Pentagon Works to Tackle Cost Overruns, Official Says

WASHINGTON, March 30, 2011 — Weapons and equip­ment that are more expen­sive than pro­ject­ed present a strug­gle every acqui­si­tion exec­u­tive in the Defense Depart­ment has faced, a senior Pen­ta­gon acqui­si­tion offi­cial told Con­gress yes­ter­day.
Tes­ti­fy­ing before the Sen­ate Com­mit­tee on Home­land Secu­ri­ty and Gov­ern­men­tal Affairs yes­ter­day, Frank Kendall, deputy under­sec­re­tary of defense for acqui­si­tion, tech­nol­o­gy and logis­tics, said cost over­runs have been an “intractable” prob­lem.

Under­stand­ing the problem’s root caus­es has to be the first step in address­ing cost con­trol, he said.
Both phas­es of defense acqui­si­tion -– plan­ning and exe­cu­tion -– have prob­lems lead­ing to increased costs, Kendall said. Plan­ning large­ly is a gov­ern­ment respon­si­bil­i­ty, he explained, and includes set­ting require­ments for new prod­ucts, set­ting key sched­ule dates, esti­mat­ing total pro­gram costs, estab­lish­ing bud­gets and eval­u­at­ing plans and indus­try bids. 

“In each and every case, there are strong pres­sures on our insti­tu­tions and the peo­ple in them to be opti­mistic,” Kendall said. The Unit­ed States has been mil­i­tar­i­ly dom­i­nant in the world for decades, large­ly based on its supe­ri­or weapons sys­tems, he said. “We almost always set out to build a prod­uct that is bet­ter than any­thing that has been built before,” he added. 

Like­wise, users put con­stant pres­sure on the acqui­si­tion sys­tem to field new capa­bil­i­ties faster, regard­less of the product’s scale or com­plex­i­ty, he said. “The acqui­si­tion sys­tem is fre­quent­ly crit­i­cized for tak­ing too long and being too risk-averse,” he said. “One has to ask, if we are so risk-averse, why do we have so many over­runs and sched­ule slips?” 

Com­pe­ti­tion with­in the plan­ning sys­tem “pro­vides more incen­tives toward opti­mism,” he said, as pro­ject­ed pro­gram costs affect which new sys­tems are cho­sen. While defense plan­ners feel pres­sure to set high capa­bil­i­ty require­ments and fast pro­duc­tion sched­ules while keep­ing pro­ject­ed pro­gram costs low, indus­try also faces pres­sure to “be opti­mistic in bid­ding on new pro­grams,” Kendall said. 

“A defense con­trac­tor can­not stay in busi­ness by bid­ding real­is­ti­cal­ly or con­ser­v­a­tive­ly and nev­er win­ning a con­tract,” he noted. 

Gov­ern­ment can address this issue by insist­ing that indus­try jus­ti­fy its pro­jec­tions and cost ele­ments, he said, but he added that there is pres­sure to accept the low­est offer, “inde­pen­dent of the risk that’s being taken.” 

The chal­lenge the defense acqui­si­tion work­force faces in plan­ning, he said, is to rec­og­nize the pres­sures toward opti­mism while doing every­thing pos­si­ble to push the sys­tem to deliv­er more and bet­ter prod­ucts soon­er and at low­er cost. 

When new sys­tems move from plan­ning to exe­cu­tion phase, they large­ly become industry’s respon­si­bil­i­ty, Kendall said. “If the plan is sound, then cost over­runs [dur­ing] exe­cu­tion are a mat­ter of man­age­ment, engi­neer­ing and pro­duc­tion capa­bil­i­ty, or more harsh­ly, com­pe­ten­cy in these dis­ci­plines,” he said. 

Kendall said in the past, he would have judged that most cost over­runs result­ed from plan­ning fail­ures. “I am no longer as cer­tain of that,” he added, not­ing that too many indi­ca­tors show that both gov­ern­ment and indus­try need to improve their capac­i­ty to man­age and exe­cute programs. 

“We have a lot of work to do over time to build or rebuild the capac­i­ty in our work­forces,” he said. Gov­ern­ment is mov­ing to strength­en its own capa­bil­i­ties, and is work­ing to spur industry’s progress, Kendall said. 

“Incen­tives … are the pri­ma­ry tool the depart­ment has to influ­ence industry’s per­for­mance, and we need to use them cre­ative­ly and aggres­sive­ly,” he said. 

The Defense Depart­ment has adopt­ed a set of 23 ini­tia­tives for “bet­ter buy­ing pow­er,” designed to con­trol and reduce costs not just in major pro­grams, but across all con­tract­ed activ­i­ties, Kendall said. The depart­ment also is increas­ing the size, capac­i­ty and capa­bil­i­ty of its acqui­si­tion work­force, he added. 

“We ful­ly rec­og­nize the force mul­ti­pli­er [effect] a qual­i­ty acqui­si­tion work­force has on the ulti­mate suc­cess of our pro­grams,” he said. The strug­gle to con­trol defense costs will nev­er end, Kendall said. 

“It is not a short-term bat­tle, [and] a sim­ple pol­i­cy change will not solve all our prob­lems,” he said. “It takes pro­fes­sion­al­ism, tenac­i­ty and sin­gle­ness of pur­pose at all lev­els of the acqui­si­tion enter­prise to make progress.” 

The Defense Depart­ment is “total­ly com­mit­ted to bring­ing the costs of our pro­grams under con­trol, and reduc­ing them wher­ev­er pos­si­ble,” Kendall said. 

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 →