Cutting the CF/DND HQ bloat - Excess CF Sr Leadership, Public Servants and Contractors

[AmmoTech90]

There is a huge difference between buying pens, papers, and a couple of dozen generators when compared to a capital project where the expenditure of public funds will easily creep into 100s of millions and the material will be inservice for 10s of years with a full support programme and planned upgrades.

Log Os are fine for the first, not so good for the second.

 

[Edward Campbell]

"The responsibilities of a Logistics Officers include:

Procurement
Warehousing items and material control
Distribution and disposal of military material, equipment, and ammunition
Coordination of food services, postal services, human resource or financial services"

I won't pretend to understand the procurement system, but why are our LogOs supposedly competent enough to do procurement as part of their trade, but not competent enough to do it without civilian employee oversight?  If procurement is as hard and difficult as we're assuming, then we're either not training LogOs properly or not giving them the support and authority they deserve.

First of all, procurement, at an industrial level, (which covers things like e.g. GM Canada, DND or, say Bell Canada) is the business of accountants and engineers - it is vastly different from types of local procurement done by our excellent LogOs and NCOs. Consider "procuring" a ship or an aircraft - not a warship or a combat aircraft, but an ocean going ferry or a new cargo aircraft for commercial use: you can go to Irving's Halifax Shipyard, haul out your cheque book and say one 200 passenger car ferry suitable for the Nova Scotia to/from Newfoundland service, please ... they'll be really glad to see you; ditto going to e.g. Lockheed Martin and just asking for, say, a new L100 Hercules. But that's not how Marine Atlantic buys ships. They have teams of accountants and engineers who work out the future requirements and work closely with the builders to design and delivers ships that will meet their long term requirements - for a profit making service. Ditto e.g. First Air: they don't just walk into Lockheed Martin and say "another Herc, please.

Second, government procurement has a HUGE political aspect. It is the people's cheque book that is being opened ~ your tax dollars and mine. The "business case" is much more complex than, say First Air's - the procurement staff needs to satisfy the end user's operational requirement within the allocated budget while, simultaneously, satisfying Canadians' requirements for jobs and "benefits." It's another dimension, bigger than just accounting or engineering.

 

[ARMY_101]

There is a huge difference between buying pens, papers, and a couple of dozen generators when compared to a capital project where the expenditure of public funds will easily creep into 100s of millions and the material will be inservice for 10s of years with a full support programme and planned upgrades.

Log Os are fine for the first, not so good for the second.

Where is the line drawn then? Serious question.

I can't imagine telling a Capt/Maj/LCol "yes, sir, you're qualified enough to get us millions of dollars in pens, paper, and office equipment, but whoa, you think you can touch the 'real' projects? Calm down there..."

I'm trying to find the logical end of what we're discussing here. Either LogsO do procurement or they don't.  It would be expected that with more senior rank comes more responsibility and more ability to study and spend larger amounts of money. So at what point do we tell a LogO they're not allowed to perform one of the primary duties of their trade anymore, and must instead report to a civilian?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

First of all, no one buys millions of dollars in pens and paper.  That is all done at the unit level and might amount to of thousands of dollars- from a standing offer.

Surely, you can see the difference between using an acquisition card to buy photocopier paper and writing a contract for (for example) a fighter aircraft project that involves billions of dollars, multiple government departments, vendors, in service support, sparing, basing, infrastructure, industrial offsets.....etc?

 

[Journeyman]

Surely, you can see the difference .....

You may as well save your breath.  :not-again:

 

[ARMY_101]

Surely, you can see the difference between using an acquisition card to buy photocopier paper and writing a contract for (for example) a fighter aircraft project that involves billions of dollars, multiple government departments, vendors, in service support, sparing, basing, infrastructure, industrial offsets.....etc?

Absolutely, but we're talking about degrees of procurement and what's 'acceptable' for a CF officer to do and what needs to be done by a civilian employee. Where is that line drawn?

 

[GnyHwy]

I could agree with Log Os doing the job in procurement, if they have the education or experience.  I think some people are assuming that Log Os have a degree in Logistics engineering.  Anyone no what percentage of them actually do?  I'm guessing a pretty low number that actually have one.

So what would they bring to the table?  Do they have a degree in Logistics Engineering, Business Administration, and/or Project Management?  I'm guessing most of the civilians probably have at least a Masters.  Do they have some technical expertise that would warrant them being on a certain project.  If the answer is yes to either question then there is a place for them.  If the answer is no to both, then what good would they be.

The persons working in DLR are supposedly technically sound within their area of expertise or trade and have the users interest in mind.  There are other ways to get user input as well, but it gets overlooked, probably too much. Either time, money or available troops kill that idea.  The persons in project management are the long time managers that deal with legalities, and may oversee a project for its entire life cycle.  Most times, mil pers do not want to stay in that job for that long.

Where is the line drawn for Log Os? I think the line is whether or not they have the education or experience that would warrant them being part of the project.  Managing a Regts or even a Bde worth of equipment is not that same as managing several projects for the entire CF, throughout their entire life cycle.

 

[AmmoTech90]

The Army does have a course that teaches people about equipment, developing requirements, and the procurement process.  For officers it is the Land Forces Technical Staff Programme and for warrant officers it is the Army Technical Warrant Officer programme.  Following the course a person should be employed in a requirements, testing, or procurement section (DLR, LFTEU, DGLEPM), and this generally happens.

Looking at the number of people nominated for the course, the CF's Logistic Branch does not seem that interested in sending people on the course and therefore there is little input, at least at the requirements level, into larger projects.

Most Log Officers I know have no background in logistics or HR or transport.  They normally are biologists, history majors, or English lit types.

 

[MJP]

Absolutely, but we're talking about degrees of procurement and what's 'acceptable' for a CF officer to do and what needs to be done by a civilian employee. Where is that line drawn?

I don't have time to get into some huge debate about procurement with you but as a LogO, large capital projects are not the purview of a LogO to do.  There is a limit and it is clearly drawn.  After $25,000 for either goods or services we are obligated to use PWGSC to get what a customer wants period.

I could agree with Log Os doing the job in procurement, if they have the education or experience.  I think some people are assuming that Log Os have a degree in Logistics engineering.  Anyone no what percentage of them actually do?  I'm guessing a pretty low number that actually have one.

 
Most of my peers and superiors have business, economics or commerce type degrees.  There was some slippage in allowable degrees due to low numbers in the past years but it has been tightened up.  Regardless believe me as a business admin grad, there is little real carry over. Overarching concepts sure, the rest not so much.

Where is the line drawn for Log Os? I think the line is whether or not they have the education or experience that would warrant them being part of the project.  Managing a Regts or even a Bde worth of equipment is not that same as managing several projects for the entire CF, throughout their entire life cycle.

 

Log Os do this through postings to ADM-Mat, although to be fair life cycle management (item managers, LCMM etc etc) is largely done by the civilian employees.  They are a part of many projects in various roles; hell Ottawa holds the largest percentage of LogOs in trade.

 

[McG]

There is a whole other thread on the problems of procurement:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/26594.0.html

Trying to wind this back on topic a bit, there are military staffs in NDHQ who are responsible for speaking our collective mind to the civilian staffs who are responsible for our national support.  If there is a lack of communication between end-users and deciders, then the problem is already within uniformed personnel.  Militarizing civilian jobs will not fix this.

Hiving off chunks of DND to a super civilian department of defence and security will also only make matters worse.  There are currently military personnel seeded throughout the civilian staffs of NDHQ to ensure a military perspective can be presented on matters of discussion; this perspective would be lost of the staff and work were moved out of DND.

Our trimming of the bloat needs to be an internal elimination of redundant processes, staffs, and positions.  There is much room to streamline.

 

[MilEME09]

Big example trade and component transfers within the Reserve, and Reserve to reg force transfers, that's a process that needs changes and streamlining, We just lost a guy in my unit who was transferring to be a badly needed supply tech because after 2.5 years nothing moved on his transfer. Reserve force members having to go through the CFRC to go reg force is also highly redundant, it should be an internal issue not something requiring the person to essentially go through the application process again.

 

[dapaterson]

Big example trade and component transfers within the Reserve, and Reserve to reg force transfers, that's a process that needs changes and streamlining, We just lost a guy in my unit who was transferring to be a badly needed supply tech because after 2.5 years nothing moved on his transfer. Reserve force members having to go through the CFRC to go reg force is also highly redundant, it should be an internal issue not something requiring the person to essentially go through the application process again.

Only time Res F members have to go through CFRC for a CT is when they have to re-do the CFAT, as they didn't meet the standard for their selected trade and need to re-write.

Otherwise, it's an online application that can be actionned in a matter of weeks, particularly when an individual remains in trade and is occupationally qualified.

 

[captloadie]

Only time Res F members have to go through CFRC for a CT is when they have to re-do the CFAT, as they didn't meet the standard for their selected trade and need to re-write.

Otherwise, it's an online application that can be actionned in a matter of weeks, particularly when an individual remains in trade and is occupationally qualified.

Umm, not how it is working from my experience. CT applicant files go to an honest broker cell in D-MIL-C who review files and fill positions based on the SIP numbers supplied by the CM's. For example, I lost a Cpl reservist to a civilian employer because there were no openings available for his rank and trade this year. 

 

[dapaterson]

Umm, not how it is working from my experience. CT applicant files go to an honest broker cell in D-MIL-C who review files and fill positions based on the SIP numbers supplied by the CM's. For example, I lost a Cpl reservist to a civilian employer because there were no openings available for his rank and trade this year.

I said can be actionned, not will be actionned.  Obviously there must be a CF requirement (ie a vacancy) before a CT will occur.

 

[dapaterson]

Looks like LGen Leslie has found a new place to hang his hat.  Hill & Knowlton, noted international flacks, have announced his appointment to their Ottawa office:

http://hkstrategies.ca/news/hillknowlton-strategies-appoints-canadian-armed-forces-veteran/

"He comes to H+K as an associate focusing on strategic consultancy with expertise in tactical advisory and cyber resilience. Andy will be able to advise the firm’s wide range of private- and public-sector clients across the country. "

Hill & Knowlton is well known for years of leading denial on the linkage between smoking and lung cancer; creating the "grassroots" demands for the US to intervene in Kuwait; and representing BCCI, the failed bank tagged with money laundering and other financial irregularities.


Of course, the outstanding question is why he parted ways with CGI...

 

[Journeyman]

Hill & Knowlton is well known for years of leading denial on the linkage between smoking and lung cancer; creating the "grassroots" demands for the US to intervene in Kuwait; and representing BCCI, the failed bank tagged with money laundering and other financial irregularities.

I thought that was still in quotes as part of their press release.  :rofl:

 

[GAP]

Of course, the outstanding question is why he parted ways with CGI...

Maybe he did a "2013 Report on Transformation" for them and was done....

 

[Good2Golf]

What is "cyber resilience?"  ???

 

[GAP]

What is "cyber resilience?"  ???

online stretch marks?

 

[OldSolduer]

What is "cyber resilience?"  ???

Please someone explain "cyber resilience".

How about we cut support to cadet programs instead?  :sarcasm: