Army to shake up acquisition process
Well, let’s open with an observation: Talk is cheap. We’ve heard so many times that government acquisition has been slow, the pace was lethargic, and it just really can’t be sped up much, but we will now – and then we never do. I have to admit, this time at least the noises the Army is making are sounding good. Some of the actions taken – not so much (we’ll talk about that later) but what the Army is describing sounds logical.
First up? The famous Military Industrial Complex. The MIC, that small close-knit incestuous set of, what, half a dozen mega-contractors (in Korea I guess we would call them chaibols like Hyundai or Samsung) who seem to supply almost all the major acquisitions. Pretty sure anyone here can come up with a list – Boeing and Lockheed-Martin for flying stuff, nowadays Sig for hand weapons, and so on. Most contracts go out for bid to a small number, and reputedly in many cases the bids are tailored to the preferred supplier so that their product is almost the only one that can fit the specs, right? Per Army Secretary Dan Driscoll:
“We cannot f-ing wait to innovate until Americans are dying on the battlefield,” Driscoll said. “We must act now to enable our soldiers. Our window to change is right now, and we have a plan to do it. We will set the pace with innovation and we will win with silicon and software, and not with our soldiers’ blood and bodies.”
Among coming changes, he said, is a new system that will combine Army equipment-purchasing entities under a single organization reporting directly to Army leadership and dramatically reduce the 12- to 18-month contracting cycle.
Driscoll castigated the Army for its reliance on outdated equipment, pointing to a photograph showing a soldier born in 2004 working on a computer system fielded in 1995, a decade before his birth.
“Meanwhile, Ukraine is updating its drone software every couple of weeks,” he said. “It is absolutely unconscionable that we would send soldiers to war with 30-year-old, obsolete systems. This is the inflection point where we turn it all around.”
“Unequivocal failures” like the Boeing–Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche helicopter (canceled in 2004), XM2001 Crusader self-propelled howitzer (canceled in 2002) and M10 Booker Light Tank (canceled earlier this year) have contributed to losing the public’s trust and cost billions, he said, while leaving troops without the contemporary gear they need.
Repair supply chains are in the spotlight, too.
Driscoll also brought aircraft parts on to the stage: a fin for a UH-60 Black Hawk’s external fuel tank and a tiny Black Hawk screen control knob. The parts, he said, could be 3D-printed at higher quality for about $3,000 and $60 respectively, but cost $14,000 and $47,000 for full assembly replacements from the manufacturer.
He cited other “disruptive” initiatives on display at the show, including a “Shark Tank”-like program to apply venture capital to Army tech initiatives, campus-style dining facilities and adoption of 3D-printed concrete structures to cut construction costs. Defense News
Sounds like a lot of the changes hinted at back in July are coming to fruition (here’s an example – Breaking News.)
The service began previewing aspects of that approach at this week’s conference via what it’s calling xTechDisrupt, a “shark tank” style competition that lets small and medium businesses present technology proposals and compete for prizes of $62,500 each to start implementing their ideas over the next 30 days.
xTechDisrupt is, in turn, part of a larger initiative called Fuze that the Army launched in September, designed to bring together the service’s existing innovation programs and make them easier for small businesses to access while connecting those firms to funding with processes patterned after private venture capital models.
“It will identify promising startups, quickly fund them and get minimally viable products to soldiers in weeks,” Driscoll said. “Fuze, like VC firms, will be successful because we will work with agile, innovative, hungry startups that live on the very edge of innovation. We aligned $750 million to this model, and it will increase to $765 million next year. That’s over a 150% increase in the Army’s funding toward emerging tech and innovation.”Federal News Network
Anything that makes the system more agile and forward thinking is good by me.
(Things I question? Looking at small arms, it seems we have acquired the perfect sniper round. The perfect infantry round. The perfect CQB round. Lots of ‘perfect’ rounds. Too many! We won WWII with two basic infantry rounds (.30-06 and .30 Carbine in today’s parlance) and two handgun calibers (.45ACP and .38 Special (Patton’s .357 doesn’t count.) Do a quick bit of research on how many different rounds – 5.56, 6.5, 6.8 and more) we are fielding and have to supply. It has the potential to be a logistics nightmare.)
Category: "Your Tax Dollars At Work", Army
I agree with you about the logistics angle of trying to supply different types of ammo but that is a pretty common situation. Armor for example has several main gun rounds as does arty. Snipers use far less ammo than an infantry squad. Quite frankly I don’t think those are going to choke logistics as much as spare parts for equipment.
As to the 3D printed stuff. How is that going to be impacted by the manufacturer’s patents? The “intellectual” property of the supplier is likely to be a legal bottle neck. I’m sure the contract for weapons and other systems all have a clause in it for the manufacturer to supply parts for a minimum time. In aging systems, think B52, those patents have all expired as did the suppliers contracts.
*Yawn*
Sorry, but I have heard and seen this “shake up the acquisition process” stuff for over half a century. As the French say, “Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.”
For context, I work in global supply chain for one of those MIC giants. Things do take too long and it frustrates not only me, but our PM types and our Army customers. From a contracting POV, one reason why contracts take so long to place is all of the FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation) and DFAR (add ‘Defense’) regulations. The intent is to make sure that a quality product is delivered to the government/ military for a reasonable price. [Funny aside there – I get scrutinized for every part that I am expected to put on purchase order. Never am going to have any stories about a $900 hammer in my experience.] Things are expensive, and that’s hard to get around when you are buying a custom cable (for example) and only buying 54 of them in any given year. Suppliers tend to make that lovingly crafted to military specifications custom cable fairly expensive whereas a similar cable for Ford is comparatively cheap because they can buy from some place what ain’t ‘Murica and they are buying 100,000 in a year. Another major issue is the POM process. That is where our DoW component heads plan out what will be spent in the next several years. When you are planning your money out 5 years in advance, it is hard to be flexible. Also, (having been in the active duty ranks as an officer for 20 years) I found you are more likely to be yelled at for not spending all of your money vice being given an attaboy for being so frugal with tax payer money. (In other words, there are issues on the USG side, too.) Until someone can tackle the way we apportion money in the military, that won’t change. So they can make changes here and there, but until there are major overhauls of the apportionment process and the acquisition process, not sure how much can change. Finally, as long as the desire is to have the newest, most high tech gear around, things are going to take a long time to develop and cost a… Read more »
Lot of people fail to grasp that making low quantities of something is far more expensive than high volumes. Let’s say you want a small molded part – you want 10 of them. The molder has to acquire the proper resin (which costs more per piece than large quantities do), mount and check the molds (an easy 3-4 hour process) then make your ten parts – and then replace the now-unneeded molds with whatever is needed next. The actual manufacturing cost for those 10 pieces can be so much higher per piece that it may be more cost effective to buy a much higher number of parts because their price may be the same as the price for just a few.
Now do the “Buy American Act” clauses…. all 26 of them. Which one applies….depends ! 🙂
You can debate those for DAYS with NAVFAC…or any other Gov’t bureaucrat …. lol
If they really want to shake up the acquisition process, they’d get rid of mil-specs on items that don’t need mil-spec’d. I’d wait months for parts my civilian friend in town could get in a day because mine had to be mil-spec’d. Other than the mil-specs, the GI equipment and the civilian equipment were the same.
As I told the Army Colonel, there are US manufacturers who will not sell to the US Government and the DLA knows that. He refused to believe it; as though there’s a law that states if you manufacture in the USA; you must sell to the USA Government, there isn’t such a law.
At an past job, a DLA rep called me and asked if I sold directly to the Government. I replied I did and was shocked when she admitted there are some that don’t because of the rules, set asides, and mil-spec packaging and labelling requirements. The manufacturers’ parts and equipment are used by the Government, but, they must be purchased from a third party retailer which increases the prices.
Lowest bidder?
Remember that the Gamma Goat is a military grade vehicle.
If you think “talk is cheap”, ask a lawyer what six minutes of talking costs. That’s the minimum charge for a one word answer.
Defense industry corruption has entered a new era of massive theft of public wealth.
https://www.semafor.com/article/10/21/2025/us-army-turns-to-private-equity-for-infrastructure-funding
I’m loving your new name. Very appropriate. You’re a willing participant in the world’s greatest con: liberal/progressive political beliefs. Bravo!
Is that our Conservative friend with his socialist Shtick act a little to late for the now defunct NY Catskils hotels acts.
Mmmyeah right!
What’s her, the gun model’s, NSN?
Asking for a friend seriously, as CINC Household wouldn’t allow one of those in the house….!
Mike
USAF Retired
867-5309. Ask for Jenny.
Looks high maintenance
Okay; I was 1st Supply BN (Dragon Warriors)….because we dragged things here, and there, and to the front, and to the rear…and I don’t carewhatyouthinkaboutthatyoufucksticks ass holes, and non-rates who have no I-fucking-dee-aha how hard it was to be a 3043 Supply Administration and Opperationsman in the United States Marine Corps who had to deal with the day to day trials of the infinite trials and tribulations of trying to comport ourselves to the demands of the standard infantry platoon, while also trying to keep ourselves within the required limits imposed by the United States Government!
Aww fuck that, and fuck alla you.
I wanna know how to make a aquissishion on that young gal wit the gun!
And if enny of ya got some of that UP CORN let me know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ya youngass fuck sticks.
Well, I am acquainted with one Non-developmental Item from my active duty days. The Army acquired the Biological Integrated Detection System (BIDS) from off the shelf parts. It fit in a commo shelter could be carried on the back of a heavy HUMVEE. The system detected biological agents. There was a generator on a trailer too. I was a maintenance data collector; 12 hours in a CUCVEE waiting for something to happen. That was during final evaluation and testing. The system was later shrunk down to fit inside a Fox vehicle. (I think the Fox was used in the movie “Independence Day” in the Houston attack scene.
Also, I worked on the usual way too. One April the LT had to spend two grand or we might not get it back. She wanted to buy gun racks for the trucks. We could not find any in FEDLOG. We bought two thousand dollars worth of shop rags.