Incoming SECNAV Ray Mabus seeks to reform the defense acquisition process as a way of reducing cost over-runs, procure a 313-ship Navy and bridge the out-year fighter gap:
Ray Mabus, President Barack Obama’s nominee to become Navy Secretary, vowed on Tuesday to put an “intense” focus on acquisition reform if confirmed for the job, warning that ongoing cost overruns would threaten U.S. national security.
“The acquisition process has to be gotten under control or we’re going to unilaterally disarm ourselves,” Mabus, a former Mississippi governor and U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee…
“Acquisition reform is a top priority for President Obama and Secretary (Robert) Gates, and if confirmed, one of my highest priorities would be to support them by ensuring the Department of the Navy acquires weapons systems in the most efficient and cost effective way possible,” Mabus said in a written response to questions from the committee.
I’m not saying that it can’t be done, but that defense acquisition is a notoriously resistant process to reform, since reform always seems to equate to increased oversight. Oversight – in and of itself – does not acquire functional systems on time and at cost. From my limited perspective, what it does do is require additional labor from an already over-burdened and risk averse acquisition workforce. Squaring this circle with SECDEF’s avowed intention to transition contract support personnel to the civil service ranks adds another layer of complexity.
If this works, perhaps the governor might focus on bringing peace to the Middle East.
If this works, perhaps the governor might focus on bringing peace to the Middle East.
A girl can dream, yes?
One of the dirty little secrets the government uses to transition contractor support personnel to the civil service ranks is to use the “convenience of the government” clauses to convert billets mid-contract stream. For example, Contractor recruits and incurs costs bringing on appropriate personnel for a five year contract such as relocation, additional training, etc. Contractor hopes to recover these costs over contract life. Year two government says – “thanks for playing but that billet is going civil service”. Employee can always turn them down and look elsewhere but contractor loses big time.
All this makes for a complicated if not sometimes adversarial relationship not conducive to keeping everyone focused on the mission. Just another dynamic to complicate reform. But in the Pentagon’s case they simply do not have enough trained acquisition professional’s in the civil service ranks. Too much of this has been contracted out creating numerous OCI minefields and too many not far from the truth jokes of “Boeing just bought the Air Force….”, etc.
But I agree with the Governor and wish him well.
But the dysfunction is institutionalized in no small part by the amount of “help” Congress provides in telling the Services how to do their job. Help that the Services are masters of exploiting at the Program, Command, and Branch level to maintain the status quo.
OldT6Flyer:
There was an excellent post/discussion on this subject at “Winds of Change” back on 7 Nov. entitled: IEEE Special Rpt: What’s Wrong With Procurement? @:
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/4-ha-military
(Scroll down/back to Nov. 7 post)
That’s EXACTLY how we got a $600 toilet seat. It’s in the P-3 Orion. Lockheed, for whatever reason, was denied the ability to contract out for the seat (it’s actually a seat, lid, and cover assembly with hinges, locks, etc.
Lockheed wanted to use a local fiberglass contractor to produce the piece, and was told that they were required to produce it inhouse.
Thus, Lockheed had to hire and train a crew, build the molds, develop the production process, etc, and what would have probably been a $75-$100 dollar product went up accordingly.
Maybe just make everyone within fifty miles of DC buy their own office supplies?
Reform!
useful, eh, maybe not, but something was done!
How about issuing fixed price contracts for the original lot production? And pay 1/2 up front 1/2 on delivery. Additional Lots will be procured based on the success / quality/ needs/ requirements going forward.
Where’s Kelly Johnson when we need him. Tell him what you need and 9 months later you’re test flying it over Groom Lake.
Kelly’s successor Ben Rich was all too familiar with the burdens of “oversight” and how it raised the costs of building anything.
First, there’s the direct cost to the government to hire and employ people to perform said oversight. Then there’s the fact that contractors have to hire and employ lots of people to comply with the oversight. Those costs are of course passed right back to the government.
So, Uncle Sam ends up paying twice for services that aim to save money.
I have a sneaking suspicion it would be a lot quicker and cheaper to eliminate all oversight and just accept a certain level of fraud, waste and abuse.
Amen, brother, amen! And trying to comply with out of date and cancelled specifications is serious headache stuff.
He might start his acquisition reforms by turning a couple of attack dogs loose on ex-Marine Murtha’s $60M worth of improvements to the Johnstown, PA airport.
Very small potatoes, but a huge amount of DOD money is worthless crapola demanded by earmarks which bloat the DOD budget without actually contributing to our national defense.
More needed reforms- Get rid of the costly mandates to buy from “small, disadvantaged, minority and women owned” businesses, which often deliver crap at inflated prices later than required. It’s the DEFENSE Department, not a fracking welfare program!
Go right past GO and send the crook to jail.
John-
Funnily enough one of Kelly Johnsons rules was never deal with the Navy.
True confession: I am one of those contractors doing Acquisition oversight for OSD, and will probably be a prime target for “conversion,” after the first round of hiring bean counters and cost estimators.
I think the most effective reform we could do is to hold PMs accountable for performance of new systems. Right now their fitreps require delivery on time and under budget. Because there is no incentive for bidders to submit honest estimates of cost and schedule, we end up giving them relief on performance when we run out of time and money. Defer the hard stuff to the “next increment” (which is not funded and will probably never happen).
Gee CAPT, you delivered on time and under budget, but it only does half of what the requirements called for. You lose, but thanks for playing. Next?
Sounds good, Navig8r, as long as the full, complete, and unchanging specifications are fully defined prior to the new systems bid and bid acceptance.
Which leads to the question: ever seen that happen?
No…not that it matters.
Specifications are a best guess, made a decade or more before a system enters service. Which is why the Navy Test Pilot School teaches us that specification compliance has NO relation to satisfactory performance.
ho- hum, yawn
b2