Retour aux nouvelles

19 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

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/

Sur le même sujet

  • House panel isn’t giving defense industry all the COVID aid it wants

    10 juillet 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    House panel isn’t giving defense industry all the COVID aid it wants

    By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― The Pentagon would have $758 million to help mid-tier defense firms weather the financial effects of the coronavirus pandemic as part of the annual defense spending bill approved by the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday. But the aid, which was part of the panel's proposed $694.6 billion bill, falls short of the “lower double-digit billions” Pentagon officials say defense firms will claim under the stimulus bill Congress passed in March. As Congress debates the next stimulus, the defense industry has been urging lawmakers to appropriate enough to reimburse the Pentagon's suppliers for pandemic-related disruptions. Under Section 3610 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, contractors can seek to recover such costs, but Congress has yet to appropriate money for it. “While helpful and our industry appreciates the recognition of the need in the HAC mark and all the support we have received from the Pentagon and Congress to date, this level is insufficient to provide the support indicated previously by [the Office of the Secretary of Defense] and also by company leaders who have been communicating with the Pentagon, the Congress and the White House, including [the Office of Management and Budget],” said National Defense Industrial Association Vice Chairman Arnold Punaro. “We are urging that the next stimulus bill provide the needed funds particularly to support section 3610, the reasonable adjustments due to disruptions, and the added costs of protecting the workforces and doing business in a COVID-19 environment,” he added. Not all of the details of the defense bill were available Wednesday, but a committee summary says it provides “$758 million to mitigate the impacts of COVID on second, third, and fourth tier suppliers in the Defense Industrial Base.” Such support would supplement $688 million for the defense-industrial base that the Department of Defense previously set aside as part of the $10.5 billion it got from the coronavirus relief fund created under the CARES Act. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord warned Congress last month that the DoD's pandemic-related costs, which include 3,610 claims, may nonetheless force it to dip into modernization and readiness accounts if Congress doesn't backfill the money. “The department does not have the funding to cover these costs,” she said. The House Appropriations Committee's bill is not the last word, and Republicans, who control the Senate and the White House, will negotiate over the final numbers. “FY21 appropriations bills must be changed before they have any chance of becoming law,” the panel's top Republican, Rep. Kay Granger of Texas, said Tuesday. This week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., began to outline a forthcoming GOP-drafted coronavirus relief package, but it was not immediately revealed what the Pentagon's share might be. House Democrats are reportedly seeking $250 billion in emergency spending for an array of issues, to include rural broadband and transportation infrastructure to health care and global coronavirus relief. As lawmakers reconcile these many priorities, at least one one influential lawmaker on defense ― House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash. ― has said repeatedly that the Defense Department should draw from its existing budget. The Project on Government Oversight's Mandy Smithberger said the Pentagon has yet to make the case that payments to the defense industry will be the best means to stimulate the economy. “Even though they often don't act like it, resources are still limited to a degree and Congress has to consider fairness as part of that distribution, including who needs the government's help most, and which sectors are going to do the most to help the country,” Smithberger said. “These companies have much better access to capital than a number of other industries and individuals. Even from a reviving-the-economy perspective, this sector has always been one of the poorer performers per dollar for job creation.” The health care and education sectors create more than twice as many jobs per $1 million than the military, and the energy and infrastructure sectors create 40 percent more, according a 2019 analysis by the Costs of War project at Brown University. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/07/08/house-panel-isnt-giving-defense-industry-all-the-covid-aid-it-wants/

  • Marinette Marine to begin building first Constellation frigate

    1 septembre 2022 | International, Naval

    Marinette Marine to begin building first Constellation frigate

    The Wisconsin shipyard will begin building the first Constellation-class frigate following two years of maturing the design to mitigate risk.

  • Report: Army’s new modernization command risks cost overruns and delays

    24 janvier 2019 | International, Terrestre

    Report: Army’s new modernization command risks cost overruns and delays

    By: Meghann Myers When the Army first announced its intention to stand up a new four-star Futures Command, senior leadership said the days of years-long, expensive modernization programs and murky requirements were over. While failing early and often can prevent some of those issues before an idea becomes a program of record, there are still some risks that, by trying to be a more nimble and innovative enterprise, AFC could still run into cost increases and drawn-out timelines if it jumps too hard on emerging technologies, according to a Government Accountability Office report released Wednesday. “There are a variety of ways to fail when it comes to developing these technologies,” Jon Ludwigson, the GAO's acting director of contracting and national security acquisitions, told Army Times in a Wednesday phone interview. “I guess the way that I would look at it is, you can make sure that you have it right, or hope that you'll get it right.” The study was mandated by the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, to take the temperature of Futures Command as it stood up. The Army officially activated the command in August, headquartered at the University of Texas in Austin. In general, the report found, the Army has applied best practices that GAO has previously touted, including close collaboration with senior leadership. On the other hand, the report found, there were a couple things that could be improved. AFC's plans to develop weapons systems with emerging technology could come back to hurt it, the report said. “GAO has raised concerns about this type of practice for almost two decades for other Army acquisitions, because proceeding into weapon systems development at earlier stages of technology maturity raises the risk that the resulting systems could experience cost increases, delivery delays, or failure to deliver desired capabilities,” according to the report. The GAO, Lugwigson said, is wary of creating programs around emerging technologies, before having a chance to test them in an operational environment. “As the Army identifies the capability, there are technologies that are used to achieve that capability,” he said. “What GAO has found is, there's an advantage to maturing those technologies before you begin what's called a program of record.” https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/01/23/report-armys-new-modernization-command-risks-cost-overruns-and-delays

Toutes les nouvelles