CommunityEditor
04-24-2009, 08:03 PM
The political elements are favorably aligned for military acquisition reform, senior members of the House Armed Services Committee said Thursday, as they rolled out their version of legislation to overhaul how the Pentagon buys major weapons.
Reform has support from Republicans and Democrats in both houses of Congress and from the president, said Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J., chairman of a newly-formed House panel on defense acquisition reform.
But the House vision of reform is somewhat different from the Senate’s, said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Skelton said he is confident the differences can be worked out.
A key difference: the House bill is aimed only at major weapons programs. It does not address small acquisitions or contracting for services. Thus it covers only about 20 percent of Pentagon acquisition, Skelton said. Reforms to address contracting are expected later.
The House bill, called the Weapons Acquisition System Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and Oversight (WASTE TKO) Act, aims in large part to control the cost of future programs by imposing discipline early.
“We know from experience that the sins which cause cost overruns are generally created in the initial stages of the acquisition process,” said Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., the senior Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.
“This legislation properly reforms and increases focus on the early stages of that system, requiring the evaluation of alternative solutions at more critical points and independent oversight earlier in the process,” McHugh said.
House members want competition to continue among weapons developers through the early stages of programs so the Pentagon has alternative available when the cost of one weapon spirals out of control or technology proves not to work as expected.
The hope is that defense companies will bear most of the cost of developing alternative weapons, Andrews said. But even if the Pentagon has to pay the development costs, they would probably be cheaper than paying the cost overruns on programs that go bad and there is no alternative, he said.
The bill also addresses current weapons programs that have gone awry.
Andrews said existing programs that have fallen behind schedule, gone over budget and don’t perform as intended have already racked up about $300 billion in cost overruns.
For those, there are “intensive care” provisions.
“If that system continues in production, then it needs to have very careful, intense scrutiny on a regular basis to make sure that it gets on track and stays on track,” Andrews said.
But he cautioned that there might not be much money saved on programs that are already in trouble.
“I don’t want to hold out the false promise that there will be huge savings in cleaning up the messes that already exist. There may be some, but the power of this idea is preventing the problems from occurring in the first place by our very intense focus on the period before the major decision to build or not to build is made,” Andrews said.
Other bill features include:
• Designating a principal adviser at the Pentagon to oversee the functions of cost estimation, systems engineering and performance assessment for major weapons.
• Giving the cost overseer sole authority for selecting confidence levels for major weapons cost estimates, and giving that person access to all cost-related records.
• Requiring periodic reviews of the performance and technological maturity of major weapons under development.
• Ensuring competition at the prime and subcontract level through a program’s lifetime.
Article: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/04/defense_housereform_042309/
Reform has support from Republicans and Democrats in both houses of Congress and from the president, said Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J., chairman of a newly-formed House panel on defense acquisition reform.
But the House vision of reform is somewhat different from the Senate’s, said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Skelton said he is confident the differences can be worked out.
A key difference: the House bill is aimed only at major weapons programs. It does not address small acquisitions or contracting for services. Thus it covers only about 20 percent of Pentagon acquisition, Skelton said. Reforms to address contracting are expected later.
The House bill, called the Weapons Acquisition System Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and Oversight (WASTE TKO) Act, aims in large part to control the cost of future programs by imposing discipline early.
“We know from experience that the sins which cause cost overruns are generally created in the initial stages of the acquisition process,” said Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., the senior Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.
“This legislation properly reforms and increases focus on the early stages of that system, requiring the evaluation of alternative solutions at more critical points and independent oversight earlier in the process,” McHugh said.
House members want competition to continue among weapons developers through the early stages of programs so the Pentagon has alternative available when the cost of one weapon spirals out of control or technology proves not to work as expected.
The hope is that defense companies will bear most of the cost of developing alternative weapons, Andrews said. But even if the Pentagon has to pay the development costs, they would probably be cheaper than paying the cost overruns on programs that go bad and there is no alternative, he said.
The bill also addresses current weapons programs that have gone awry.
Andrews said existing programs that have fallen behind schedule, gone over budget and don’t perform as intended have already racked up about $300 billion in cost overruns.
For those, there are “intensive care” provisions.
“If that system continues in production, then it needs to have very careful, intense scrutiny on a regular basis to make sure that it gets on track and stays on track,” Andrews said.
But he cautioned that there might not be much money saved on programs that are already in trouble.
“I don’t want to hold out the false promise that there will be huge savings in cleaning up the messes that already exist. There may be some, but the power of this idea is preventing the problems from occurring in the first place by our very intense focus on the period before the major decision to build or not to build is made,” Andrews said.
Other bill features include:
• Designating a principal adviser at the Pentagon to oversee the functions of cost estimation, systems engineering and performance assessment for major weapons.
• Giving the cost overseer sole authority for selecting confidence levels for major weapons cost estimates, and giving that person access to all cost-related records.
• Requiring periodic reviews of the performance and technological maturity of major weapons under development.
• Ensuring competition at the prime and subcontract level through a program’s lifetime.
Article: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/04/defense_housereform_042309/