Speaking notes for the Canadian Surface Combatant industry engagement

December 11, 2014

Good morning and thank you for coming to this information session on the Canadian Surface Combatant project.

Objective

Our objectives for this morning are twofold. First, we want to provide you with an update on where we are on the Canadian Surface Combatant procurement strategy. Second, we would like to provide you with some information and seek your input on an engagement session planned for January 2015.

We realize that some time has passed since the last in-person engagement session on the overarching procurement strategy.

As we all know, nature abhors a vacuum and, in the absence of information from us on the status of the project, there will, as you might expect, be speculation. Sadly, some of it is misinformed. 

Let me begin by clearly stating a few facts:

1. No decision on a procurement strategy has been made.
2. No matter which procurement strategy is eventually selected, it will be a fair, open and competitive process. Further, potential suppliers will have significant input into both “what is being procured” and “how we will evaluate proposals.”
3. We are working aggressively to get a decision as early as possible. We recognize that indecision costs you money and costs the project in lost purchasing power. That said, there is always a trade-off between doing something right and doing it fast. We are trying to do both but getting it right is our main consideration.

We understand that there has been a lot of discussion about the competitive advantages of the two approaches that have been the focus of discussion thus far. Let me emphasize that both would be competitive processes.

That said, we have concluded that neither of these approaches translates adequately into what we believe we need to compete.

The required competitive process needs to take us from many to one Warship Designer/Combat Systems Integrator team.

We would also like to ensure that the Canadian Surface Combatant procurement has robust competition, which will incorporate Value Proposition for as many systems, sub-systems and services as possible.

That would lead us to a series of questions as to how best to compete the first two principal suppliers: the Warship Designer and the Combat Systems Integrator.

The key elements of an engagement session we are planning to hold in January will be:

1. How to procure the Warship Designer/Combat Systems Integrator services so that we can ensure robust competitions for the systems, sub-systems and services which will be needed.
2. A discussion on the application of the Defence Procurement Strategy and the Value Proposition to all of the competitive procurements for Canadian Surface Combatant.

As you know, one of the key competitive advantages, that will help select the warship designer and the combat systems integrator, and, indeed, all subsequent competed systems and sub-systems, will be the Value Proposition.

Many of you have been considering the opportunities presented by the Value Proposition concept since the Defence Procurement Strategy was announced earlier this year. Our session in January will enable us to get your input on how best to apply this to the competitive processes for the Warship Designer and Combat Systems Integrator and to the selection of the systems, sub-systems and services.

We would be pleased to respond to any questions and comments you have on how best to structure the session in January.