GovernmentExecutive.com

Amid mounting concerns about skyrocketing costs and long delays in acquiring military weapons systems, the Senate Armed Services Committee today pressed top Pentagon leaders about plans to overhaul the Defense Department's buying and contracting policies.

Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., questioned the Pentagon's ability to effectively manage major programs, stating that problems identified by a presidential commission in the 1980s still have not been corrected. "Two decades later, most weapons systems still cost too much and still take too long to field," he said.

Armed Services ranking member Carl Levin, D-Mich., observed that the department does not comply with its own policies. The whole system, he said, "cries out for oversight."

The committee aired its frustration this morning at the first in a series of hearings tied to a committee investigation aimed at identifying contracting problems and shortfalls in the Defense Department's acquisition methods. The panel has taken the lead in Congress in investigating Pentagon buying policies largely because of the now-defunct Air Force deal to lease aerial refueling tankers from Boeing.

Airland Subcommittee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., sparked the committee probe more than three years ago, uncovering what is considered the biggest procurement scandal in more than two decades. On Tuesday, McCain expressed dissatisfaction with sweeping recommendations provided by Defense Department officials, and strongly encouraged them to obtain a "concrete" recommendation that would prevent a similar scandal.

Acting Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England responded that the department should align its requirements and budget processes to ensure that price tags do not grow beyond what is realistically affordable. England also said he would prefer simplifying the acquisition process to make it less bureaucratic.

"If you can simplify, it is much easier to manage, much easier to control," England said. Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee Chairman John Ensign, R-Nev., agreed. "My gut tells me that is the direction this whole process needs to go."

While the committee directed much of its focus on weapons buying, Levin and other members quizzed department officials about efforts to improve the method of contracting for services, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. The department, Levin said, has no clear career path or training for services contracting officials, a deficiency made worse by "offloading contracts" to other departments. Detainee interrogation contracts, for instance, were handled by the Interior Department, leading to a "lack of clear accountability" within the Pentagon, Levin said.

A panel appointed over the summer to assess Pentagon acquisition will review service contracts, but will focus mostly on weapons systems. Acquisition reform might be central to floor debate on the fiscal 2006 defense authorization bill, shelved in late July. Warner said Tuesday that he expects a decision on the floor schedule in the next day or two. Among amendments that could be included for debate is language written by McCain that would toughen congressional oversight of major defense programs.

COMMENTS

• Is it really so hard to figure out why defense contracting isn't improving? Agencies are pressured to award no-bid contracts to Cheney and Bush's friends and contributors, bypassing rules on competition. Bush appoints unqualified cronies as leading procurement officials of critical agencies. Bush wants to outsource us to hell and back. Almost everyone in critical positions of the administration has been a former CEO of a major corporation so they know how to work the system to get the most benefit for themselves, not for the people. You can force us in the acquisition profession to have Ph.D.'s but that's not the answer. We at the bottom of the food chain, aren't the real problem when it comes to ethics, etc. The real problem is with people like Rumsfeld, Cheney and others who are making millions from contracts awarded to their friends and political contributors. Until those who preach ethics and procurement integrity actually put them into practice the system will never change. And no amount of education will alleviate the pressure brought to bear by the vice president or Secretary of Defense. DoD contract specialist GovExec.com reader Posted September 29, 2005 8:39 AM
• I have reviewed and been involved in the two major programs coming out of the 1980 studies. The most important one was the Ichord report on the industrial base of this country that was unready for crisis. My briefing to the 5th annual Industrial Base Symposium in 1986 gave solutions Why Congress and the Presidents think that industry can do the job. The facts of the case are that the Competition in Contracting Act which was part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 only created more problems for American Companies. Morita, President of Sony Corporation indicated in comments published in the Business Week Magazine earlier in 1986 that the United States is headed to become a second class industrial power and will, in the long run, lose it place as a leader in the world. My new article "The Industrial Base -- Almost Gone" should be out within 3 months. This will enlighten people of the great danger of off-shore move of jobs. With regards to downsizing of our arsenals, depots and other production facilities, we are losing our conventional war fighting industrial base. Industry is not there to pick up the slack. We have had to purchase hundreds of millions of .556 bullets from Isreal because we can no longer produce in the quantities needed for the small conflicts in the middle east. When will we get our heads out of the sand? When will be stop destroying the ammunition base that has taken us thru 3 major conflicts in the last 60 years? What is the problem with contracting? We have not demanded business degrees of the people that we have taken into the contracting field. We do not demand of them a better understanding of Cost and Price Analysis. We do not train Contracting Officers as well as we should. Having been a Contracting Officer and Procurement Career Manager for the GS-13 and lower grades, I speak with great knowledge in this area. As an instructor of many contracting courses at a University I know the need for this education in our contracting workforce. George Nickolas, CPCM and Fellow of NCMA Posted September 28, 2005 11:25 AM