Several former Pentagon acquisition officials spoke to Congress on Tuesday about problems of trust between the Defense Department and the companies that provide platforms, weapon systems and other services.
The issue was raised during a House Armed Services Committee hearing by Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.), who told the panelists that when she talks to defense contractors about doing business with the Pentagon, she consistently hears about the trust issue.
Brett Lambert, a former deputy assistant secretary in the Pentagon for the industrial base and now a fellow at the National Defense Industrial Association, told members that one thing responsible for muddying trust is that during program competitions Pentagon officials are limited in their ability to communicate with industry because of rules designed to keep competitions fair.
“The defense procurement process is the only process in the world that the closer you get to making an acquisition from a company, the less you can talk to them,” he said.
Other panelists agreed with that assessment, including retired Vice Adm. David Venlet, the former program executive officer for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the largest acquisition in Pentagon history. The F-35 program has experienced massive cost overruns and delays that have resulted in tension between the Pentagon and prime contractor Lockheed Martin
[LMT].
Venlet said “the heavy influence” of rules meant to ensure fairness in competitions has an impact on trust, but he also noted there needs to be a balance to allow for better communication.
“It’s that tension and that balance between fairness for industry and yet the need to communicate clearly so that industry really knows what you want,” he said.
Ronald O’Rourke, a veteran Navy analyst at the Congressional Research Service, said a key way to avoid trust breeches is to get the program’s requirement right from the beginning and ensure industry understands what they are and whose responsible for which aspects of the program.
“If you invest that time up front to get the requirements right, then you put the program into a condition where it’s less likely to fall apart and cause a breakdown in that trust,” he said, adding that investing in the future success of a program “builds trust rather than eradicates it.”