An investigation has confirmed allegations of improper contracting practices within Defence Minister Bill Blair’s department, revealing “misuse of public funds” through unauthorized agreements with favoured suppliers. Blacklock's Reporter says this finding comes after a 2022 audit flagged instances of inside dealing and preferential treatment in military contracts.The Department of National Defence disclosed that a base commander awarded a contract to a preferred transportation provider without proper authority, oversight, or legal counsel. The specific value of the contract was not disclosed, but investigators have deemed it a misuse of public funds.“It was alleged base authorities entered into an agreement with a transportation company to provide ‘free’ shuttle bus services on a regular schedule to take military and civilian personnel from the base to the local community and back,” the notice explained. “A subsequent investigation conducted by the Directorate of Special Examinations concluded the agreement in place between the Department of National Defence and the transportation company was not a valid contract, thus resulting in legal liability concerns which were never addressed.”The department did not release the names of the commander or the contractor involved but confirmed that the commander was directed to “immediately cancel the agreement.”According to the department, “The base commander had neither the public nor non-public contracting authority to enter into a sole-sourced agreement with the transportation company. The payment to the transportation company through a non-contractual agreement constitutes a misuse of public funds and a breach of government contracting regulations.”The revelations echo findings from a 2022 report by Procurement Ombudsman Alexander Jeglic, which highlighted a pattern of insider dealing and favouritism in Defence contracts. An audit covering two years until March 2021 revealed an “uneven playing field” in the department’s procurement processes, favouring familiar suppliers and reducing fair competition.“Even though they were competitive procurement processes, there was little opportunity for competition,” Jeglic wrote. “Suppliers that are aware of any advantage they possess have the ability to leverage it in terms of charging the Department of National Defence higher prices knowing there is limited competition.”Jeglic’s report highlighted “numerous issues,” documenting that out of 40 contracts reviewed, 16 included vague or biased criteria that hindered open competition. In three cases, the department’s requirements appeared to favour specific bidders, often giving preference to ex-military personnel or long-standing suppliers, regardless of the relevance of their experience. “This type of restrictive criteria may limit competition,” Jeglic wrote.The ongoing scrutiny reflects a broader concern over the department’s contracting practices, as past audits have consistently flagged favoritism, insider access, and an opaque solicitation process, raising questions about the fairness and transparency of Defence Ministry contracts.
An investigation has confirmed allegations of improper contracting practices within Defence Minister Bill Blair’s department, revealing “misuse of public funds” through unauthorized agreements with favoured suppliers. Blacklock's Reporter says this finding comes after a 2022 audit flagged instances of inside dealing and preferential treatment in military contracts.The Department of National Defence disclosed that a base commander awarded a contract to a preferred transportation provider without proper authority, oversight, or legal counsel. The specific value of the contract was not disclosed, but investigators have deemed it a misuse of public funds.“It was alleged base authorities entered into an agreement with a transportation company to provide ‘free’ shuttle bus services on a regular schedule to take military and civilian personnel from the base to the local community and back,” the notice explained. “A subsequent investigation conducted by the Directorate of Special Examinations concluded the agreement in place between the Department of National Defence and the transportation company was not a valid contract, thus resulting in legal liability concerns which were never addressed.”The department did not release the names of the commander or the contractor involved but confirmed that the commander was directed to “immediately cancel the agreement.”According to the department, “The base commander had neither the public nor non-public contracting authority to enter into a sole-sourced agreement with the transportation company. The payment to the transportation company through a non-contractual agreement constitutes a misuse of public funds and a breach of government contracting regulations.”The revelations echo findings from a 2022 report by Procurement Ombudsman Alexander Jeglic, which highlighted a pattern of insider dealing and favouritism in Defence contracts. An audit covering two years until March 2021 revealed an “uneven playing field” in the department’s procurement processes, favouring familiar suppliers and reducing fair competition.“Even though they were competitive procurement processes, there was little opportunity for competition,” Jeglic wrote. “Suppliers that are aware of any advantage they possess have the ability to leverage it in terms of charging the Department of National Defence higher prices knowing there is limited competition.”Jeglic’s report highlighted “numerous issues,” documenting that out of 40 contracts reviewed, 16 included vague or biased criteria that hindered open competition. In three cases, the department’s requirements appeared to favour specific bidders, often giving preference to ex-military personnel or long-standing suppliers, regardless of the relevance of their experience. “This type of restrictive criteria may limit competition,” Jeglic wrote.The ongoing scrutiny reflects a broader concern over the department’s contracting practices, as past audits have consistently flagged favoritism, insider access, and an opaque solicitation process, raising questions about the fairness and transparency of Defence Ministry contracts.
