As the Army prepares to adopt 63 of 76 proposals from the recommendations of its 2010 Acquisition Review, the senior service acquisition official warns it’s not a one–time fix, but a continuous effort.
“Acquisition reform really is a marathon, not a sprint. Many of the efforts we’ve started are going to take time until we see results so it’s a long journey that we’re already starting down this path,” said Heidi Shyu, acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology. “What the study provided us is a wonderful framework for us to start to attack the problems and the challenges that are facing acquisition,”
The acquisition review, made available yesterday, is closely tied to Army-wide efforts to transform the institutional Army and the service has already begun to address many of the initiatives. It is closely tied to Army-wide efforts to transform the institutional Army and the service has already begun to address many of those initiatives, already implemented or in process on a number of those initiatives.
Thomas Hawley, deputy Under Secretary of the Army, said implementing reform has high level attention: “Improving acquisition is the Secretary of the Army’s priority.”
Army Secretary John McHugh commissioned the review from an understanding of the need for change and realization that “budgets will almost certainly drop, the only question is how much,” Hawley said. McHugh is “pushing the Army to be leaner, more agile and more responsive to the needs of deployed soldiers and the combatant commanders.”
At the same time, the challenge to improve acquisition for the Army fits the Defense Department acquisition chief Ashton Carter’s better buying power policy.
McHugh plans to adopt 63 of 76 proposals from the recommendations of the 2010 Acquisition Review and once he signs off on how to implement those changes, reforms will be implemented–likely this fall, Hawley said.
Some changes have been implemented, Shyu said, for example in the Ground Combat Vehicle, which began a DoD review yesterday.
One of the key things now is looking at balanced trades, she said. This is to understand the capabilities the Army would like as well as the costs associated with getting that capability. “We’re doing balanced tradeoffs, capability versus cost because that drives our capability.”
Additionally, the service is conducting capability portfolio reviews to see how to balance the portfolio, what is it doing to recapitalize systems versus what new systems must be designed and developed for new capabilities, such as more protection. Then, how does that fit within the budget constraints.
Hawley said there would be structural changes as well, and the service is now sorting out the specifics and how to do that.
McHugh wants to “make the system work better,” Hawley said. However, it will take continuous examination and leadership by all hands to make the system work.
Another effort is to collaborate, Shyu said, to have requirements folks work with resource and acquisition folks to define programs that are “affordable and achievable…absolutely what we did on GCV.”
Increasing interactions with industry are another way to make the system work better, she said. McHugh has quarterly engagements with company CEOs, to better understand their concerns and issues–and it won’t just be interactions at the highest level, but also at other levels.
“Open dialogue is critical,” said Shyu, a former Raytheon [RTN] vice president.
The Army Acquisition Review (AAR), delivered in January, was co-chaired by former service acquisition chief Gilbert Decker and retired Gen. Louis Wagner. The report, “Army Strong: Equipped, Trained and Ready, Final Report of the 2010 Army Acquisition Review,” will guide the service as it moves ahead developing and buying weapons and equipment.
Over time, there have been myriad reports how to solve the problems in acquisition, from the blue ribbon panel led by David Packard in 1986 to more recent Army efforts and multiple reports from the Government Accountability Office, all with multiple recommendations for change, all expected to make changes.
However, the impacts have been diluted by changes in political and military leaders and in program offices and emphases.
Hawley said the leadership in place now–McHugh, Shyu, and Carter–are all backing the ways to make the acquisition process better.
“I can’t predict what people will do 20 years from now, but I’m confident that whoever the defense leaders are they’ll want to spend money wisely and they’ll want to equip their soldiers wisely, and we’re required by law to do what we can to defend this country,” Hawley said. “I’m confident that today’s leaders or tomorrow’s leaders will be committed to this effort.”