The Pentagon’s top weapons buyer has some questions about the Senate Armed Services Committee’s (SASC) acquisition reform proposal, specifically on language that would give the service chiefs more authority in the process.
Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, has not seen the acquisition reform language that committee chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) included in the panel’s version of the fiscal year 2016 defense authorization bill. But although more involvement of the service chiefs is welcome, some parts of the process are better left to acquisition officials, he said May 19 during a speech to the Northern Virginia Technology Council.
“I don’t think they [service chiefs] should be making decisions about what kind of contract to use,” he said. “I don’t think they should making judgments necessarily about what kind of risk mitigation to do when it comes to the products.”
While the specifics of SASC’s bill have not been released, a press release from McCain said that the language would redirect some decision-making authority from the Pentagon to the services themselves.
“The bill demands accountability by establishing performance agreements with service chiefs, service secretaries, service acquisition executives and program managers signing up to binding management, requirement and resource commitments,” it said. “The bill also creates new incentives for the services to deliver programs on time and on budget.”
Army Chief of Staff Gen Raymond Odierno has been one of the biggest advocates for increasing the influence of the service chiefs in the acquisition process. During a conference in April, he told reporters the chiefs would bring added insight and experience to the system (Defense Daily, April 1).
When the services have dominated decision-making about military procurement programs, they have often sculpted programs that turn out to be “pretty big trainwrecks,” Kendall said. One example was the Army’s disastrous Future Combat Systems program, an enormous undertaking to equip brigades with a network of sensors, unmanned ground and aerial systems, vehicles and other equipment. Not only was the program overly ambitious in every respect, the Army dictated a schedule that was unrealistic and forced acquisition officials to take a lot of risk, he said.
The service chiefs should be “intimately involved” with the development and purchase of new weapon systems, but that does not require a legislative change to policy, Kendall told reporters after the speech. Service chiefs already play a key role, as they have the power to set the budget and make weapon system requirements.
The problem is more within the culture of the Defense Department, where acquisition and operational personnel do not always see themselves as on the same team, he said.
“I think there’s a perception that there’s a gap” between acquisition and operations, and “that creates the gap itself,” he said.”I just think we need to do some things internally to strengthen the relationship.”
Kendall noted that while he met several times with House Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) to discuss reform language, the last time he met with the McCain was in November.
“I’d like to have a lot more contact” with the SASC chairman, he said. “I have talked to his staff since the first of the year two or three times, but we didn’t get a draft of what he was going to do, so we didn’t have a chance to interact on that.”
Kendall also expressed reservations regarding a part of Thornberry’s bill, the “dual track” provision that would require officers to spend half of their career in operations and half in acquisition.
“I think what you end up with that is someone who is not really proficient in either one,” he said. While it’s important for acquisition personnel to take on operational roles, “one or two tours, I think, is fine.”