Acquisitions Process Problems ?

[LarryW]

Quite recently (within the last 5yrs, anyway) DOD went thru a change in acquisition strategy that shifted much if not all the management of major acquisitions projects from the respective service Program Managers and Program Executive Offices (PEOs) to contractors. The Navy's DDG-21 is a good example. The contract was awarded to Northrop-Grumman Ship Systems (NGSS) who was given the responsibility of providing a total surface combatant to the Navy; hull, engineering plant, combat system (including guns and missiles), etc. NGSS then sub-contracted with BAE, Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin and others to come up with the elements for that ship. It hasn't worked out very well. Lots of inadequate systems and huge cost overruns. (IMHO it's been a process problem not necessarily one NGSS could have done anything about.) The DON had little more than an oversight function in the whole thing, with NGSS holding all the cards. To further exacerbate the problem, the "up-or-out" practice for officers who could have provided critical oversight has created a "don't make waves" mentality that feeds into the failure of this acquisition policy. The genesis of USN acquisitions used to be: First, a Mission Needs Statement (MNS) (identifying what the DOD need is for this system) then a Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis (COEA) is staffed by the DOD and is used to develop an Operational Requirements Document (ORD). This becomes the cornerstone for a Request for Proposal (RFP) sent out to contractor(s). Contractors bid on the development of the system, and the winner develops a Prime Item Development Spec (PIDS) and then a Systems Spec. (DON staffing used to go on at each level and transition between these steps.) Development would then continue thru Developmental Testing (DT) (performed by the contractor to prove their design and show readiness to proceed to Operational Testing) and finally to Operational Testing (OT) conducted by DON using Fleet assets and operators without contractor presence. The goal of OT was to determine and measure the Suitability and Effectiveness of the developed product/system. If the system under test is felt to be Suitable and Effective its then up to the DON to fund production. The concept was build-a-little/test-a-little until you have a system or product that can be introduced to the Fleet with a high confidence of success in war fighting. The Navy doesn't do this as precisely as it used to anymore, and IMHO it is the worse for it.

Some disparity has been cast on some weapon systems and vehicular systems the Army has acquired. I'm wondering if the SF community has a high level of confidence that when a product is given to them that it has been sufficiently developed to meet a need, adequately reviewed for quality assurance, and thoroughly tested before they get it. If not then IMHO the acquisitions process needs to be changed.

v/r,
LarryW