TOPICS

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday recommended major changes in the Pentagon's procurement priorities and acquisition practices, and said the department would scale back significantly the role of contractors in support services.

The recommendations are part of the Pentagon's 2010 budget request, which the White House will submit to Congress in a few weeks. Gates said President Obama agreed to the "unorthodox approach" of announcing the Pentagon's request before the White House sends the full budget to Capitol Hill, because the scope and significance of the changes warrant a deeper explanation in the context of military reform.


RELATED STORIES

The recommendations also are sure to generate a lot of pushback from lawmakers. Within an hour of Gates' briefing to reporters, a bipartisan group of senators sent the president a letter protesting recommended cuts in missile defense funding.

Gates said Defense had three main objectives: take care of troops; rebalance programs to adequately support the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; and reform how the services buy weapons.

Among the most far-reaching changes he recommended were reducing the number of support service contractors from the current level of 39 percent of the workforce to the pre-2001 level of 26 percent and replacing them with full-time government employees.

"Our goal is to hire as many as 13,000 new civil servants in 2010 to replace contractors and up to 30,000 new civil servants in place of contractors over the next five years," Gates said.

In addition, he said the department would increase the size of the defense acquisition workforce, converting 11,000 contactors and hiring an additional 9,000 government acquisition professionals by 2015, beginning with 4,100 in 2010.

Bringing back in-house more support work and expanding the acquisition workforce are essential to restoring accountability to the procurement process, Gates said.

A number of programs would be accelerated, delayed or terminated under the proposed 2010 budget. Some of the key changes include:

  • Increase the number of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from 14 aircraft to 30 in 2010
  • End production of the F-22 Raptor program
  • Increase funding for theater missile defense programs
  • Augment funding for the conversion of six additional Aegis ships to provide ballistic missile defense capability
  • Increase the number of cyber experts the department can train from 80 students annually to 250 annually by 2011
  • Solicit bids for a new refueling tanker by this summer
  • Delay the next-generation cruiser to reconsider requirements and strategic rationale
  • Postpone amphibious ship and sea-basing programs to better assess costs, capabilities and strategic needs
  • Complete and end production of the C-17 airlifter this year.

The Pentagon must demonstrate a commitment to stop programs that significantly exceed their budget or that spend limited tax dollars to buy more capability than the nation needs, Gates said. In that vein, he recommended that Congress cancel a number of programs, including:

  • The VH-71 presidential helicopter program, which was designed to provide 23 helicopters for $6.5 billion. Today the program is estimated to cost more than $13 billion and is six years behind schedule.
  • The Air Force combat search-and-rescue helicopter. It's not clear that the mission is best-served by a single-service solution with a single-purpose aircraft, according to Gates.
  • The Transformational Satellite program. As an alternative to this program, the Pentagon wants to purchase two more Advanced Extremely High-Frequency satellites.
  • Several programs in the area of missile defense, largely due to technical problems, estimated to cost about $1.4 billion.

Under the 2010 budget proposal, the Pentagon would significantly restructure the Army's Future Combat Systems, spinning out technology enhancements to all combat brigades, but canceling the vehicle component of the program.

The Pentagon also plans to press Bath Iron Works to produce all three DDG-1000 Navy destroyers in Maine in an effort to achieve economies of scale and facilitate restarting the older DDG-51 destroyer program at Northrop Grumman Corp.'s Ingalls shipyard in Mississippi, eventually building the DDG-51 at both shipyards when the DDG-1000 program wraps up after three ships. If those negotiations fail, the department would consider instead building only one prototype DDG-1000 ship. "It would unfortunately reduce our overall procurement of ships and cut workload in both shipyards," he said.

Gates said his decisions in the 2010 budget were made with an eye toward what the nation needs, and not to balance the books or to meet some pre-determined budget figure.

The budget provides an opportunity to reform the way Defense does business, he said: "It is one thing to speak generally about the need for budget discipline and acquisition and contract reform. It is quite another to make tough choices about specific systems."

COMMENTS

  • I have roughly 7 years as a government contractor, whether it has been in advisory capacity or upper management. I have read some of the comments here and I must say that I will stand up and applause the one who said the COR's do not know their jobs! In the past three years estimated, I have been through roughly 20 COR's on the SAME contract. Yes, the one who said it is the (Hey You) hiring process is right. The units will transfer or re-deploy and the newer unit will just pick one who raises the hand to be COR. Normally this is a LT or CPT who "thinks" this will add status to his tour or perhaps give him/her a reason to hide from his/her normal duties as a soldier. Each and every COR, CO, or DCMA, or other agency inspector knows NOTHING about the contract. Maybe not on all contracts, but this one I am on, geezz!! For one, these contracts are basically the copy and paste syndrome, whereas the CO really has no clue about the location or logistical nightmares or how many structures are "really" part of the SOW as example. It is and has been a dog and pony show for the most of it when you have to deal with such nonsense, but one reason I do what I do is because I thoroughly enjoy supporting our troops. My company enjoys what they do all because of the DD-250! Now if the FG wishes to employ or "convert" me to GS-15 or whatever under their own house, I know how to share latrines, so let's get it on! As long as I am still serving a worthy cause, it's all good.
  • Interesting comments - all over the map. Civil servants are slugs to contractors are pond scum. Let's face it - there's good and bad in both sectors. I'm retired military and have been employed as a Government contractor (services) for almost 20 years. One of the benefits of using contractors is the ability to retain the experience and expertise lost when people leave the military. That benefit could also be realized by hiring these same people into civil service. The statements that contractors cost more than civil service is largely a myth. In many cases, contractors have significantly more experience and expertise. Furthermore, when the Government finishes a project (or when it decides it doesn't want to do something anymore), it can terminate the contract for convenience and walk away - no strings, no nothing. Civil servants incur long term commitments in terms of benefits, especially retirement. I agree that there are too many contractors right now - but that's because there haven't been enough civil service positions, the work continues to increase (whether the work is of value is a different issue), and managers have felt pressured to hire contractors to fill in the gaps. A reasonable, rational approach to increasing civil service participation is a good idea. But I hopoe DoD doesn't throw the baby out with the bath water.
  • I honestly don't know where you will find "several hundred thousand" qualified applicants. I've been trying to hire several management analysts for over a year now and have yet to see substantial 0343 credentials or non-0343s with academic backgrounds that would promise success as management analysts; I can't even get referrals of college graduates for these positions. They must be out there somewhere, but they can't get past the DOD-Army personnel system.