The Pentagon’s acquisition process is notoriously sluggish and bureaucratic, but the Senate Armed Services Committee’s (SASC) version of the FY ’16 defense authorization bill aims to give it a shot in the arm, handing officials more power to buy equipment in a fraction of the usual timeline.
Contained in the bill is acquisition reform language that will likely spur Pentagon opposition, such as the transfer of some authorities from Defense Department officials to service executives, said Andrew Hunter, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former director of the Defense Department’s Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell. Other changes are closely aligned, but not 100 percent simpatico with the goals of Pentagon top weapons buyer Frank Kendall, who has pushed to speed up and streamline the process. 
“I’m a big fan…of the effort to give the department some some additional rapid acquisition authority and more authority to do prototyping of new technologies,” he said. “I think there’s a lot of really good stuff in there.”
One provision in SASC’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would give the Defense Secretary the power to designate rapid acquisition programs caused by combat emergencies or urgent operational needs. According to the bill, he or she would be able to authorize rapid acquisition if a deficiency has or is likely to cause causalities or mission failure, or if it’s needed to eliminate a cyber vulnerability that could result in mission failure, loss of life or severe economic consequences.
The Defense Secretary then would designate a senior official to be responsible for acquiring the system, with a goal of awarding a contract in 15 days or less. The bill also sets a $200 million maximum ceiling for supplies and support services each fiscal year.
Fifteen days sounds aggressive, but it’s within the realm of possibility, said Dan Ward, a consultant who spend 20 years as an acquisition officer in the Air Force.
“My biggest successes were always when we had no time, no money and really urgent need,” he said. “Technologies that are produced on short timelines—like aggressively short timelines, 15-day type timelines–those tend to perform well” and are often less costly and more readily available, he said.
The 15-day deadline might not always be achievable, “but I don’t think it’s a bad target,” Hunter said. “I think in practice, what happens is they shoot for 15 days, sometimes they get there, sometimes it may be a little bit longer.”
The Pentagon would have two years to transition a product from the rapid acquisition system to the normal process, the NDAA stated.
Several provisions in the bill are intended to spark development of prototypes, especially for technologies that need to quickly move to the battlefield.
The legislation calls for the department to establish new guidance for acquiring “mid-tier” urgent needs that can be fielded in two to five years. Those programs will follow either a rapid fielding pathway—geared to get technologies that need minimal development into production within six months—or a prototyping pathway meant for more experimental capabilities. Under the prototyping path, companies will develop innovative technologies with the goal of fielding a system within five years that can provide “residual operational capability.”
The bill would require the participation of “nontraditional” defense contractors or small businesses in all projects in the prototype pathway, except in “exceptional” cases.
The NDAA also would set up a “Rapid Prototyping Fund” made up from cost overrun penalties specified elsewhere in the bill. The account would be managed by a senior Defense Department acquisition official, who would be able to transfer funds to projects as needed.
“Looking at the Senate language, their focus really seems to be on how do we leverage innovative technology that arises unexpectedly” and transition that from development to an actual product, Hunter said.
“I think that’s a really worthwhile thing,” he said, adding that he wasn’t sure how receptive the Defense Department would be to it.
Streamlining processes was also a focus of the SASC bill. One section of the bill establishes a nine-person advisory panel tasked with who will study current law and recommend the elimination of dysfunctional regulations. The panel must comprise individuals with both public and private sector experience, the bill stipulates.
Another section would require the Defense Secretary to submit procedures and guidelines for “alternative acquisition pathways” that leverage flexible authorities in existing laws and condense the contracting, budgeting and requirements processes.
The bill would also authorize the Defense Secretary to waive certain acquisition regulations when vital for U.S. national security. Congress must be notified anytime that power is used.
The bill language, released May 21, would not go into effect unless approved by Senate appropriators and agreed to by the House and President Obama. Appropriations committees have historically been more skeptical of the need for more rapid acquisition authority, Hunter said. “What you sometimes see happen is that the authorizers pass something, and then the appropriators will pass something that effectively negates it.”
The Senate Appropriations Committee has yet to put forward its version of the defense budget and has not scheduled a release date.