Gates vs. Pentagon Procurement Bureaucracy
Defense Secretary Robert Gates continues to pull no punches in challenging the institution he leads. In a speech at National Defense University yesterday, he again took issue with the Pentagon's approach to procurement:
Support for conventional modernization programs is deeply embedded in our budget, in our bureaucracy, in the defense industry, and in Congress. My fundamental concern is that there is not commensurate institutional support -- including in the Pentagon -- for the capabilities needed to win the wars we are in, and of the kinds of missions we are most likely to undertake in the future.
"In recent years," Gates said, major defense platforms "have grown ever more baroque, ever more costly, are taking longer to build, and are being fielded in ever dwindling quantities." He questioned whether an emphasis on such systems had taken the focus away from procuring "specialized, often relatively low-tech equipment for stability and counterinsurgency missions."
And how do we institutionalize procurement of such capabilities – and the ability to get them fielded quickly? Why did we have to go outside the normal bureaucratic process to develop counter-[improvided explosive device] technologies, to build [mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles], and to quickly expand our [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] capability? In short, why did we have to bypass existing institutions and procedures to get the capabilities we need to protect our troops and pursue the wars we are in?
Conventional military modernization programs, Gates said, "seek a 99 percent solution in years. Stability and counterinsurgency missions -- the wars we are in -- require 75 percent solutions in months. The challenge is whether in our bureaucracy and in our minds these two different paradigms can be made to coexist."
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Staff Correspondent Alyssa Rosenberg takes a look at news affecting the management and operations of the massive federal bureaucracy.
Maybe Gates should take Acquisition 101 from Defense Acquisition University so he would know just how many required reviews there are in a Defense program. In any major program, there is so much CYA review, it slows everything down to a crawl. Also, I believe your headline (and Gates' statement about procurement) is inaccurate. Procurement is only a small part of Acquisition. Program Managers (who seem to be targeted by Gates' comments) are part of Acquisition, not Procurement
Lane Narrows Posted Wednesday, October 1, 2008 7:23 AMSorry, Lane Narrows, but your distinction between "acquisition" and "procurement" is moot in the world Gates is trying to work in.
Let's just call his goal "Getting the things we need now, in time to succeed now." And he is right - both paradigms must be made to coexist.
I have worked for years in programs that essentially are "emergency response" - and have to meet the 75% solutions he alludes to, except it is a matter of days/weeks, not months. Yes, we do this under FAR, etc.
Occasionally we have had to drag traditional contracting, procurement, & acquisitions staffs into this world, and boy, are they uncomfortable. On the other hand, when they see the operational success at the end of the "short" tunnel they realize that there are legal, effective alternatives to the protracted processes they normally impose on all their customers.
Old Tar Posted Wednesday, October 1, 2008 10:50 AMOld Tar, the 75% solution works because there is no excessive CYA reviews. I would add that many times, the 75% solutions were the best solutions to come out of DoD. Unfortunately, most programs don't get that kind of "emergency response" designation. Those programs languish in: Initial Capabilities Documents, Capability Development Document (CDD) / Capability Production Document (CPD), Concept Decision Review, Milestone B review . . . . As for procurement folks, who many times aren't brought in early enough in the process (which is unfortuneate as I think they would be more excited about a program when they feel like they are part of it, they are too often shellshocked from the "Monday Morning Quaterbacking" that goes on with IG or GAO audits 5 or 6 years down the road when everyone has forgotten what the emergency was. Find some of that CYA review protection for them and they might be more on board. I still maintain that procurement is a portion of acquisition and in DoD, usually begins around Milestone C.
Lane Narrows Posted Thursday, October 2, 2008 7:47 AM