New legislation would enforce defense acquisition reform

2010 National Defense Authorization Act seeks greater oversight of services and speedier ways to buy information technology

The House version of the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act would require the Defense Department to hire an outside organization to assess its use and oversight of services contracts.

The House Armed Services Committee believes DOD doesn't have a strategic approach to managing its services contracts, according to the committee’s June 18 report on the authorization bill (H.R. 2637).

As a result, “the department is at risk of being unable to identify and correct poor contractor performance in a timely manner and is at risk of paying contractors more than the value of the services they performed,” the committee wrote.

The House passed the bill June 25 by a vote of 389-22. The Senate committee has approved its version of the legislation the same day.

Under the House bill, the assessment would be conducted by a federally funded research and development center. The center would look at the guidance DOD provides its acquisition workforce on how to develop a services contract, including how to define requirements and the associated performance metrics.

The center also would look at whether or not DOD has enough people in its acquisition workforce to do the work appropriately. The report would be due in March 2010.

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the legislation supports the Defense Secretary Robert Gates' plan to increase the civilian acquisition workforce’s size and to reduce DOD’s reliance on contractors for critical acquisition duties. DOD officials want to hire 9,000 new government employees and convert 11,000 contractor jobs to DOD civilian personnel.

“Defense acquisition reform is a top priority for our committee,” Skelton said in statement June 17 after his committee approved the legislation.

In another acquisition reform, the committee wants to find ways for DOD to buy IT more quickly.

IT systems require regular updates, because of changes in technology, which affects critical parts of the DOD infrastructure. But DOD’s process for buying IT makes it difficult for the department to keep up, according to a DOD task force.

The acquisition process is time-consuming and cumbersome, the task force wrote in a March report. "The process should be agile and geared to delivering meaningful increments of capability in approximately 18 months or less."

The House bill would allow DOD to pick 10 IT programs every year in which to test new procurement processes. Acquisition reforms in the House's fiscal 2010 National Defense Authorization Act concentrate on oversight of service contracts and buying information technology quickly.

About the Author

Matthew Weigelt is acquisition editor for Federal Computer Week.

Reader Comments

Wed, Jul 29, 2009 mike mcmanus

Re: the "requirement that a Defense Department contracting officer justify why a contract worth more than $20M should be awarded on a sole-source basis." Folks, they already have to! In order to award any non-competative contract the contracting officer is required to process a J&A (justification and authorization). An element of a J&A is an analysis of the results of the market research conducted which must demonstrate that the validated and approved requirements (established by the technical side/end user of the team) of the instant acquisiton can only be performed by one source. It appears that the powers-that-be need to reread the existing regualtions.

Wed, Jul 8, 2009 Michael Horn

With the death of Robert S. McNamara this week there has been a lot of commentary --- most of it related to Vietnam. We got into Vietnam for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time and we got out of Vietnam at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. I take greater issue with McNamara's efforts to dismantle the acquisition system developed by Bernard Schriever then replace with a Harvard Business School Solution which is pretty much in place today. I suggest viewing the Legends of Airpower episode on General Schriever with this in mind. Schriever's acquisition model looked more expensive but in the long run actually cost less and new weapons systems were on-line and functioning sooner.

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above

Highlights from the current issue

eSeminar

  • Where Cyberwarfare and Cybersecurity Meet

    We invite you to attend the third event in this three-part series on Cybersecurity. 1105 Government Information Group will present a panel of government and cybersecurity experts, including Jeffrey Carr, cyber strategies consultant and author of Inside Cyber Warfare; Dean Lindstrom, strategic cybersecurity architect and CEO of Cyberström LLC; and Dr. George Stein, director of the Cyberspace and Information Operations Study Center, Air War College, U.S. Air Force, in this editorial webcast on Tuesday, April 13 at 11 a.m., where they will discuss the cyberwarfare threat to both industry and government, as well as strategies to consolidate the wider cybersecurity mission. Read more