That should come out of O&M not Acquisition.
While I don't think the US DoD is the shining example of efficiencies - the cost of the acquisition is the capital equipment itself - not the PM shops, the Requirement Staff, and when the items are fielded, they now become the owners responsiblity.
Now some contracts due have X years Parts and Maintenance on them, but that goes to the receiver O&M - not the project itself.
The staff is getting paid regardless of what project they work on.
The Field Force needs to maintain and operate the equipment it has - regardless of what equipment it is.
The way the CF looks at acquisitions, I am legitimately surprised that the Ferret scout car and M4 Sherman aren't still plodding around.
KevinB explained what I was getting at.
Our projects costs enormous amounts of money, the way they are presented to the public - which makes some things a harder sell than they should be.
The acquisition is one project. And we
tend award a project for 20yrs or more of service support, usually to a Canadian company if at all possible.
When we publish the numbers, or do a press release, we tend to combine the costs of both projects into one.
Which I do understand on the one hand, as the taxpayer deserves to know what their tax dollars are being spent on. But on the other hand, it tends to be reported to the taxpayer in a way that doesn’t fully explain the picture.
It’s easy for something to sound overly expensive if we say “Canada Chooses X Platform, Will Cost $4.5 Billion!” (The way the media tends to report things, as it captures attention. The media then capitalizes on all of the unnecessary outrage that comes as a result of that.)
But it’s not unreasonable when it’s explained that…
“We are acquiring X number of platforms for roughly $3 billion. They are more 20% fuel efficient than our older ones, can deliver cargo much faster, are more reliable and much easier to maintain. The company awarded this contract isn’t Canadian, but they have to spend $3 billion in Canada as part of the deal…”
“The remaining $1.5 billion is for 15 years of maintenance & support, which we would have to pay roughly the same amount regardless of what platform we chose. Again, if it isn’t awarded to a Canadian company, that company is required to invest an equal amount back into Canada as part of the deal.”
I wasn’t suggesting not accounting for O&M funds. I’m saying that when we present such projects to Canadians, and their local MP’s - we have to perhaps change the way we communicate about certain things.
I feel like if we do that (my example above may not have been the greatest) we wouldn’t have to push so hard on certain projects.
I feel like nuclear depth charges are a horrible idea for oh so many reasons?
