Oshkosh to build JLTVs for Israel Defence Forces

On the same subject

• 

  October 2, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Facing industry pressure, Pentagon backs off contract payment changes

  By: Aaron Mehta and Joe Gould WASHINGTON – Following a wave of criticism from the defense industry and members of Congress, the Pentagon on Monday backed off proposed changes to how companies receive cash flow on their contracts. In a statement released at the unusual time of 7:19 PM, Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan said the decision to withdraw the proposed acquisition changes stemmed from a lack of “coordination” inside the department. “Recently, proposed amendments to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) were prematurely released, absent full coordination,” Shanahan's statement read. “As a result, the Department will rescind the proposed amendments. In coordination with industry, the Department will create a revised rule to implement section 831 of the FY2017 NDAA.” "The department will continue to partner closely with Congress and industry to examine all reform opportunities, ensuring we provide the best value to taxpayers and critical capabilities to military personnel who defend this great Nation,” Shanahan said. Unsaid in the statement: that since word of the proposed changes got out, the defense industry has been loud and unanimous in its opposition, and has enlisted its supporters on the Hill to help fight against the plan, put forth by Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord. As part of a broader set of changes to the acquisition rules, Lord hoped to change how companies receive their cash flow based on performance measurements, to act as an incentive for good behavior. In a Sept. 5 interview with Defense News, she laid out the rationale, saying “I believe the lifeblood of most industry is cash flow, so what we will do is regulate the percentage of payments or the amount of profit that can be achieved through what type of performance they demonstrate by the numbers.” However, three major trade groups — The National Defense Industrial Association, Professional Services Council and the Aerospace Industries Association — objected to the proposal, which would slash the payments on work to be performed from 80 percent to 50 percent, with incremental increases for maintaining quality or on-time delivery — and decreases for companies that have committed fraud. Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, and Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., the chairs of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, sent a Sept. 21 letter to Shanahan calling the proposal “fundamentally flawed" and asking that it be rescinded and revisited. “We should not make it harder to do business with the Department of Defense than it is to do business with other parts of government — and that's exactly what this regulation does,” Thornberry told reporters last Tuesday. “We try to streamline acquisition, we try to make it easier to do business with these small companies; and then something like this comes out.” The Pentagon had hoped to implement the rule changes by the end of the year and had planned to hold a public meeting on Oct. 10, before the public comment period ended on Oct. 23. Whether that event will still happen is unclear. https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/10/02/facing-industry-pressure-pentagon-backs-off-contract-payment-changes

• 

  January 3, 2024 | International, Land

  Canada promised to deliver a $400M air defence system to Ukraine a year ago. It still hasn't arrived.

  The government said Jan. 10, 2023 that it would acquire the air defence system and related munitions for Ukraine at a cost of $406 million.

• 

  February 3, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  The Pentagon is racing against inflation for military might

  By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — In 2017, the top two officials at the Pentagon — then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joe Dunford — testified to Congress that the defense budget needs to have 3-5 percent annual growth over inflation each year through 2023 to ensure America's military success. Dunford, speaking to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2017, went as far as to say: “We know now that continued growth in the base budget of at least 3 percent above inflation is the floor necessary to preserve just the competitive advantage we have today, and we can't assume our adversaries will remain still." Three years later, as the Trump administration prepares to unveil its fiscal 2021 budget request on Feb. 10, such growth appears impossible. The budget is expected to be largely flat, as a two-year budget deal reached last summer calls for $740 billion in defense spending in the next fiscal year, up just $2 billion from the enacted FY20 amount. “The 3-5 percent goal was reasonable enough and absolutely needed,” said Mackenzie Eaglen, a budget analyst with the American Enterprise Institute. “But it is not happening. The defense top line for 2021 is negative real growth, aka declining.” Susanna Blume, a defense analyst with the Center for a New American Security, said that certain parts of the defense budget, particularly maintenance and personnel costs, grow faster than the rate of inflation. “That's what's behind these comments about requiring a certain amount of real budget growth in order to sustain the joint force as it is today,” she said. But there is a wild card, according to Ellen Lord, the Defense Department's top acquisition official: a series of reform efforts led by now-Defense Secretary Mark Esper, which so far have accounted for $5 billion in savings. “We're getting more and more efficient. That is obviously what Secretary Esper is focused on with his defensewide review, that we are cutting out administrative tasks and a variety of portions of programs to make sure we return those savings to our critical modernization efforts such as [artificial intelligence], hypersonics and so forth,” Lord said during a Jan. 31 news conference at the Pentagon. “We are always having to look very carefully at our budgets and make sure we triage them to focus on the critical few. So we're always concerned, but we're always going to work it.” How much of that expected growth gap can be filled by Esper's efficiency drive is difficult to pin down. Blume said its “certainly possible that efficiencies could make up some of that gap,” but whether the work that has been done now and is planned in the near term will be enough “are questions we don't have answers to today.” Added Eaglen: “Efficiencies alone will not get the Pentagon its 3-5 percent growth in actual dollars to reinvest. The defensewide review only yielded $5 billion, and the way it works with these drills is that the money doesn't necessarily move from pot A to pot B as a result." “But that doesn't mean it is not worth doing. Any money amount is helpful. And the exercise is also about getting the bureaucracy to shift its time, tasks and attention to great power competition as much as it's about shifting funds into higher priorities that support the strategy,” Eaglen said. If one of the Pentagon's big bets work out, that could be a real game-changer, Blume said. Those bets include efforts to replace a Defense Logistics Agency warehouse using a 3D printer as well as attempts by the Air Force to rapidly develop, prototype and produce fleets of planes. If one of them goes well, Blume said, “you can potentially start to bend some of those cost curves.” https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2020/01/31/the-pentagon-is-racing-against-inflation-for-military-might/