[iwar] [fc:The.War.On.Red.Tape]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-12-04 11:08:10
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:FBI.builds.cybercrime.division]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Who.EU.Calling.a.Terrorist?]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-Id: <200112041908.fB4J8AV15674@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 11:08:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [iwar] [fc:The.War.On.Red.Tape]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Washington Times
December 4, 2001
The War On Red Tape
Wanted: A fair weapons acquisition process
By Bill Alexander
The defense review team to reshape the national structure for the 21st
century must include the warriors who have operated the weapons in wartime
conditions. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham's idea of establishing a collective
military view from those who have seen combat as a base to overlay the ideas
of the Pentagon think tank is a thoughtful and cautious approach to shaping
national security for the future. All are pleased that Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld has seen the wisdom of this approach.
What about procurement reform? Red tape?
There has been a lot said about reforming the defense procurement process.
Bills have been passed by the Congress to do so, including the federal
Acquisition Streamlining Act and the federal Acquisition Reform Act. For the
most part the legislation has resulted in changes, but those changes are not
enough for the 2001-and-beyond time frames. The acquisition work force has
shrunk and is aging significantly to the extent that at confirmation
hearings for the current secretaries of the military departments, it was
stated by Sen. Susan Collins that 50 percent of the Defense Department's
civilian acquisition work force is going to be eligible to retire in the
year 2005. An aging work force without significant input and a significant
amount of funds for education and training means only one thing - competency
is in jeopardy and such is visible today. We do not have to wait until 2005
to realize we have less than competent acquisition people to match up with
the competency in industry. That means that the leverage at the negotiation
table for major weapon systems and minor weapon systems and all support and
services transitions from the government side of the table to the industry
side of the table. This is unacceptable to the taxpayer. The numbers of
honorable acquisition people in industry looking out for industry's bottom
line must be matched with an equal number of honorable civilian acquisition
people looking out for the taxpayers' bottom line. Navy Secretary Gordon
England during his confirmation hearings stated in his prepared statement
that:
"The unique Department of Defense acquisition system, with its myriad rules
and regulations, needs to be simplified and streamlined. It must and will
come more into alignment with commercial practices. The department will be
proactive in supporting the undersecretary for acquisition in implementing
these changes. Second, layers of bureaucratic decision-making, with their
inherent time delays, will be streamlined. Third, 'spiral development,' the
fielding of available technology with planned evolution to a final
configuration, will further speed the introduction of new technology into
service. Finally, if confirmed, I will strive to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of Department of Defense and [Department of Navy] business
practices. While the Navy Department serves a national purpose with
overarching goals well beyond the commercial objectives of markets and
profit, many commercial business practices are still applicable. Over the
past few years, it appears that the gap between government and industry
business practices has widened, with two negative consequences: First,
inefficient departmental processes have led to ineffective results,
generally due to unaffordable solutions. Second, commercial companies have
largely deserted the Department of Defense while traditional defense
companies have started to diversify into commercial business. By improving
business practices we should be able to shift more dollars into combat
capability and expand our buying power through increased competition."
If this all means that Mr. England will reform the Navy procurement process
so that it would be "honest, forthright and fair," then hallelujah. This
will be a tough job because of the entrenched multi-layered bureaucracy that
has developed over the years. As far back as the Gulf War, we saw emergency
contracts that even under national strategic priorities took longer than six
months to award contracts when the performance of those contracts under
hostile bare base desert conditions was performed in 90 days. Even as
recently as today's war in Afghanistan the lead times to award contracts has
not lessened and, in fact, are taking longer on average to award. This
process needs streamlining and reform.
Why not include Navy and other military procurement processes,
service-specific regulations and department acquisition supplements in the
strategic review of defense needs for the 21st century? The Gulf War is
over, but the war against terrorism is not. We need change, and commercial
practices may be an acceptable approach to modernization, reform and
streamlining. Furthermore, we must cut through red tape.
Reviewing and reshaping the national defense structure for the 21st century
is essential. Meanwhile, American small business is desperate for Mr.
England to finish the job by reforming the acquisition system as well.
Bill Alexander is a former chief deputy Democratic majority whip (1969-93)
and a former member of the House panel on military construction
appropriations.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
See What You've Been Missing!
Amazing Wireless Video Camera.
Click here
http://us.click.yahoo.com/75YKVC/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:FBI.builds.cybercrime.division]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Who.EU.Calling.a.Terrorist?]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 21:00:00 PST