Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Desperately needed supply ship put on hold

  1. #1

    Default Desperately needed supply ship put on hold

    Here we go again, delays and dithering over military contracts...

    In this case, it seems Irving sent the Liberals a letter. Being a rich family that owns much of eastern Canada, and given the Liberals love of rich families (Bombardiar is another controlled by one), it's not surprising to see this ship deal, which is very good value for money (repurposing an existing ship) and something our Navy needed yesterday, put on hold:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/davi...halt-1.3327039

  2. #2

    Default

    Can't we just go out and buy some used military equipment and be done with it. We spend years or decades going nowhere in upgrading our forces. (The nuclear submarines were a bad deal, but name anything nuclear that has worked out well. Just look at the massive cost escalations on our reactor refurbishments.)

    Ships are far less complex.

  3. #3
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,855

    Default

    By all accounts, Maersk's interim option is substantially cheaper.
    This was a sole source contract (unsolicited) to buy votes in QC. It worked, but after looking at the contract, there are cheaper options out there.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Can't we just go out and buy some used military equipment and be done with it. We spend years or decades going nowhere in upgrading our forces. (The nuclear submarines were a bad deal, but name anything nuclear that has worked out well. Just look at the massive cost escalations on our reactor refurbishments.)

    Ships are far less complex.
    I'm not sure what you are talking about, Canada has never had nuclear submarines. It did have some very bad English conventional submarines.

    The plan to repurpose this ship, was essentially, using a second hand one. It was brilliant idea put forward, and accepted. But it meant of course, that Irving missed out on a contract... Not surprising to see what's happening now, trust fund babies look after each other.

  5. #5
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    The plan to repurpose this ship, was essentially, using a second hand one. It was brilliant idea put forward, and accepted. But it meant of course, that Irving missed out on a contract... Not surprising to see what's happening now, trust fund babies look after each other.
    I urge you to look past your partisanship bias. If it was a brilliant idea (not arguing it wasn't) why not see if other shipbuilding companies in Canada (or throughout the friendly world) could do the same thing for cheaper? It's not like they had a patent on the idea.

    The conversation should have gone something like" Hey, great unsolicited idea to a problem we have, thanks for getting us thinking about this. Let's take a look and see if anyone else can beat your price so we can get the best value for tax payer dollars"

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Can't we just go out and buy some used military equipment and be done with it. We spend years or decades going nowhere in upgrading our forces. (The nuclear submarines were a bad deal, but name anything nuclear that has worked out well. Just look at the massive cost escalations on our reactor refurbishments.)

    Ships are far less complex.
    I'm not sure what you are talking about, Canada has never had nuclear submarines. It did have some very bad English conventional submarines.

    The plan to repurpose this ship, was essentially, using a second hand one. It was brilliant idea put forward, and accepted. But it meant of course, that Irving missed out on a contract... Not surprising to see what's happening now, trust fund babies look after each other.
    My bad. For some reason I briefly thought they were nuclear.

    Interesting...
    "I'm appalled we've done a dumb deal with an ally like this," Hancock said. "If this was the Americans, we'd say good luck and serves you right. But as it's Canada, I think there are a lot of questions to be answered."

    Hancock said Canada should have been more cautious about buying them and should consider asking Britain for its money back.

    "I think you should be making a case for it."

    Hancock said he originally raised questions about the deal back in 1998. He said had Canada asked for a rebate back then, it might have worked. The best deal likely available now, he said, is a better deal should Canada wish to buy more second-hand British subs.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...says-1.1166047
    Last edited by KC; 22-11-2015 at 11:26 PM.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    The plan to repurpose this ship, was essentially, using a second hand one. It was brilliant idea put forward, and accepted. But it meant of course, that Irving missed out on a contract... Not surprising to see what's happening now, trust fund babies look after each other.
    I urge you to look past your partisanship bias. If it was a brilliant idea (not arguing it wasn't) why not see if other shipbuilding companies in Canada (or throughout the friendly world) could do the same thing for cheaper? It's not like they had a patent on the idea.

    The conversation should have gone something like" Hey, great unsolicited idea to a problem we have, thanks for getting us thinking about this. Let's take a look and see if anyone else can beat your price so we can get the best value for tax payer dollars"
    I urge you to look at the history of the liberal party and procurement purchases (Google sea king). Compare that to the C17s, a sole source but something we finally got, and which have been brilliant (I expect they will carry many of the refugees to Canada). The navy needs this ship urgently, that it upsets a rich family in Eastern Canada, who a sent a letter, isn't a reason to dither, costing us contract penalties. The decision was made, this is going to just create a costly mess now
    Last edited by moahunter; 23-11-2015 at 07:56 AM.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    The plan to repurpose this ship, was essentially, using a second hand one. It was brilliant idea put forward, and accepted. But it meant of course, that Irving missed out on a contract... Not surprising to see what's happening now, trust fund babies look after each other.
    I urge you to look past your partisanship bias. If it was a brilliant idea (not arguing it wasn't) why not see if other shipbuilding companies in Canada (or throughout the friendly world) could do the same thing for cheaper? It's not like they had a patent on the idea.

    The conversation should have gone something like" Hey, great unsolicited idea to a problem we have, thanks for getting us thinking about this. Let's take a look and see if anyone else can beat your price so we can get the best value for tax payer dollars"
    This is moatipper you're trying to reason with.

    You're right, but good luck, the tipper is immune to fact and reason. 100% Calgarly troll, 0% brain.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  9. #9
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,855

    Default

    I don't sign up for everything that the door to door salesmen come to me to sell. "Alarm system? oh, i didn't know i needed one. I guess that's a good deal. Sure, sign me up"
    If you realize it's a need, then find the best value out there, not the first one that comes to the door.

    Otherwise, we'd all be signed up with Just Energy, Telus, and sporting our new Vivint alarm system.

    Canceling it might not be the best course of action right now, but they shouldn't have gone sole source to begin with. Buy the commercial ship off Davie that they've already bought for cost plus 5 or 10, then get all interested parties to submit a price to convert it over similar to the Davie plan. Take the one that is the best value. I could care less if it's made in Canada. We buy so few ships, so rarely, and there are enough ship builders in friendly countries that we don't need to have local expertise. And certainly not at several yards.

  10. #10

    Default

    ^are you just making this stuff up? Here is the Canadian shipbuilding association:

    “The association strongly recommends that the government do not delay the signing of the contract for this urgent operational requirement,” the industry group said Nov. 23. “It has been awarded fairly and with due process.”

    The association highlighted the urgent procurement process kick-started under the previous Conservative government in Dec. 2014.

    “Following an extensive consultation period lasting for six months and subsequent evaluations by those departments, Canada selected the Davie proposal on its merits ahead of other domestic and international bids,” the industry group said.

    The Shipbuilding Association of Canada also highlighted the ship’s reported cost of $400 million, saying it represents “great value-for-money” compared to approximately $1.5 billion for a new ship. Defense sources have noted the amount could be higher, however.

    In addition, the industry group insisted Davie has pan-Canadian supply chain that “provides significant economic benefits for the entire shipbuilding industry, including Aecon Pictou, a first tier subcontractor who will build multiple sections of the ship in Nova Scotia.”

    Dismissing the sole-source argument, the association also chided “certain shipyards” for claiming they could contribute to the project in a timely manner while their shipyards are already at maximum capacity.
    http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com...158113-158113/

    You want us to buy ships from overseas, good luck with that, it would be political suicide for any party. This isn't about buying ships outside Canada, this contract is in Canada, and an Irving one would be to. Rather, this is about the Irving family throwing a hissy fit after losing out, and the Liberals deciding to play along.
    Last edited by moahunter; 23-11-2015 at 03:14 PM.

  11. #11

    Default

    ^ moa of course won't mention that he's sponsored by the Irvings...

    Hey Irvings, ask for your money back...
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  12. #12
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,225

    Default

    Navy supply ship retrofit to go ahead.

    CBC News

    The admittedly unconventional project was approved following a change in the government contracting regulations to allow for an "urgent operational requirement of an interim nature."

    Davie proposed the deal on its own initiative following the sudden retirement in 2014 of Canada's last two naval supply ships, one due to rust, the other due to fire.

    The government asked shipbuilders in January to provide a rough outline of what they could provide the government and at what cost. The Davie yard won that procees.

    But both Seaspan and Irving complained it was not a real competition. Today, Foote and Sajjan agreed it was a sole-source deal.

    "The government of Canada will undertake a review of the process for sole-source contracts for military procurements, including looking at current regulations and policies and those regulations amended by the previous government."
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    By all accounts, Maersk's interim option is substantially cheaper.
    This was a sole source contract (unsolicited) to buy votes in QC. It worked, but after looking at the contract, there are cheaper options out there.
    Do you still think this? Some good sense shown by the liberal government (after some counter pressure from Quebec politicians and labour unions). They need to stop trying to please everyone, like the two competing shipyards who don't like this contract.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •