Dassault, Atos, DGSI… Comment les entreprises et l'Etat recrutent ceux qui travaillent sur des données sensibles de défense

On the same subject

• 

  March 18, 2022 | International, C4ISR

  Pentagon's JADC2 strategy focuses on 'approach'

  The new unclassified summary document comes nearly a year after the Secretary of Defense approved the Joint All-Domain Command and Control strategy.

• 

  December 20, 2018 | International, Aerospace

  Future EU space programme

  Council agrees its position on future EU space programme The EU is establishing its future space policy programme for the years 2021-2027. EU ambassadors meeting in Coreper on 19 December agreed on the Council's position on the draft regulation on an EU space programme. This position enables negotiations to begin with the European Parliament. The agreed text does not cover financial and horizontal issues which are being discussed as part of the negotiations on the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) for the period 2021 to 2027. Space plays an increasingly important role in our everyday life. Space-related inventions and services are already changing the way we live and work. The European Union is determined to keep the leading edge and the place it deserves in the global space economy. Norbert Hofer Federal Minister for Transport, Innovation and Technology of Austria The new regulation will ensure: high-quality, up-to-date and secure space-related data and services; greater socio-economic benefits from the use of such data and services, such as increased growth and job creation in the EU; enhanced security and strategic autonomy of the EU; a stronger role for the EU as a leading actor in the space sector. It will achieve this by : simplifying and streamlining the existing EU legal framework on space policy; providing the EU with an adequate space budget to continue and improve on existing space flagship programmes such as EGNOS, Galileo and Copernicus, as well as monitor space hazards under the ‘space situational awareness' programme (SSA), and cater for access to secure satellite communications for national authorities (GOVSATCOM); establishing the rules for governance of the EU space programme; standardising the security framework of the space programme. Next steps This agreement opens the way for the Presidency to begin negotiations with the European Parliament with the aim of reaching a rapid adoption of the regulation. The European Parliament adopted its negotiating mandate on 13 December 2018. Background On June 2018, the Commission presented its proposal for a Regulation for a space programme for the European Union. The proposed regulation is part of the follow-up to the Commission's Communication on a Space Strategy for Europe (SSE). The Commission proposal suggests an overall budget for the programme of €16 billion in current prices for the period 2021-2027 with the following indicative breakdown: €9.7 billion for Galileo and EGNOS, €5.8 billion for Copernicus and €0.5 billion for SSA and GOVSATCOM. Commission's Communication on a space strategy for Europe. Read the full agreed text here https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018/12/20/council-agrees-its-position-on-future-eu-space-programme

• 

  May 19, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Citing TransDigm, DoD seeks new acquisition powers, and trade groups oppose

  By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― Four defense industry trade associations “strongly oppose" a handful of Pentagon-backed procurement reform proposals that they say would harm the defense industrial base, and they're asking Congress to reject them. Two of the proposals aim at controversial pricing practices used by TransDigm by requiring contractors to submit cost information for commercial items and by requiring contracting officers to conduct a commercial item determination for every procurement. Others would set a preference for performance-based contract payments and authorize the Defense Department to release or disclose detailed manufacturing or process data. The May 6 protest letter came from the Acquisition Reform Working Group — made up of the National Defense Industrial Association, American Council of Engineering Companies, the Computing Technology Industry Association and the Information Technology Industry Council — to the the House and Senate armed services committees. It comes as the panels were readying their drafts of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act. The Pentagon has worked to monitor its network of suppliers from the economic shocks associated with the coronavirus pandemic and to protect suppliers by using emergency funding from Congress to speed payments and improve cash flow along the supply chain. The trade groups noted they represent “thousands of small, mid-sized, and large companies in addition to hundreds of thousands of employees that provide goods, services, and personnel to the Department of Defense,” and said the four proposals a “could have significant consequences for the defense industrial base.” Congress focused ire at TransDigm last year after the Defense Department's Inspector General found for $26.2 million in parts the military bought from TransDigm, it earned $16.1 million in excess profit. Transdigm was the only manufacturer of the majority of the parts, which let it set the market prices even for competitively awarded parts. Though DoD has argued its contractors need new latitude to make commercial item determinations and obtain cost or pricing information to prevent the excessive pricing TransDigm was accused of, the trade groups argue the TransDigm's actions weren't facilitated by an inappropriate reliance on improper commercial item determinations, or insufficient access to pricing data. “As illustrated by the TransDigm Group, Inc's pricing practices, generally once a conversion to a commercial product or commercial service is made, it is common for prices to increase and subsequent contracting officers find it difficult to obtain data necessary to determine price reasonableness and negotiate fair and reasonable prices on behalf of the taxpayer,” the department said in its proposal. Another proposal would require a contractor to submit uncertified cost information for commercial item proposals or contracts less than $2 million. The idea behind the reform is DoD wants to be able to get more insight into the costs of sole-source items and put itself in a more favorable position to negotiate with sole-source companies. Congressional hearings on TransDigm's excessive pricing showed Defense leaders need the authority to obtain the data “to the extent necessary to determine price reasonableness is paramount in ensuring that such excessive pricing practices are curtailed.” But the trade groups argue that levying the new regulations would “add a significant barrier to commercial item acquisition, reduce information sharing, further burden the system, and impede—rather than enable—the delivery of capabilities to the warfighter at the ‘speed of relevance'—all with little to no added protection for the government or the taxpayer." The trade associations also opposed DoD's legislation to set a preference for performance-based contract payments. The groups said a DoD proposal to “recouple” total performance-based payments to total cost incurred would reverse Congress's previous work to emphasize performance over cost and contradict a spate of defense acquisitions rules. DoD's argument is that it shouldn't be reimbursing a contractor more than its actual costs, or it “would result in negative levels of contractor investment,” and create a disincentive for contractors to deliver. Another disputed proposal would let DoD release detailed manufacturing or process data, or DPMD, pertaining to privately funded commercial or noncommercial items outside of the government to third parties seeking to compete against the original equipment manufacturer. It's the latest episode in a running game of tug-of-war between industry and DoD over intellectual property. While Congress has in recent years prodded DoD to set intellectual property strategies early in acquisition programs and negotiate for IP rights on a case-by-case basis, the trade groups argue the proposal would give DoD “an automatic default authority” and “eliminate the possibility of a negotiated solution.” https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/05/15/citing-transdigm-dod-seeks-new-acquisition-powers-and-trade-groups-oppose/