Carter: ‘Better Buying Power’ Drives Defense Acquisitions

WASHINGTON, Feb. 23, 2011 — Sup­port­ing the war effort and man­ag­ing the bud­get are top jobs in the office of acqui­si­tion, tech­nol­o­gy and logis­tics, and both have inten­si­fied with the Pentagon’s man­date to do more with less, the Defense Department’s acqui­si­tion exec­u­tive said.
Ash­ton B. Carter gave the keynote address on the defense effi­cien­cy ini­tia­tive to an audi­ence of 500 here last night at a meet­ing of the Cen­ter for a New Amer­i­can Secu­ri­ty.

Ashton B. Carter, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics
Ash­ton B. Carter, under­sec­re­tary of defense for acqui­si­tion, tech­nol­o­gy and logis­tics, briefs reporters at a Sept. 14, 2010, Pen­ta­gon news con­fer­ence about a Defense Depart­ment ini­tia­tive to save up to $100 bil­lion over five years by imple­ment­ing reforms in acqui­si­tion and pro­cure­ment pol­i­cy.
DOD pho­to by R.D. Ward
Click to enlarge

“As one of the prongs of the effi­cien­cy ini­tia­tive, [Defense Sec­re­tary Robert M. Gates] asked me to devise a plan for find­ing effi­cien­cies with­in $400 bil­lion of the $700 bil­lion defense bud­get that is my area of respon­si­bil­i­ty,” Carter said, “name­ly, that which is con­tract­ed out of the depart­ment for goods and ser­vices.” Gates intro­duced the effi­cien­cy ini­tia­tive dur­ing a May 8 speech at the Eisen­how­er Library in Abi­lene, Kan.

“This led to some­thing called ‘bet­ter buy­ing pow­er,’ ” which he and Gates intro­duced Sept. 14, Carter said.

“It takes the form of guid­ance from me to our acqui­si­tion work force — 147,000 acqui­si­tion pro­fes­sion­als — on how they can get, as I put it, more with­out more, because we’re not going to have more.”

The objec­tive is to deliv­er the warfight­ing capa­bil­i­ties need­ed for the mon­ey avail­able, he added, by get­ting bet­ter buy­ing pow­er for warfight­ers and tax­pay­ers. The 23-point strat­e­gy seeks to restore afford­abil­i­ty in defense pro­cure­ment and to improve defense indus­try pro­duc­tiv­i­ty, Carter said. Each point was devised with input from the defense acqui­si­tion work force and from part­ners in indus­try, he said.

Major themes of the strat­e­gy, accord­ing to Carter’s guid­ance roadmap, include tar­get­ing afford­abil­i­ty and con­trol­ling cost growth, pro­vid­ing incen­tives for defense indus­try pro­duc­tiv­i­ty and inno­va­tion, pro­mot­ing com­pe­ti­tion, improv­ing the acqui­si­tion of ser­vices, and reduc­ing bureau­cra­cy.

“Our first effort has to be at afford­abil­i­ty, and that has to be for new pro­grams we’re begin­ning and ones we’ve already begun,” Carter said. An exam­ple, he said, is the the next-gen­er­a­tion bal­lis­tic mis­sile sub­ma­rine that will replace the Ohio-class nuclear mis­sile-car­ry­ing sub­ma­rine in the 2020s.

“When we got the first design and cost esti­mate for the SSBNX, we were com­ing in at $7 bil­lion apiece. If the Navy spent that much in the peri­od 2020 to 2030 on the SSBNX, it would­n’t be able to buy any oth­er ships. Said dif­fer­ent­ly, that ain’t hap­pen­ing,” Carter said.

“Rather than head down a road that was sure to lead to a bro­ken pro­gram, we had to back up and look at the dri­vers of the design,” he said. These were tube num­ber, tube diam­e­ter, degree of stealth, flank speed and oth­er fac­tors that drove the over­all cost.

“We began to shape the design with afford­abil­i­ty as a require­ment,” Carter said. “And we found we could do that.” The Navy’s cost now is down to about $6 bil­lion per sub­ma­rine, with a tar­get of $4.9 bil­lion, he added.

“And that’s the kind of thing we’re going to have to do with every­thing we’re start­ing now,” Carter said.

But some pro­grams are already in progress, Carter not­ed. “They were start­ed, and now here we are,” he said. “We have them, and we need to con­trol costs on them.” Com­pe­ti­tion is anoth­er big dri­ver of effi­cien­cy, and the Defense Depart­ment tries to use com­pe­ti­tion as cre­ative­ly as pos­si­ble, Carter added. In the recent case of the lit­toral com­bat ship, he said, two dif­fer­ent sea frame mak­ers asked to pre­pare bids for a sub­se­quent buy.

“When we got the bids in,” he con­tin­ued, “the num­bers sug­gest­ed to me that both ship­builders believed they were enti­tled to build these ships for us.”

Defense Depart­ment offi­cials decid­ed that only one ship­builder would win the con­tract, and asked each con­trac­tor to bid on build­ing 10 ships, based on the assump­tion that only one com­pa­ny would win. Oth­er incen­tives were added to the con­tract, Carter said, and when the bids came in again, “they were sub­stan­tial­ly low­er, because the peo­ple com­par­ing them had been able to think of plau­si­ble ways to reduce the costs.”

The bids were so attrac­tive, Carter said, “that we decid­ed to buy all 20. It was a great deal.”

The Defense Depart­ment does­n’t make any­thing, he not­ed.

“All of the weapons sys­tems and equip­ment that make us the best mil­i­tary in the world — and that is, next to our peo­ple in uni­form, our great­est asset as a mil­i­tary pow­er — are made in indus­try.”

The defense indus­try and its tech­no­log­i­cal health and vital­i­ty are a nation­al asset, Carter said.

“In that sense, the tax­pay­er and the warfight­er, whom I rep­re­sent, have the same inter­est as a long-term share­hold­er in the defense indus­try.”

Source:
U.S. Depart­ment of Defense
Office of the Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Defense (Pub­lic Affairs)

More news and arti­cles can be found on Face­book and Twit­ter.

Fol­low GlobalDefence.net on Face­book and/or on Twit­ter

Team GlobDef

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist GlobalDefence.net im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. GlobalDefenc.net war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →