Department of Defense Acquisitions
The increasing prices of innovative weapons systems have always been a worry for the Department of Defense (DoD). Therefore, the United States Department of Defence has been trying to transform its procurement scheme to solve this problem. The initiatives of the Department of Defences combined with others in Congress have only resulted in few developments. Since the era of the global war on terror, the DoD overall acquisition system has experienced minimal significant transformation. The continuously increasing DoD budgets concealed the generally ordinary performance in terms of costs and schedule in the post 9/11 period. Besides, in the last decade, the Department of Defense’s acquisitions also experiences a significant shift (Gansler & Lucyshyn, 2013). Of about $400 billion used in the purchase of goods and services in the financial year 2011, the DoD spent more than half of the budget on services. However, the strategies, practices, and rules founded on generally purchasing products: and there are variances in improving the process of procuring a tank and an engineer.
Background and Context
In reference to the present economic situation in Washington, there is a possibility that there will be improved pressure to formulate groundbreaking policies to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department of Defense’s investments to reasonably meet all functioning needs and innovation requirements in adequate quantities. As DoD focuses on improving itself for the 21st century, it can expect a more extended period of downhill financial constraints. Furthermore, increasing prices will need tough selections for the Department of Defense to uphold the status quo. Thus, DoD needs to spend every dollar to get the best value for the department. To decrease the cost of DoD’s procurements while maintaining the capabilities essential in a climate of dwindling budgets, the Department of Defense needs to focus on numerous initiatives (Gansler & Lucyshyn, 2013). However, as the Department of Defense’s multiple organizations and agencies try to implement these strategies, they always fail to focus on the real intention, which is to improve performance with the available dollars; instead, they always concentrate on attaining zero deviation from the comprehensive procurement supervision. This always leads to perverse incentives, which do not create the wanted results in many cases. The following strategies will transform the outcomes of procurement initiatives and fortify the manufacturing base.
Solutions/ Recommendations
- Utilization of suitable forms of competition during all stages of procurement
Competition creates inducements not only to decrease prices but also to produce higher performance and better-quality goods quicker while concentrating on the U.S. military’s needs. Utilizing different types of competition during the procurement process will enable DoD to realize its substantial advantages. The Department of Defense should focus on the use of competitive procurement, and the original Better Power advocates for the reassessment of all service agreements after every three years. However, this strategy establishes a disincentive for organizations to make investments that will reform the initiative’s performance. As a result, this compulsory competition would compel invention and, finally, increasing the initiative’s costs. DoD should not pursue competition for its own sake; however, it should use competition as an enticement for higher performance at lower prices. With competition during manufacture, companies compete in stages to award additional features during production (Gansler & Lucyshyn, 2013). An example of the advantages of competition during manufacture is “the Great Engine War” for F-15 and F-16 aircraft engines. In this case, both engine manufacturers achieved higher performance at lower prices. The Air Force recorded a cost-saving of $4 billion because of continuous competition. Therefore, the Department of Defense should continue focusing on competition to ensure that it reaps the benefits of competition, such as purchasing quality weapons at a lower cost.
- Using a Best Value Tradeoff Source Selection Policy for Complex and Most High-Knowledge-Content Work.
Government organizations such as the Department of Defense should avoid inappropriate use of the lowest price technically acceptable policy when acquiring intricate products and high-knowledge content expert services. The Federal Acquisition Regulation restricts the use of LPTA to procurement cases where necessities are definable, and the danger of unproductive agreement performance is slight. The Department of Defense has always responded to financial constraints and shortages of procurement employees by focusing on the use of LPTA for source selections (Gansler & Lucyshyn, 2013). Therefore, there is a regular utilization of LPTA, even in the procurement of compound procedural services. The use of LPTA can also affect fewer professional services because it enables firms to provide the cheapest, but low-quality products. Therefore, DoD should not utilize LPTA in the procurement of complex, high-technology products. The strategy fits best in the acquisition of substitutable commercial products.
Conclusion
In reference to the U.S budget constraints resulting from lawmakers’ efforts to reduce the nation’s $16 trillion debt, DoD will need to access every potential competence while avoiding the invitation to purchase military equipment cheaply. DoD needs to partner with the private segment and find ways of ensuring the private segment’s general achievements, such as enhancing the quality of products while reducing the costs of the products.
Reflection Questions
Question one
A Sergeant Major’s role in the DOTMLPF-P process is to oversee the whole process and ensure that soldiers are following the regulations of the process.
Question two
Army modularity influences the capabilities of the combatant commander in different ways such as it increases the capabilities of the combatant commander because of the Army’s modular force formation in terms of sustainability, employability and employability.
Question three
Force development process plays a vital role in changing force structure because it is a process used to determine needs, establish organizational models and define the total force structure needed to meet the national military strategy and document authorization.
Reference
Gansler, J. S., & Lucyshyn, W. (2013). Eight actions to improve defense acquisition. IBM Center for the Business of Government. Retrieved from http://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/Eight%20Actions%20to%20 Improve%20Defense%20Acquisition.pdf