Defense News reported the other day that “U.S. House and Senate negotiators have hammered out a final version of defense acquisition legislation that would shake up the Office of the Secretary of Defense”. Amongst other things, the bill would replace the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation and the Cost Analysis Improvement Group with a single Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation. Strong stuff.
The best part, though, is how the bill would modify the Nunn-McCurdy statute by requiring the Pentagon to "perform a root cause analysis" on each breaching program. Even more drastically, according to the language, “if the program is not terminated, but is restructured, it would rescind the most recent milestone approval and require the program to receive a new milestone approval prior to proceeding.” Now that’s just scary.
As the story quotes a jaundiced senatorial aide, the bills "move around the deck chairs, but don't get at the substantive problems." Any questions about the extent of the shuffling so far can be cleared up by watching this short instructional video on the history of the Pentagon’s procurement process regulations.
The fact is that the Pentagon’s procurement directorates have been choking on process and oversight for years. And despite Gates’ well-meaning desire to reverse staffing cuts from the 1990s, it’s doubtful that the Defense Department needs another 9,000 bureaucrats in procurement jobs approving paperwork. Putting a higher barrier in the Nunn-McCurdy process is like Dean Wormer putting the Deltas on double secret probation. "One more slip-up," and your program will be restructured! Again!
What they need is some better incentives—like firing people for approving the design of FCS vehicles with flat bottoms 18 inches off the ground. Who is the canard who let that one get past? Oh, wait, we know that: it's this guy. What’s the root cause analysis of that move? I'm encouraged that Bob Gates sacked General McKiernan for piling people onto FOBs and wearing a piece and a vest to a shura. Perhaps he'll start extending that enlightened personnel practice to people in the program offices.
I heard from a colleague once that, in many smaller countries, the military acquisition process is pretty much a matter of the defense minister one day announcing what the government will buy next. At least that approach economizes on transaction costs.
Comments