has nothing to do with the fact they are selling a slightly different version of the FREMM so are essentially competing directly with DCNS, who have greater experience working outside of their own country?  Or that all the best "combat systems integrators" are teamed up with someone else?  Or maybe that the program is actually a gong show right now?  Or that they perceive bias for a specific yard?  Or even that the field is really crowded and that with a 1 in 7 chance of winning it might not be worth it?  Or maybe they are just playing politics like all programs of these type do.

 

[jmt18325]

Evidence, please...

I can't provide evidence, as the only evidence comes from someone whose stories we can't link to here.

 

[jmt18325]

BTW, for anyone that wants to find the evidence, look up Canada Shipbuilding Italy in Google.  That might get you there.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Actually, whilst it is a personal interpretation on the part of jmt18325, it is not unreasonable to interpret Finacantierri's recent letter to the Minister of National Defence and the minister responsible for procurement in that way.

Fincantierri indicated that, as currently conceived, they see little advantage for themselves, and probably for other bidders as well, in participating in the process unless there is a high probability of getting some return on the 10 to 20 million dollars they will have to spend to participate.

As currently structured with the "already designed" ship road elected by the Liberal government to reduce risks, it is important to know that Irving is basically asking other shipyards who have designed and build warships for their country to provide them with 100% of their design work and techniques but in a situation where they will then be responsible to Irving and the Government of Canada for the totality of the design - even if they have no say in actual construction as this will be done by Irving - and 100% responsible for the integration work of the combat system, even though they will have no say in the choice of this integrator (picked by Irving) or how that integration work will be done. Basically, Irving has discovered yet a new way with this Liberal modification to the acquisition process to make its money - and then cut any responsibility for its product.

BTW, such process means that Irving will take its profit, but the designer - because of its exposure - will build the risk it assumes into its price, making the overall project yet more expansive.

In its letter, Finacantierri proposed to the GoC, to reduce risk and costs, that the first three ships be build directly by the winning designer (whichever it may be) and those three units thoroughly evaluated by the GoC for suitability in regards to specs. Once the units have passed, then and only then, would the designer transfer all of the design, integration process and knowledge to Irving, who would complete the last 12 units.

Considering the responsibility the designer selected would assume, Fincantierri's proposal makes perfect sense: They build enough units at their own yard, under their own control, to prove the design fully satisfies the GoC. Then they teach Irving exactly how to do it. If there are problems with the last 12 units, then the government knows it should look at Irving as the cause, as the design is proven.

Moreover, with Fincantierri's proposal, the first three units could be built by whichever yard is selected as designer while Irving is still busy with the AOPS, thus saving time.

The ministers referred Fincantierri's proposal to Irving, which did not exactly make Fincantierri warm inside. I have no doubt this is the last thing Irving wants, since they would not be able to pass the puck for any flaw in the ships they would build.

 

[MilEME09]

Makes sense to me, we get three ships to replace our retired destroyers in the fleet, cost goes down, Irving still gets work, and we have a baseline to compare Irvings work to. Sounds like a win-win to me.

 

[George Wallace]

Makes sense to me, we get three ships to replace our retired destroyers in the fleet, cost goes down, Irving still gets work, and we have a baseline to compare Irvings work to. Sounds like a win-win to me.

My baseline for Irving Shipyards was the condition of the CN Marine ferry, the John Hamilton Grey, sailing between Borden and Cape Tormentine.  It was not very favourable.  It was disconcerting to see missing plates from under the Bridge on a ship that was less than a decade old. 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Makes sense to me, we get three ships to replace our retired destroyers in the fleet, cost goes down, Irving still gets work, and we have a baseline to compare Irvings work to. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Which is why it will never happen.  ;D

 

[Karel Doorman]

Makes sense to me, we get three ships to replace our retired destroyers in the fleet, cost goes down, Irving still gets work, and we have a baseline to compare Irvings work to. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Indeed,you can't expect a yard(whichever one)to"fork" over their designs and knowledge and in the best case not get blamed if anything is stuffed by another yard. :-[

And it would be nice to be able to campare work.(who's able and who's not)

But i'm too logical.

 

[jmt18325]

I'm not really interpreting much.  They want to build 3 of the ships.  That was never part of the deal.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Earlier:

RCN Canadian Surface Combatant, Irving, Intellectual Property…and Espionage (plus fighters and Trump)
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/mark-collins-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant-irving-intellectual-property-and-espionage-plus-fighters-and-trump/

Mark
Ottawa