PDA

View Full Version : Army Carbine Program May Waste $1.8 Billion


Richard
03-20-2013, 15:52
And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

Army Carbine Program May Waste $1.8 Billion
Bloomberg, 19 Mar 2013

The Army risks wasting as much as $1.8 billion developing a replacement for the M4 carbine that it may not need, according to the Pentagon’s inspector general.

The carbine replacement program is one the Army and Pentagon “may want to re-evaluate,” as the service is “seeking to acquire more rifles during a time when their total force structure will be reduced,” Lynne Halbrooks, principal deputy inspector general, said in a statement provided today to a House committee. The Pentagon plans to reduce Army ground forces to 490,000 by 2017 from about 560,000 in 2011.

Halbrooks’s office is auditing the program and “we expect to report concerns that” the Army “may not have an established need for this weapon nor developed performance requirements for the $1.8 billion acquisition,” she said. A draft of the audit is due to Army and Pentagon officials in about two months, she said.

Colt Defense LLC, based in West Hartford, Connecticut, is the primary supplier of the U.S. Army’s M4 rifle and would face competition under the replacement program.

The carbine replacement is among programs Halbrooks highlighted as having questionable value in the statement to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The panel is reviewing opportunities to reduce waste and improve efficiency at the Pentagon as most of as its 800,000- person civilian workforce faces one unpaid furlough day per week, from late April through Sept. 30. The department is in line for $500 billion in spending cuts over a decade on top of $487 billion that was already planned.

Financial Management

The inspector general’s efforts are focused on deficiencies in financial management, acquisition processes, contract management, readiness, information technology security and equipping and training Iraq and Afghan security forces, according to a staff memo prepared for lawmakers.

Halbrooks said the Pentagon and the Army need to re- evaluate the carbine replacement program because they’re seeking to develop the new rifle at the same time as the service is modifying the current M4 weapon.

“It’s unclear what additional capability this new rifle will have over the modified M4,” according to the report. “Key performance parameters such as accuracy, reliability and lethality have not been established.”

Army’s Response

The Army is in the second phase of the rifle competition to determine “if there’s a carbine that can provide significant value over the M4,” Matthew Bourke, a spokesman, said in an e-mailed statement. “The greatest care and consideration is being placed in this process as we determine the next individual weapon system for the soldier.”

The Army carbine program is an example of decisions the Pentagon and military services face in culling savings from the projected $27 billion expected to be spent in fiscal 2012 on major acquisition programs.

“Challenges include obtaining adequate competition in contracts, defining contract requirements, obtaining fair and reasonable prices, oversight of contractor performance and maintaining contract documentation for payments,” Halbrooks said in the statement.

“As budgets continue to come under increasing scrutiny, the department must continue to evaluate the merits, additional capabilities and cost” of major acquisition programs, she wrote.

Boeing, United Technologies

Halbrooks’s statement summarized areas of potential savings in financial and contract management completed by her agency such as the finding in 2011 of spare parts overpricing by Boeing Co. (BA) and United Technologies Corp. (UTX)’s Sikorsky Aircraft unit to support the helicopter maintenance at the Army’s Corpus Christi depot in Texas.

Those overcharges, which were previously disclosed, are cases in which the Army “did not effectively use” existing inventory before buying overpriced parts from the contractors, Halbrooks wrote.

Boeing refunded $76,849 after the inspector general determined it sold the Army a dime-sized, plastic ramp gate roller assembly used on the CH-47 helicopter for $1,678.61 apiece when the Pentagon Defense Logistic Agency had them in stock for $7.71 each.

The Army issued new guidance as a result of the report requiring the use of exiting inventory before buying the same parts from companies, Halbrooks wrote.

Halbrooks today disclosed findings of an unreleased September 2012 audit that identified more than $2.5 billion in potential savings in a Raytheon Co. (RTN) “joint land attack cruise missile defense” program that lofts sensors on board aerostats to detect incoming missiles.

The Army-managed program remains in development testing. The program manager “agreed with our report and recommendations stating ‘the impact of the current fiscally constrained environment compels redirection of funding to other systems,’” according to the statement.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-19/army-carbine-program-may-waste-1-8-billion-report-finds.html

Box
03-20-2013, 19:32
Perhaps they should consider trying to develop some sort of Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle to replace the M-4 carbine...
...maybe that would keep us from wasting money looking into a gun that the Army isn't really interested in buying.

Just a thought.

SF18C
03-20-2013, 20:28
I'll be sure to read up on this subject during my furlough days!

Streck-Fu
03-21-2013, 07:26
Boeing refunded $76,849 after the inspector general determined it sold the Army a dime-sized, plastic ramp gate roller assembly used on the CH-47 helicopter for $1,678.61 apiece when the Pentagon Defense Logistic Agency had them in stock for $7.71 each.

I would blame the government PML for that. When verifying procurement data, they should have caught that it was available in the system and that they did not need to spare it.

But then, that knife cuts both ways.

We are/were the spares stock point for a piece of aviation test equipment that we built for the Navy. Once interim support ended, we were to pass all inventory and usage/demand data to DLA.
DLA refused all of it. They did not want the parts or data, no matter how hard we tied to give it to them.
Months later when the demand built up and the fleet had assets NRFI for non-available parts, DLA finally figured out we were the OEM and contacted us for a RFQ to build new assemblies. They still refused to accept the RFI inventory sitting on shelves and insisted we built new.....

Richard
03-21-2013, 09:35
With the budget going the way it's going..."reduce - recycle - reuse" may become the new R&D mantra. :rolleyes:

Richard :munchin

SF18C
03-21-2013, 09:55
Funny how this comes out today as well...

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/03/20/pentagon-watchdog-doubts-army-needs-new-carbine.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=2

Pentagon Watchdog Doubts Army Needs New Carbine

Mar 20, 2013


The Pentagon’s Inspector General is reviewing the Army’s Improved Carbine effort, questioning whether the service’s plan to replace the long-serving M4 Carbine is worth the new weapon’s $1.8 billion price tag.

The Defense Department’s watchdog released its testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on March 19 as part of its effort to “reduce waste and improve efficiency” within the Defense Department.

“We are auditing the Army’s acquisition of the individual carbine program, which is an acquisition the department may want to re-evaluate,” said Lynne Halbrooks, principal deputy inspector general for DoD’s IG. “We expect to report concerns that DoD may not have an established need for this weapon nor developed performance requirements for the $1.8 billion acquisition.”

Army officials and program experts maintain, however, that the IG testimony contains misunderstandings about basic facts of the carbine improvement effort.

The testimony comes after the recently enacted sequestration law that could hack $46 billion out of the Defense Department’s budget over the next six months.

The Army is currently in the middle of its Improved Carbine Competition. The effort was launched in June 2011, four years after the Army’s senior leadership pledged to scour the small arms industry for a better-performing weapon than the current M4 carbine.

Colt Defense LLC -- the M4’s original maker -- is competing against Heckler & Koch, Remington Arms Company, FNH USA and Adcor Defense Inc., in exhaustive tests that will result in hundreds of thousands of rounds fired through the competitors’ weapons.

The Army released the following March 19 response to the IG testimony:


“We are currently in Phase II of the Individual Carbine Competition. The purpose of this effort is to determine if there's a commercially-available carbine that can provide significant value over the M4. The greatest care and consideration is being placed in this process as we determine the next individual weapon system for the soldier,” Army spokesman Mathew Bourke wrote.

At the same time, the Army has decided to improve the M4’s existing design as an alternative if the carbine competition doesn’t yield significant improvements over the M4, which was adopted in the mid-1990s.

“Currently, the Army is modifying its existing M4 rifle and, at the same time, seeking to develop a new rifle. However, key performance parameters such as accuracy, reliability, and lethality have not been established,” Halbrooks wrote.

This is where DoD IG officials appear to be confused.

The Army established its requirements for the improved carbine effort three years ago. The requirements document calls for a weapon that’s almost twice as accurate as the current M4, according to a source familiar with the document. It also emphasized improved reliability, serviceability and a longer-lasting barrel.

The IG also questions why the Army is “seeking to acquire more rifles during a time when their total force structure will be reduced,” Halbrooks states. “In addition, it is unclear what additional capability this new rifle will have over the modified M4.”

The Army is in the process of cutting its active force down to 490,000 -- more than 10 percent from current levels -- by 2017, but senior leaders announced last year that the service plans to replace its current M4s with M4A1s.

The M4A1 is the Special Operations Command version of the M4. It features a heavier barrel and a full-auto trigger. The Army’s decision to dump the current three-round burst trigger will give shooters a more consistent trigger pull and lead to better accuracy, weapons officials said.

Once the carbine completion is completed, Army officials will conduct an analysis of alternatives to see if the winner is a significant improvement over the M4A1 to justify the investment, Army officials said.

The IG is scheduled to release its draft report “within the next two months that will further elaborate on these concerns and provide recommendations for the Department to increase efficiencies,” Halbrooks wrote.

pcfixer
03-21-2013, 12:17
“Currently, the Army is modifying its existing M4 rifle and, at the same time, seeking to develop a new rifle. However, key performance parameters such as accuracy, reliability, and lethality have not been established,” Halbrooks wrote.

This is where DoD IG officials appear to be confused.

The Army established its requirements for the improved carbine effort three years ago. The requirements document calls for a weapon that’s almost twice as accurate as the current M4, according to a source familiar with the document. It also emphasized improved reliability, serviceability and a longer-lasting barrel.

The IG also questions why the Army is “seeking to acquire more rifles during a time when their total force structure will be reduced,” Halbrooks states. “In addition, it is unclear what additional capability this new rifle will have over the modified M4.”

The Army is in the process of cutting its active force down to 490,000 -- more than 10 percent from current levels -- by 2017, but senior leaders announced last year that the service plans to replace its current M4s with M4A1s.

The M4A1 is the Special Operations Command version of the M4. It features a heavier barrel and a full-auto trigger. The Army’s decision to dump the current three-round burst trigger will give shooters a more consistent trigger pull and lead to better accuracy, weapons officials said.

From the above post, seem like circular logic to me. But what do I know!