2 janvier 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

Too many cooks in the DoD: New policy may suppress rapid acquisition

By: Eric Lofgren

In 2015, Congress passed middle tier acquisition, or MTA, authorities for rapid prototyping and rapid fielding. Lawmakers expected detailed guidance to follow shortly after. By June 2019, the Government Accountability Office found little clarity on documentation and authority. Congress reacted by threatening to withhold 75 percent of MTA funding in 2020 until the Pentagon released guidance.

Dangle the purse strings and compliance follows. The undersecretary for acquisition and sustainment, or USD(A&S), released Department of Defense Instruction 5000.80 on Dec. 30, 2019. The MTA guidance, however, is more likely to pump the brakes on rapid acquisition than propel it forward.

Programs designated “middle tier” do not have to follow regulatory processes for requirements and milestone reviews. That can shave years off a program schedule. In return, the prototype must be completed — or system fully fielded — within five years.

As of March 2019, there were 35 middle tier programs. The term “middle tier” is perhaps misleading considering nearly half of them exceed the cost thresholds for major weapon systems — roughly $200 million for prototyping or $1 billion for fielding.

Many questions remained unanswered until the new policy. How big was a middle tier? What documentation does it require? What is the role of oversight and USD(A&S)?

Authority

For several years, acquisition authority had been delegated down to the services. While the services only managed 48 percent of major programs in 2014, the figure grew to 90 percent in 2019.

DoDI 5000.80 reverses the trend. While the services can approve MTA for non-major programs, only USD(A&S) may approve major programs. Moreover, major programs have far more entrance documentation than non-majors, including approved requirements, an acquisition strategy and a cost estimate.

The services may avoid some documentation by disaggregating major systems into multiple MTA programs. For example, two of the Navy's non-major programs are components to Standard Missile-6 Block 1B. The same is true of the Air Force's Airborne Warning and Control System.

USD(A&S), however, can still disapprove any MTA program, whether major or non-major. With advisers from all around the Office of the Secretary of Defense, there will be will numerous potential veto points. Each official may extract concessions from MTA programs managed by the services.

Even though 31 out of 35 MTA programs are rapid prototyping efforts, the undersecretary for research and engineering, or USD(R&E), has been relegated to a secondary position. All MTA authority rests with USD(A&S). Almost as an affront to USD(R&E), he was given control over a rapid prototyping fund that Congress stopped funding.

The outcome reflects a broader weakening of USD(R&E). Congress has reacted negatively to the undersecretary's effort to move fast and reallocate funds to higher value uses. USD(R&E) may lose control of the Missile Defense Agency to USD(A&S).

Documentation

While MTA exempts programs from traditional requirements and milestone processes, documentation abounds.

Each service must create its own requirements process with approval in six months. Joint service requirements are discouraged from using MTA pathways.

MTA requirements, however, must still meet the needs determined by four-star generals in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and combatant commands. This may in effect bring the same approvals from the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System process back into MTA.

Many of the DoDI 5000.02 processes also apply. Still required are system analyses, sustainment plans, test strategies, cybersecurity, risk assessments, cost estimates and more.

Contractors performing on MTA programs must still report cost data. No exemption was made for earned value management systems. Sidestepping many contract regulations — for example, with other transactions authorities — remains a separate process.

Most importantly, Congress requires detailed justification in the budget for every MTA program. That means the services must start justifying MTAs at least two years in advance of funding receipt. Many of today's MTA programs spun off existing, budgeted line items. New programs may find a hard time finding funds.

The present situation is reminiscent of the time David Packard attempted rapid acquisition between 1969 and 1971. A couple years later, new layers of bureaucracy descended. Similarly, MTA has built within it the seeds of another slow-paced bureaucratic order.

Adm. Hyman Rickover's skepticism to the reforms nearly 50 years ago rings true today. As Rickover wrote to Packard in a memo:

“My experience has been that when a directive such as the one you propose is issued, most of the effort goes into the creation of additional management systems and reports and the preparation of large numbers of documents within the Service to ‘prove' that the requirements of the directive are being met in order to justify funds for the Service.

“So long as the bureaucracy consists of a large number of people who consider that they are properly performing their function of approval and evaluation by requiring detailed information to be submitted through the bureaucracy, program managers will never be found who can in fact effectively manage their jobs.”

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/01/02/too-many-cooks-in-the-dod-new-policy-may-suppress-rapid-acquisition/

Sur le même sujet

  • Modernization top priority in FY20 budget, Pentagon’s No. 2 official says

    17 décembre 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Modernization top priority in FY20 budget, Pentagon’s No. 2 official says

    By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — As the Trump administration and Congress deliberate the Defense Department's top-line budget for fiscal 2020, safeguarding the military's weapons programs and funding technology development is taking precedence over growing the force, the Pentagon's No. 2 official said Thursday. “At the end of the day, the national defense strategy puts a priority on modernization,” Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan told reporters Dec. 13. “The trick then becomes, when you talk about force structure, how much risk do you take given the world's environment?” Shanahan's comments come at a time of back-and-forth between President Donald Trump, Defense Department leadership and Congress about the size of the FY20 defense budget. Pentagon budget makers had been planning for a $733 billion budget request — a modest increase over the $716 billion budget for FY19 — when Trump announced in October that the Defense Department's budget would instead be cut to $700 billion. The move surprised many, as Trump had frequently touted his administration's efforts to grow the size of the military and invest in new defense technology. The announcement raised questions about what the Pentagon would have to cut in order to meet the lower number, but it appears that those concerns may have been premature. Earlier this week, Politico and other outlets reported that congressional Republicans and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis had convinced Trump to raise the top line to $750 billion. Shanahan on Thursday downplayed the reports, saying that a final top line had yet to be determined. "We're looking at numbers above $733 [billion], and as you know, we looked at numbers below $733 [billion]. I think everybody recognizes that this is a discussion that will go on in terms of what is the right number. The process we have is very robust,” he said. No matter what the top line ends up looking like, the goal will be “anchor[ing] line items to the National Defense Strategy. That's the rigor we put in place,” he added. With a top line above $733 billion, it's possible the Defense Department will be able to grow both its modernization accounts as well as funding for improving readiness and increasing force structure. But Shanahan, who spoke at a National Defense Industrial Association event on hypersonics on Thursday, tried to quell defense contractors' concerns that funding for hypersonic technologies, and science and technology development in general, could suffer under a budget that rings in at $733 billion or below. Asked by one Lockheed Martin employee whether funding for hypersonics programs would remain reliable in light of budgetary fluctuations, Shanahan said his level of confidence was high it would. “We've prioritized amortization,” he said. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/budget/2018/12/14/modernization-top-priority-in-fy20-budget-pentagons-no-2-official-says/

  • US approves $150m Hellfire Missile sale to Netherlands

    6 février 2024 | International, Aérospatial

    US approves $150m Hellfire Missile sale to Netherlands

    Strengthening NATO: Netherlands is set to acquire 386 Hellfire Missiles in a Foreign Military Sale.

  • Army National Guard soldiers anxious over new PT test, gear shortfalls

    30 août 2018 | International, Terrestre

    Army National Guard soldiers anxious over new PT test, gear shortfalls

    By: Kyle Rempfer NEW ORLEANS — Equipment requirements, logistics and training are on the minds of Army National Guard soldiers this year, as the Army prepares to roll out a new gender- and age-neutral fitness test. But while soldiers voice trepidation, the larger Army says it's not going to be an issue. “I think the test is going to be good, [but] my concern in the National Guard is the equipment requirement,” a battalion commander from the Louisiana National Guard said during a discussion with Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley at the National Guard Association of the United States conference in New Orleans this past weekend. “There's a tremendous amount of equipment that's going to be needed at every company, every armory, every detachment in order to administer the test and to train our troops. Have we addressed a plan to do that prior to the roll-out?” the soldier asked. Milley said the equipment concerns were not just an issue for the Guard, but one across the force. However, the new Army Combat Fitness Test correlates much better to actual combat requirements, and “we'd all be negligent if we didn't train to this [new] test," he said. “In order to do it right there's going to have to be a lot of training the trainers, it has be phased in, we have to make sure the scoring standards are correct, and, as you pointed out, it does require a little bit of equipment," Milley said. The ACFT field tests will begin in October and last one year. It will include 60 different types of battalions from all three components of the total force — active Army, Army Guard and Army Reserve. Additionally, Milley said, Training and Doctrine Command is currently conducting an analysis of all the equipment required throughout the force, how much it will cost and how to distribute the gear to the entire Army. There will be some challenges, Milley acknowledged. “For example, embassies," he said. “We have soldiers at embassies around the world, not in big units but small ones. ... But the equipment is an issue. The Guard will get the same equipment the rest of the Army gets. In the meantime — which means the next year — you can train for it. This isn't rocket science." For instance, grab “a 10-pound medicine ball, throw it over your head. Every gym in America has a 10-pound medicine ball,” he added. Full article: https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/08/29/army-national-guard-soldiers-anxious-over-new-pt-test-gear-shortfalls

Toutes les nouvelles