By Jen DiMascio
In about 14 months when a new president takes office, John Young, the newly confirmed under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics will in all likelihood be looking for another job.
In the time he has left, Young is still looking to make changes to an acquisition system riddled with problems.
There are billions of dollars in cost overruns, missed deadlines, a mounting number of contract award protests and the shadow of scandal from an aborted 2004 tanker-lease program.
Overhauling the bureaucracy that governs the purchase of the Pentagon’s most coveted and costly weapons systems is the stuff of poorly attended afternoon conferences. But comments made by Young and Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England during an early November PEO/SYSCOM Commanders conference represent a serious stab at reform, according to top industry officials.
In a Nov. 6 presentation to other government purchasing wonks, Young told the audience that “requirements, for me, are not carved in stone,” especially in cases where big savings could be realized by making different choices. “We need to make sure the cost isn’t driven by where the requirements bar is,” he said.
Young cited the Joint Tactical Radio System’s Multi-functional Information Distribution System as an example of a program that might be able to save 20 percent of the cost by adjusting the original mandate. “We have to come to the table and talk about those choices,” he said.
That sentiment caught the attention of executives who said the current process forces a “sterile dialogue” between industry and government. Making the change will be a significant challenge to the Defense Department, which is known for being set it its ways.
But those executives were encouraged to hear England’s assistance with Young’s efforts during the same early November conference.
As a “way of controlling our appetite” for growth on programs, England said he asked Young to create configuration steering boards for all large programs. A former Air Force general used just such a board to ensure that the Air Force’s F-16 was a low-cost fighter. Any change to the F-16 had to be personally approved by the general, whom no one wanted to approach, England said.
The F-16 program was also drawn from a runoff between prototypes, and appears to be the model for a new policy that requires major acquisition programs to produce two prototypes before the Defense Department will award a development contract.
“Prototyping does work,” England said, adding that it leads to a lower cost product faster.
Retired and current senior military officials said the policy articulated in a Sept. 19 memo signed by Young takes a textbook approach to managing defense programs, but they cautioned that execution will be difficult.
For starters, multiple companies rarely mature new technologies at the same time.
At a more basic level, it’s more difficult to squeeze into the budget, because larger costs are presented up front where they need to be reconciled, rather than later, where they can be delayed, changed or dealt with by another team of people.
And then there’s the day-to-day reality of living with political pressures that result from making a tough decision and the possibility that they won’t take hold.
Young’s predecessor Ken Krieg played a role in creating Program Budget Decision 753, which recommended steep cuts to missile defense programs and sought to terminate Joint Common Missile (JCM).
But those moves were directed primarily at years beyond 2004, when the decision was handed down, and in the years since, they have been overturned little by little. Members of Congress and officials within the Pentagon restored funding to the programs in trouble like JCM, which lives on as the Joint Air to Ground Missile. Perhaps the first such example is just underway.
The effects of Young’s decisions are only just beginning to be felt.
In September, the Army and Marine Corps sought to start the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program at Milestone B, but Young rejected the request, sending the program for a Humvee replacement back to the technology base for further development (Defense Daily, Oct. 9).
Companies are now teaming up to bid for the contract. Those teams include AM General and General Dynamics [GD], Lockheed Martin [LMT] and BAE SYSTEMS, and Boeing [BA] and Textron Marine & Land Systems [TXT] (Defense Daily, Oct. 30). The Defense Acquisition Board is scheduled to meet for another review of the program Dec. 5.
With months until the end of this administration, there is time for Young to make a difference in defense acquisitions, said Terry Marlowe, vice president of the Aerospace Industries Association’s government division. The difficulty, he said, is that the benefits will take time to surface.