Back to news

May 6, 2020 | International, C4ISR, Security

EXCLUSIVE: DoD CIO Makes Case For Sticking With JEDI

No current cloud, commercial or military, lets frontline troops access both classified and unclassified data from all over the world, Dana Deasy told Breaking Defense. That makes JEDI unique – and too complex to split up among multiple contractors.

By

WASHINGTON: A lot of people – even experts – don't get what the JEDI cloud computing program is really about, Dana Deasy told me. And that, the Defense Department's Chief Information Officer admitted, is partly the Pentagon's own fault he told me during a half-hour interview.

So, this morning, after Breaking Defense published the latest of several stories on JEDI's legal and political troubles and the mounting criticism of the program, Deasy agreed to an interview to explain just why he thinks the worldwide military cloud is still essential – and too complexly integrated to split chunks off to different contractors.

There are three fundamental misunderstandings about JEDI that the Pentagon needs to dispel, Deasy told me:

  • First, people think JEDI is meant to be the one cloud to rule them all. It's not. While JEDI will be the default option for “general purpose” cloud computing across the entire Department of Defense, it will not replace hundreds of existing cloud contracts across the DoD not prevent the creation of new “fit for purpose” clouds tailored to specific missions.

“We definitely had created the wrong perception. People believed that we were going to take all of our clouds, get rid of them, and migrate everything over to JEDI,” Deasy told me. “That was clearly never the intent.”

  • Second, people think JEDI is a 10-year, $10 billion contract. It's not – not necessarily. While that's the maximum value and duration of the contract, the Pentagon has the option to terminate it after two years. There's another end-it-or-extend-it decision three years later, and a third three years after that. The minimum the winning contractor is guaranteed to get? Just $1 million over two years.

DoD graphic

The Defense Department's strategy to transition to cloud computing.

“When I came on board, one thing I did was restructure the terms,” Deasy told me. “I've been working with clouds since clouds were first brought to the commercial industry marketplace, and about every two to three years, you see really big changes. I'm talking about significant enough changes where you just want to step back and look at the marketplace. That's why we changed the terms of the contract.”

  • Third, people think JEDI is just another cloud. It's not. While existing military and even civilian clouds can do some of what JEDI is meant to do, none of them can do all of it. None of them can pull unclassified, secret, and top secret data, from the Pentagon, bases around the world, and forward outposts, and put it all together in a way that even troops in combat can access.
  • “Go out to the tactical edge, sit down with the warfighter, and look at how we push information out to someone who's literally outside of the village on the side of a mountain,” Deasy told me. “I spent some time in Afghanistan last year, and you look at what it takes for them to prepare for a mission, to execute a mission. They are pulling data from a variety of sources, some unclassified, some classified.”

But doing that today is damnably hard. It takes a lot of awkward workarounds to bridge the gaps between different and frequently incompatible networks, and you can't bring the kludged-together solution with you into combat. That's why one of JEDI's first priorities is building backpack-sized mini-servers.

“To actually combine that data and physically get the information out to the warfighter in a form factor that they could use when they're out in the field, it just doesn't exist today. And no — you cannot pull that off the shelf,” Deasy said. “That is a unique capability that we have to build.”

“We have to find a partner to help us do that, and that is what we've been looking to do with JEDI,” he told me. He really means a partner, one contractor, not many, because the task of building this highly complex, tightly integrated system is not something you can split up, the way you would an order for bulk commodities like potatoes, jet fuel, or even online storage.

Why not? Let's let Deasy explain it in his own words (edited for clarity and brevity).

Q: There's been a lot of excitement over JEDI since the program began in 2018, and a lot of frustration over the delays. How would you respond to the critics who say it's time to give up, or even that it was the wrong approach all along?

A: At the time I joined [the Defense Department], which was actually two years ago this week, the first thing that Deputy Shanahan turned over to me was JEDI. The first thing he asked me to do was to go back and take a hard look at was, was this the right thing we were doing for the Department of Defense, were we going about it the right way.

Was it the right thing? Yes. Were we going about the right way? Well, I'd say, mixed results.

[Now] there's this whole conversation: “Should the DoD give up? Should the DoD start over? Should the DoD go and do something else?” I've spent a lot of time contemplating a bunch of different scenarios, and no matter what scenario I look at, you still have to solve the problem for the warfighter. We need to take data all the way out to the tactical edge, across multiple classification levels.

And even if I wanted to stop JEDI today, there is no solution that is available already inside the Department of Defense to do that. I'd have to turn right around, go back out to the market, start an RFP once again to solve for that particular problem.

This is why we stay the course.

We're not staying the course because we're just being defiant or stubborn. We're staying the course because it's the shortest way to get from point A to point B, because if we don't stay this course, we will still have to go back and solve this particular warfighting need. And that is why I believe staying with JEDI and moving forward is the right solution.

It's very easy for critics to say, “hey, there's a bunch of clouds already inside of the Department of Defense, why don't you just go use one of those?” Or “why don't you just split this up and give this to a bunch of different suppliers?”

Yes, of course, JEDI can do commodity cloud capabilities, and so do a lot of our other clouds across the Department of Defense. The whole world of commodity cloud has gotten better and better. But it doesn't solve for our classification levels. It doesn't solve for the tactical edge today.

If you look at the heart of that RFP [the 2018 Request For Proposals] and you really sort through all the requirements, what makes JEDI still unique today, that cannot be satisfied by other cloud environments, is the fact that it was solving for both OCONUS [Outside the Continental United States] and CONUS; it's moving data across multiple classification levels; and it was looking to create a commercial solution that would give us far better terms, conditions, and pricing than we'd ever seen inside the Department of Defense.

When we looked across the landscape of all the cloud environments we had, there was not a single cloud environment that we had that could do all those things, nor was there one being contemplated inside the Department of Defense.

We've got the Army that is now looking to consolidate their clouds, we have the Air Force has their cloudOne platform, Navy has stood up a special purpose cloud with their SAP HANA to consolidate their various SAP environments. All of those things fit exactly what we were trying to achieve in the cloud strategy document at the end of 2018.

However, if you look at all those cloud environments and other ones that are stood up across Department of Defense, none of those, still, can do CONUS and OCONUS, none of them is solving for the tactical edge, and none of them is solving for multiple classification levels.

[Before the stop-work order], we had dozens of projects across combatant commands and the services wanting to be the first to standup in the new JEDI cloud, because of two fundamental things: It offered capabilities that their clouds didn't offer and it offered it at a way better price.

At the end of the day, the most competitive way of looking at market forces is, where are the services going to? And they were clearly going towards JEDI because of what it offered in terms of technology and what it offered in terms of price.

One of the criteria that we really wanted out of JEDI was to get to the best commercial terms and conditions. And I can tell you after we were done with that award, we clearly in that award had better terms, better pricing than we had in any cloud across the Department.

Q: But you took a long time assessing which competitors could meet your technical requirements, finally choosing Microsoft. Given the delays, and given how fast IT changes, is that assessment now obsolete?

A: We did not take this final decision on the selection of our vendor until towards the back half of last year. Yes, we started this in 2018, but the offerings that we were looking at were being updated and refreshed throughout the entire RFP process until the point that they submitted their final submissions.

Our [implementation] schedule is actually going to be in phases. First, we're going to roll out unclassified, then we're going to roll out the secret, and then we're going to roll out the top secret. And those solutions were going to be designed and built as we went through this process. One of the reasons we did that was because we did recognize that technology would change.

We set it up in a way that we absolutely can stay fresh with technology as it changes, because we have these option periods [at two years, five years, and eight years] to go back and look at whoever our provider is and to decide whether or not they're staying current.

If we saw that a vendor was starting to lose its competitiveness either on pricing, on speed of delivery, or on technology, you make it clear that if they were to continue down the path they're going, there's not going to be a renewal.

The best evidence you get is just how are they delivering every day? Is it working, is it up and running? Do they really give you a tactical edge? Do they really give you multiple classifications? Are the warfighters benefiting from it?

Q: But why is having a single contractor you can opt out of at set times better than having multiple vendors competing all the time for work orders under an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quanity contract?

A: It's a fair question. And if what we were providing the Department of Defense was pure commodity cloud, a platform for storing and compute and building applications in a standard way that we see industry doing it today, IDIQ would be a perfect way to go.

But that's not what we're doing here. That's what gets lost in this whole conversation. This is not your typical, basic, commodity cloud offering where you can put it out to three or four vendors and let the service pick every day who they want.

Let's go back to what the requirements are. We are trying to build a cloud that can handle CONUS, OCONUS, unclassified, secret, top secret, traverse the data between those environments, and create hardware solutions at forward bases and to the tactical edge.

Imagine for a second that I now wanted to have three or four vendors to do that. Think of the complexity it would take to build cross domain solutions for unclassified, top secret and secret, OCONUS, CONUS, forward bases, tactical edge devices, all the way out to the guys on the side of the mountain.

Especially when you think about trying to move forward with this Joint All-Domain Command & Control, where the fight of the future is going to be multiple services and combatant commands having to work together and share data. That becomes almost untenable if you set it up as an IDIQ with multiple vendors. I mean, how would you ever build that to work all the way to the tactical edge?

To move data from unclassified to secret to top secret, it's extremely complicated. It's not like you go buy this off the shelf. This is a very bespoke, tailored solution that has to be built.

There is an actual hardware element of this, of creating the hardened devices that need to be put into the hands of a warfighter out there on a mission and that's what we don't have today. You have to find a vendor that can help you build those hardened devices out on the tactical edge.

If we're doing IDIQs and every time we have a new warfighter need, we now are going to go out for three or four vendors, we're going to put that out, they're going to come back and bid, they're going to give a solution and then we have to go back and now re-integrate that solution. That gets be very hard and very complicated and very time consuming.

You have to FEDRAMP all of them, you have to test all of them, you got to run them through certification. We have to put NSA red teams onto them, we have to put US Cyber Command to oversee each of those environments. Is that in the taxpayer's best interest? Does that sound like to you the lowest cost, most efficient solution for the DoD and the warfighter?

There's going to be a lot of business across the Department of Defense where IDIQs are going to be perfect and we'll have lots of cloud providers that will flourish. But JEDI is a unique environment where having a partner to help us build this out is the smartest way to go.

Throughout this entire process one thing has stayed constant: You have to find a way of putting a warfighter cloud capability into the hands of our men and women out on the tactical edge every day. And I've always looked at my responsibilities as CIO is to not to satisfy the cloud industry, but to satisfy what the warfighter needs. We have a unique war-fighting need that you just can't go get off of the shelf today.

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/exclusive-dods-cio-makes-case-for-sticking-with-jedi

On the same subject

  • Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - March 24, 2020

    March 25, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, C4ISR, Security

    Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - March 24, 2020

    MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY Lockheed Martin Corp., Missiles and Fire Control, Dallas, Texas, is being awarded a $932,836,737 modification (P00026) to previously-awarded contract HQ0147-17-C-0032 to exercise an option for the production of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors and associated one-shot devices to support the U.S. government (USG) and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) Foreign Military Sales (FMS) case requirements. The THAAD interceptors and associated one-shot devices will be procured under fixed-price incentive (firm target) contract line items. The value of this contract is increased from $5,366,947,800 to $6,299,784,537. The work will be performed in Dallas, Texas; Sunnyvale, California; Huntsville, Alabama; Camden, Arkansas; and Troy, Alabama, with an expected completion date of April 1, 2026. Fiscal 2020 USG procurement funds in the amount of $327,498,097; and KSA FMS funds in the amount of $605,338,640 are being obligated at time of award. The Missile Defense Agency, Huntsville, Alabama, is the contracting activity. NAVY CACI Inc. - Federal, Chantilly, Virginia, is awarded $180,336,750 for a single award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, performance based, cost-plus-fixed-fee, level-of-effort contract (N65236-20-D-8003) to provide special operations communications systems, satellite communications (SATCOM) and network support services. Work will be performed in Fayetteville, North Carolina (65%); continental U.S. (20%); outside continental U.S. (10%); and Tampa, Florida (5%). This contract will require command, control, communications, computers, combat systems, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance to exercise planning and evaluation, systems integration, operational systems, fielding, training, certification, maintenance, logistics, configuration management, systems engineering, network engineering, documentation and graphics support, program management, quality assurance and life-cycle sustainment management and support of deployable tactical SATCOM systems and military information, support operations and equipment for various joint warfighting customers at multiple locations within the global area of responsibility. Work is expected to be complete by March 2025. If the option is exercised, work may continue until September 2025. The contract includes a five-year ordering period and one six-month option with the cumulative value (ceiling) of this contract being $199,486,199. Fiscal 2019 procurement defense agency funding in the amount of $10,000 will be obligated at time of award. Funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The contract was competitively procured by full and open competition via the Naval Information Warfare Systems Command E-Commerce Central website and two offers were received. The Naval Information Warfare Center Atlantic, Charleston, South Carolina, is the contracting activity. VT Halter Marine Inc., Pascagoula, Mississippi, is awarded a $39,906,609 firm-fixed-price modification to previously awarded contract N00024-18-C-2230 to exercise an option for the detail design and construction of an Auxiliary Personnel Lighter – Small (APL(S)). Work will be performed in Pascagoula, Mississippi (58%); Boca Raton, Florida (25%); Mandeville, Louisiana (5%); Metairie, Louisiana (5%); Gautier, Mississippi (4%); and Billerica, Massachusetts (3%), and is expected to be complete by May 2021. The initial contract was for the detail design and construction of the lead and second craft in the APL(S) 67 class; this option exercise is for the fourth craft. Construction of all APL(S) craft is firm-fixed-price. The contract also includes options for associated support efforts related to the craft design and construction for deployment spare parts, crew familiarization, international delivery and production-level technical data package and rights. Fiscal 2020 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) funding in the amount of $39,906,609 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity. Honeywell International Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, is awarded a $10,340,614 cost-plus-fixed-fee job order under basic ordering agreement N00164-18-G-GM66 for engineering sustainment support services of the strategic radiation-hardened microelectronics facility and production capability. Work will be performed in Plymouth, Minnesota, and is expected to be complete by March 2022. The sustainment services under the job order cover engineering efforts to sustain Honeywell International's strategic radiation-hardened microelectronics capability through researching extensions of existing products and technology, radiation testing and analysis, and sustaining existing application specific integrated circuit product support and multi-project wafer test/modeling capability. The services are required to maintain a domestic, trusted source for strategic radiation-hardened microelectronics to meet the Department of Defense certification to Congress, as stipulated by the fiscal 2018 National Defense Authorization Act Section 1670. Defense Production Act Title III funding in the amount of $10,340,614 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(3), and was awarded to a particular source in order to maintain a facility, producer, manufacturer or other supplier available for furnishing property or services to achieve industrial mobilization. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division, Crane, Indiana, is the contracting activity (N00164-20-F-G001). Pratt and Whitney - United Technologies Corp., Hartford, Connecticut, is awarded a $7,681,734 firm-fixed-price delivery order (N00019-20-F-0658) against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-17-G-8008). This order provides for the production and delivery of seven Lift Fan Inter Stage Vane (LF ISV) kits for the Marine Corps in support of the Joint Strike Fighter program. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, Indiana. The new LF ISV will provide lift fan operations over an increased temperature range, improved trailing edge angle conformance and will address vibration and flutter concerns. Work is expected to be complete by July 2021. Fiscal 2020 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $7,681,734 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Ceradyne Inc., Irvine, California, has been awarded a maximum $111,100,000 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for enhanced small arms protective inserts. This was a competitive acquisition with two responses received. This is an 18-month base contract with two one-year option periods. Location of performance is California, with a Dec. 30, 2021, performance completion date. Using military services are Army and Air Force. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 through 2021 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE1C1-20-D-1242). SupplyCore Inc.,* Rockford, Illinois, has been awarded a maximum $75,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for facilities maintenance, repair and operations items. This was a sole-source acquisition using justification 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(1), as stated in Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. This is an 18-month bridge contract with no option periods. Location of performance is Illinois, with a Sept. 24, 2021, performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 through 2021 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE8E3-20-D-0008). TW Metals Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois, has been awarded a maximum $62,000,000 firm-fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment contract for commercial metal products. This was a sole-source acquisition using justification 10 U.S. Code 2304 (c)(1), as stated in Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. This is an 18-month bridge contract. Locations of performance are Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Illinois and West Virginia, with a Sept. 24, 2021, performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 through 2021 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE8E5-20-D-0001). AIR FORCE L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, Greenville, Texas, has been awarded a not-to-exceed $85,000,005 firm-fixed-price, undefinitized contract for engineering, procurement and fabrication which will result in Phase One modification to the mission aircraft. Work will be performed in Greenville, Texas, and is expected to be completed by October 2022. This contract involves 100% foreign military sales and is the result of a sole-source acquisition. Foreign Military Sales funds in the amount of $41,600,000 are being obligated at the time of award. The 645th Aeronautical Systems Group, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8620-20-F-4837). JW Clark Enterprises Inc., Chesapeake, Virginia, has been awarded a $16,000,000 modification (P00006) to previously awarded contract FA4800-16-D-0001 to exercise Option Year Four. This modification provides simplified acquisition of Base Civil Engineer Requirements support for Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia. The contract provides all labor, tools, equipment, transportation, materials, supervision and all other necessary supplies and services required to perform a broad range of maintenance, repair, minor and new construction work on real property on Joint Base Langley-Eustis. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance funds will be used to fund individual task orders awarded. Zero funds will be obligated at time of exercising this option year modification. This modification brings the total cumulative face value of the contract to $75,000,000. Work will be performed on Fort Eustis and Langley Air Force Base, and is expected to be complete by March 24, 2021. The 633 Contracting Squadron, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia, is the contracting activity. The Boeing Co., Layton, Utah, has been awarded an $8,330,128 firm-fixed-price contract modification (P00011) to previously award contract FA8204-19-C-0001 for the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Cryptography Upgrade Increment II production. This modification exercises production Lot 3, Options 2, 4, 8 and 9, and provides the government 176 A-4 drawers. Work will be performed in Huntsville, Alabama; Huntington Beach, California; and Layton, Utah, and is expected to be completed by Feb. 17, 2023. The total cumulative face value is $112,543,853. Fiscal 2019 missiles procurement funds in the amount of $1,639,817; and fiscal 2020 missiles procurement funds in the amount of $6,690,311 are being obligated at the time of award. The Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) Contracting Division, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, is the contracting activity. (Awarded March 23, 2020) ARMY Vali Cooper International LLC,* Covington, Louisiana, was awarded a $30,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for architect-engineer technical support services for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System. Bids were solicited via the internet with received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of March 23, 2030. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska, is the contracting activity (W9128F-20-D-0027). CORRECTION: A $19,940,157 firm-fixed-price contract announced yesterday, March 23, 2020, to SGS LLC,* Yukon, Oklahoma (W912BV-20-C-0005), for design-build construction of a fire rescue center, was actually awarded today, March 24, 2020. *Small business https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2123763/source/GovDelivery/

  • A delicate balancing act: The US government must juggle a pandemic and the FY21 budget

    May 14, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    A delicate balancing act: The US government must juggle a pandemic and the FY21 budget

    By: Robert DuPree For the past few months, the U.S. federal government has been, quite understandably, totally focused on addressing the enormous health care and economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. These efforts will necessarily continue to be front and center in the weeks and even months ahead, no matter how rapidly the curve flattens or declines, as different sectors and regions reopen. But to move the country forward, Congress must prepare to do its regular business for the year, which largely means tackling appropriations bills. Congressional staff have reportedly been doing the prep work to get spending bills ready for whenever the House and Senate can safely convene to work on them (or to do much of this work remotely). The American people — including federal contractors large and small, and our employees — are relying on Congress to check its partisan impulses and figure out how to do two things at once in the coming months: Continue to combat the COVID-19 crisis, and develop fiscal 2021 funding bills for all federal departments and agencies to meet our nation's needs. Unfortunately, there are some who are already taking a simplistic view, saying Congress will be so busy dealing with the pandemic that it will have to just give up and pass a continuing resolution to fund the government beyond the election into next year or even for a full year. On the contrary, the pandemic is exactly why Congress should be doing its work and completing updated appropriations bills on time. First of all, in these extraordinary times, the country doesn't need appropriations bills which merely extend the decisions made on spending last December, when Congress finally completed action (over two months late) on FY20 appropriations bills. The COVID-19 pandemic was just a blip on the horizon at that time. For FY21, the country needs updated spending legislation that more accurately reflects the greatly changed world we now face. Moreover, departments and agencies also need the flexibility to enter into new contracts to meet new needs, which is generally prohibited unless expressly provided under a continuing resolution. Further, Congress and the administration must come to grips with the elephant in the room — the strict annual spending caps imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011, as amended. To mix metaphors, this law is no longer just an elephant, it's an emperor who has no clothes. Congress has modified the BCA's statutory spending caps a number of times over the past decade (thus, the above caveat “as amended”). Now we're about to face the final year of the law's spending caps, and what do we find? The caps are a joke. The caps were meant to limit discretionary spending each year, but Congress has repeatedly found ways around them. This has usually been done in one of two ways. The first is by including some amount of normal baseline defense spending under the category of overseas contingency operations, or OCO, which is “wartime” funding; this occurs even when unrelated to America's overseas/wartime military efforts. OCO spending is exempt from the BCA caps, so funding part of the base Defense Department budget this way enables the law's defense-spending cap to be technically met while also understating the Pentagon's non-wartime expenditures. The second way is by designating certain spending as “emergency” expenditures. Yes, these are almost always for valid, unforeseen emergencies, but it is still spending that would otherwise exceed the discretionary caps. Only Congress can wave a wand and say: “No, it doesn't exceed the cap — it's for an emergency.” To be honest, the caps painted an unrealistic picture of efforts to control federal spending anyway. By only being applied to discretionary spending, exempting massive entitlement expenditures and interest on the debt, the caps presented a partial picture of true federal-spending restraint to begin with. And now the COVID-19 crisis has resulted in multiple legislative packages being enacted, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates could add over $2.7 trillion to the current year's deficit. But because they are loans or designated as “emergency” spending, they don't violate the caps. They just add to the deficit. In reality, true federal spending has soared far past the stable level of spending that the caps were purported to achieve when the BCA was first enacted. Yet, the caps are still in place for next year, which will impact the congressional appropriations process by either preventing the spending needed to address current needs, or leading to further contortionist efforts by legislators to circumvent the caps. So let's quit pretending. Congress and the administration should agree to repeal the final year of the caps as part of the next COVID-19 legislative package so appropriators can be upfront about the spending needed without having to hide so much of that spending behind the “emergency spending” loophole. Be transparent, and admit the country is, like during World War II, spending a whole lot more than anticipated to meet the crisis. And most of all, get the job done by acting in a bipartisan fashion to pass appropriations bills by Oct. 1, 2020, that accurately reflect our real needs and expenditures. Admittedly, that may not be easy to do in an election year, but the nation and the federal contracting community are depending on Congress to be able to manage the COVID-19 crisis response, while simultaneously conducting its regular business. Robert DuPree is manager of government affairs at Telos Corporation. He focuses on political developments in Congress and the executive branch, including the federal budget, appropriations process, national defense and cybersecurity. He previously served as legislative director for a senior member of the U.S. House of Representatives. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/13/a-delicate-balancing-act-the-us-government-must-juggle-a-pandemic-and-the-fy21-budget/

  • DoJ Indicts 14 North Koreans for $88M IT Worker Fraud Scheme Over Six Years

    December 14, 2024 | International, C4ISR

    DoJ Indicts 14 North Koreans for $88M IT Worker Fraud Scheme Over Six Years

    DoJ indicts 14 North Koreans for $88M IT fraud; $2.26M seized, $5M reward offered.

All news