Vanguard Magazine

16 JUNE/JULY 2019 www.vanguardcanada.com interview evaluated and approved. So, I do not see this as being a binary choice of iterative or conventional acquisition. The compelling case needs to be built to show how project funds can be best spent to achieve the re- quired operational outputs. Q It is clear that defence procurement is not an easy task – trying to acquire the right kit, at the right time, within a defined budget, in an open and fair competition. With multiple stakeholders trying to satisfy their respective agen- das, usually broken down to industry by technical, price and ITB, it is the user that is hoping the best solution gets delivered to satisfy their operational capability. So, appreciating that this is a C4ISR question, why does Canada continue to procure technology with the same procurement model it buys vehicles, planes, ships, and buildings, when we can all appreciate that the technology evolves and grows expo- nentially in 18-month cycles. So, at best, Canada gets technology in its mature to declining stage, putting our soldiers at a technology disadvantage. What is Canada doing to address this issue? Within DLR I can tell you what we are do- ing, and this really is just a restatement of the last few answers. As we move projects through the Options Analysis phase, we will look to show what are the optimal spending profiles to best meet Army operational re- quirements. At this time, what has occurred is that the anticipated spending profiles for the SSE 42 projects have been established in the standard "big bang" approach. Why did this occur? I am not a finan- cial expert, but likely this is because this is what has occurred in the past and what has worked in the past. And certainly, for significant portions of the SSE 42 projects, this is the correct spending profile. But for the rapidly changing, high technology portions of these projects, it likely makes sense that other spending profiles will pro- vide better bang for the buck. I think it is up to the Army and DGELPM project staffs, as they work through the Options Analysis phase, to show that this is correct. With regards to ITBs, open and fair competition, and other similar elements of the procurement process, I think it needs to be recognized that these aspects are there for a reason – many of which directly benefit the Army. Fair and open compe- tition ensures that all companies can par- ticipate in the process, ensuring that the best options are available. Competition ensures that each vendor makes the most cost-effective bid. ITBs and Defence Pro- curement Strategy will help to ensure that there is a vibrant Canadian industry avail- able to meet the Army's material needs. I certainly think that the more agile project approval and funding mechanisms will also support meeting these aims. Q Thank you for presenting at C4ISR and Beyond 2019. Based on your presen- tation, you identified three key challeng- es to on-time delivery of technology (rate of change, ability of the Army to absorb new capabilities, ability to govern/fund capability development). What do you see as the next steps in influencing/shap- ing the standard DND project spending profile to a cyclical/annual capital project spending profile? Who needs to be influ- enced, and by whom? For myself and the Project Directors in DLR 4, I see that the key task is to edu- cate ourselves on the key financial policies. Then working with the DGLEPM Project Managers, I see that we will develop po- tential funding models. As part of the Op- tions Analysis phase as industry is engaged for costing, what will certainly help is if cost models and estimates can be provided that show how industry does this. I think this can then help the costers to assess the validity, risks and benefits of the proposed approaches. I think that if we are able to show that we have done our homework and demonstrate that for high tech capa- bilities, adopting an agile approach helps to reduce the risk of large project failure and will better meet the operational re- quirements of the Canadian Army provide better benefits to industry, I think the re- quired influencing will be done. Q Is the cyclical/annual capital project spending profile/framework being mod- eled in any other country to serve as an example for what you are trying to initi- ate? Or do most industrialized countries, who want/need to demonstrate fair and open competition, model the current procurement process Canada follows? I have just come to understand the com- plex Government of Canada and Depart- ment of National Defence project approval process, and now you want me to under- stand the same for other nations? I think you would need 48-hour days to do that! I am aware that the UK is looking to adopt what appears to be a similar ap- proach through the British Army MOR- PHEUS and "Evolve to Open" approach, but I do not know the details of their ap- proval and financing processes. Working with the U.S. Army, I also understand that in the last 24 months they have made ma- jor changes to their C4ISR modernization programs, including the standing up of a new U.S. Army Future Command. Again, from the outside, this appears to be imple- menting an agile approach, but I do not know the details. As we ramp up the Options Analysis for the SSE 42 projects, almost certainly we will do a more detailed survey of what is happening in the industry and what other nations are doing. So maybe ask this ques- tion again in 12 months and you may get a more solid answer. But if other nations are implementing agile approaches, you likely are going to have to ask this question ev- ery 12 months as the approaches will be continually changing. Corporal Barry, a member of the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART), conducts a radio check during Exercise READY RENAISSANCE. Photo: Master Corporal Darcy Lefebvre, DND.

• Cover