In America: U.S. Department Of War Pursues Acquisition Reform
Earlier this month, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced that the Department of War (DOW) will be seeking acquisition reform to improve its processes and policies. To enhance capabilities, the Department of Defense and other government organizations are working towards efficiency, reliability/ownership, and cost-reduction. Key elements to this sales overhaul include policy change, process innovation, and use of Government Accountability Office recommendations. As the government seeks acquisition reform, it brings attention to the unstable relationship suppliers deal with when selling to the government.
What Will The Acquisition Reform Look Like?
The Department of War, and other government entities, aim to acquire goods and services from sellers in a manner that will maintain a competitive edge in military capabilities to respond more effectively to emerging threats. The Secretary of War referenced three Pentagon memorandums explaining the extent of the targeted changes and the urgency needed in the Defense Acquisition System (DAS)’s transformation. The DOW wants to reform the DAS to be a system that is prepared for modern adversaries and their decisiveness. The United States government has openly expressed concern with China and Russia being potential adversaries due to their rapid modernization and development of warfare technology. The Government of Accountability Office explains the current acquisition system in comparison to these adversaries is too-slow in delivering military equipment with critical capabilities. The current culture within the DAS has been described as “compliance-driven” rather than “warfighter-first.” The DOW would like for the DAS to resemble how the United States supported allies in previous global conflicts with previous acquisition operations.
“Today's unacceptably slow acquisition delivery and fielding times stem from three systemic challenges: (1) fragmented accountability where no single leader has the necessary authorities to lead our programs and urgently deliver results; (2) broken incentives that reward completely satisfying every requirement and specification at significant cost to on time delivery; and (3) government procurement behaviors that disincentivize industry investment, efficient production, and growth, leading to constrained industrial capacity that cannot surge or adapt quickly.”
The Acquisition Transformation Strategy’s objective is to strengthen the country’s ability to overpower adversaries in wartime surges and for the United States to be a primary military equipment supplier to ally countries. To do this, the Department of War will be using the “Warfighting Acquisition System” (WAS) to create faster field technology, increase production capacity of military supplies, and create accountability in this system by providing leadership the necessary authority to conduct acquisition operations with urgency. These changes would require numerous government organizations in the acquisition workforce to increase their efficiency through advanced training, more capabilities, and incentivized performance.
Within the acquisition workforce, there are multiple areas of focus that the DOW will be providing advanced training for. This includes Business Financial Management/Cost Estimating, Contracting, Engineering, Life Cycle Logistics, Program Management, and Test and Evaluation. Efforts to promote these changes will come from the Warfighting Acquisition University, Portfolio Acquisition Executives, Capability Portfolio Management and others. Revamping the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) and the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) will support leadership goals set out by the DOW. The JROC and JCIDS will see reform through redirection of supervision responsibilities and mission-focused requirements to address operational problems.
In order for the United States to improve its military support capabilities, it requires healthy business relations in the world of defense and military equipment. Some in this industry have shared frustrations with the government’s behavior in these interactions.
Critics Claim The Government’s Business Practices Hold Some Responsibility For Ongoing Inefficiency
Currently, the government has a complex relationship with military equipment suppliers and partnerships. Industry partners will avoid making the investments necessary to work with the military due to its inconsistency in upholding its budget plans. When a partner is providing goods or services, the military often deviates in its expenditures. The Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) explains the importance of the government’s behavior with its business partners in these transactions.
“Persistent uncertainty in long-term defense spending levels, fluctuations in demand, and perennial priority shifts have long deterred business partners from making early capital commitments. At the heart of this challenge is trust—the Pentagon should want to instill in industry partners that it will ultimately buy what it says it will.”
Defense companies rely on the government as their main customer. Making predictions on what the military or other government entities may need is risky. If these organizations do not provide what is needed, and when it's needed, it can result in the military going elsewhere for its needs leaving industries facing disastrous financial loss. This risk can be combated with research agreements between the defense industry and the government for product development. The uncertainty of this business relationship added to the inflation currently being experienced in the United States has cost billions.
As the government seeks acquisition reform, it has defined where current issues stem from. This has allowed the DOW to take direct action improving the country’s acquisition system. In addition to the system’s operational transformation, business partners suggest more concrete military spending to improve the United States’ ability to combat potential adversaries and support other countries in global conflict.
