Carter: Budget Cuts Demand More DOD Buying Power

WASHINGTON, April 20, 2011 — As the Defense Depart­ment seeks addi­tion­al cost cuts to sup­port Pres­i­dent Barack Obama’s deficit-reduc­tion efforts, weapons sys­tems and oth­er major pro­cure­ment pro­grams cer­tain­ly will be on the table, but won’t be enough to achieve the president’s goals, the Pentagon’s acqui­si­tions chief said today.

DOD also must iden­ti­fy effi­cien­cies in the $400 bil­lion it spends each year on con­tract­ed goods and ser­vices and find ways to increase its buy­ing pow­er, Ash­ton B. Carter, under­sec­re­tary of defense for acqui­si­tion, tech­nol­o­gy and logis­tics, told a Her­itage Foun­da­tion audi­ence.

Defense Sec­re­tary Robert M. Gates has acknowl­edged that the Defense Depart­ment can’t be immune from the nation­al secu­ri­ty bud­get reduc­tions the pres­i­dent has called for, Carter said. As DOD pre­pares to launch a com­pre­hen­sive review of the impact of those reduc­tions in fis­cal 2013 and beyond, Carter said, it’s already clear that the days of “ever-increas­ing bud­gets of the post‑9/11 decade” are gone.

“What­ev­er the bud­get lev­els are, this will feel very dif­fer­ent to a group of gov­ern­ment and indus­try man­agers and con­gres­sion­al over­seers who have grown accus­tomed to a cir­cum­stance where they could always reach for more mon­ey when they encoun­tered a man­age­r­i­al or tech­ni­cal prob­lem or a dif­fi­cult choice,” he said.

And more than ever before, it’s clear that every­one –- from the pres­i­dent to the defense sec­re­tary to the tax­pay­er –- expects DOD to make every dol­lar it gets count. “In short, they want bet­ter val­ue for the defense dol­lar,” Carter said. “This is what the coun­try should expect, no mat­ter what size the defense bud­get is.”

DOD already has made big strides in improv­ing effi­cien­cy, he not­ed. Over the last cou­ple of years, the depart­ment has can­celled more than $300 bil­lion in acqui­si­tion pro­grams -– some that were under­per­form­ing, some that had become too cost­ly and some for capa­bil­i­ties DOD already had.

“We are get­ting to the point where most of the pro­grams we now have under way or which are get­ting under way are mil­i­tary capa­bil­i­ties we do need and do want,” Carter said, “and [we need] to get them for the mon­ey the coun­try can afford to give us.”

Addi­tion­al acqui­si­tion pro­grams are like­ly to get the ax as the depart­ment seeks addi­tion­al ways to cut costs, Carter said. And although DOD will con­tin­ue to ini­ti­ate new, need­ed pro­grams, he said, it won’t do so with­out a close eye on the bot­tom line.

“We aren’t going to start any­thing we can’t prove to our­selves will be afford­able in the time­frame it will be bought,” he said.

Carter used the exam­ple of the Ohio-class replace­ment mis­sile sub­ma­rine, now in the design stage and expect­ed to be built between 2020 and 2030. The first design pro­ject­ed a unit cost of $7 bil­lion per sub –- caus­ing the depart­ment to send it back to the draw­ing board to find changes that would bring down the cost with­out com­pro­mis­ing crit­i­cal capa­bil­i­ties. “We are not going to start some­thing that is so obvi­ous­ly not going to hap­pen,” Carter said. The same scruti­ny is going into the Air Force’s new long-range strate­gic strike bomber, the Army’s ground com­bat vehi­cle and the Marine Corps’ pres­i­den­tial heli­copter, he added.

While eye­ing acqui­si­tion sav­ings, Carter empha­sized that weapons sys­tems pro­cure­ment rep­re­sents about $100 bil­lion -– or one-sev­enth — of the defense bud­get. And of that, about 70 per­cent goes to sus­tain­ing sys­tems that already have been pro­cured. So as DOD seeks ways to cut costs, he said, it’s impos­si­ble to ignore the $400 bil­lion DOD spends each year on con­tract­ed goods and ser­vices.

“We need to take a com­pre­hen­sive look at our spend­ing, includ­ing, but not lim­it­ed to acqui­si­tion pro­grams,” he said. “And that is exact­ly what bet­ter buy­ing pow­er does.”

A 23-point roadmap already being imple­ment­ed seeks to improve that buy­ing pow­er, Carter said. It tar­gets afford­abil­i­ty and cost con­trols, gives indus­try incen­tives to be more pro­duc­tive and inno­v­a­tive, and pro­motes real com­pe­ti­tion. In addi­tion, he said, it aims to improve the way the depart­ment does busi­ness, improv­ing trade­craft in how it buys ser­vices and cut­ting through non­pro­duc­tive process­es and bureau­cra­cy.

“The alter­na­tive is bro­ken pro­grams, can­celled pro­grams, bud­get tur­bu­lence, uncer­tain­ty, ero­sion of the tax­pay­ers’ con­fi­dence that their tax dol­lar is well spent and, of course, ulti­mate­ly and most dam­ag­ing, fore­gone capa­bil­i­ty to the warfight­er,” Carter said.

In look­ing toward the future, Carter cit­ed the fis­cal 2011 bud­get as an exam­ple of how DOD can’t con­tin­ue to do busi­ness. The impact of con­tin­u­ing res­o­lu­tions and a bare­ly avert­ed gov­ern­ment shut­down caused what he called “not just inef­fi­cien­cy, but anti-effi­cien­cy” with­in the depart­ment.

“Each and every pro­gram man­ag­er in the depart­ment has had to upset care­ful­ly cal­i­brat­ed plans, stop or slow activ­i­ties only to restart them lat­er, defer the com­mence­ment of impor­tant new pro­grams and so forth,” he said. “And the result of this is not only delay, it is inef­fi­cien­cy. It is an uneco­nom­i­cal way to pro­ceed in this herky-jerky fash­ion with all of our pro­grams, pro­cure­ments and activ­i­ties.

“I don’t know how much this has cost us — [per­haps] bil­lions –- to oper­ate in this way,” he said. “It adds a dol­lop of cost over­head to every­thing we are doing. It is like a hid­den tax.”

As he focus­es on bud­gets, Carter said, his “Job 1” always is fixed on sup­port­ing troops involved in cur­rent oper­a­tions.

“That is an area where effi­cien­cy comes in, too, but effec­tive­ness is most of the chal­lenge,” he said. “It is a dai­ly chal­lenge … to make sure that the needs of those warfight­ers are met very rapid­ly. This means under­stand­ing what they need, fig­ur­ing out what to do about it [and] get­ting fund­ing.”

It’s crit­i­cal, he said, that DOD and Con­gress devel­op more respon­sive “fast lane” process­es that don’t “steal time from the warfight­er.”

Carter expressed lit­tle patience with inef­fi­cien­cies and red tape that bog down that sup­port.

“It’s April now in Afghanistan,” he said. “And every day that some­thing is sit­ting in some guy’s inbox [or] some con­tract audit has­n’t been accom­plished, is a day stolen from the fight. And that is out­ra­geous and unrea­son­able that we allow that to hap­pen, and we just can’t let it hap­pen.”

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 →