SAVING ON SERVICES
Q. Is there anything with BBP that we need to emphasize?
A. As we look at it and see how things have evolved to BBP 2.0, the base cri- teria that Mr. Kendall has put out are still there. In the tradecraft piece, there are about seven or eight other areas that they look at. “Trip wires” is a term that the Navy coined; it is synonymous with requirements
validation at LOOKING AT LOGISTICS
Installation-level logistics is an area ripe for consolidation of services and other efficiencies. Here, PFC Anthony Beeks, an automated logistical specialist with the 204th Brigade Support Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division (2/4 ID), prepares to relocate food rations to a storage area at the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site of Fort Carson, CO, Feb. 19. (U.S. Army photo by SSG Andrew Porch, 2/4 ID)
So in our end-of-the-year [2012] data call, what we were able to say, based on the commands’ reporting, is that we had about $469 million in savings. Te key piece is oversight and tracking the requirements and savings.
Q. Was LOGCAP a part of this?
A. When the SSM started looking at this, every type of service contract was reviewed, which included looking at the overseas contingency contract and base dollars. So initially that
A. I can tell you that 85 percent of the savings are due to changes in require- ments. Tat means commands are taking a look at that mission and then determin- ing what it is going to take to support it. We have reduced savings on existing contracts. Commands do annual reviews of the requirements, which is much more intense based on where we are now and the [fiscally uncertain] environment that we are in. Tis is where we are seeing the greatest savings.
[savings]
figure first put on the table was about $11 billion. In early 2012, the Army directed that the SSM should not oversee overseas contingency operations (OCO) dollars. Ten the reality was, when we took out OCO funding, we
have about $4.2
billion in service contract savings, using the base dollars.
Q. As you look across the first few years of BBP, you see hundreds of millions in savings. To what do you attribute that? More enterprising contract approaches?
86
Q. As requirements are changed, have you captured data on any savings you didn’t previously report?
A. Not at this point. What we’re seeing reported all makes sense. Ultimately, we could tell the field to reduce their contracts by 30 percent. Te reality is, they won’t know what to cut until they go back and look at their mission needs [with greater scrutiny]. Commanders look at
requirements and assess what they can take off and what they cannot. the
appropriate level with the right senior leader oversight. Tey ensure that the requirement is validated and that there is a mission associated with it. So the Army does
the same thing; we have
been doing this since 2003, supporting the warfighter.
Acquisition review boards have been established by our major commands on the services side. It is standard on the requirements side. Tere are defense acquisition milestones on the acquisition side; we don’t have that on the services side. We have acquisition review boards at each of the major command levels. Tat [output] comes up to our level. Te commands’ services acquisition strate- gies valued at $250 million and above have to come to my office for approval. As
the contract value increases, the
approval level increases. Contracts val- ued at $500 million and above require the DASA(P)’s approval, and at $1 bil- lion and above, we have to send them to OSD, Mr. Ginman, for approval.
Q. What about market research?
A. A major thing that we have to put in place is, really, we have to do much bet- ter market research. We are looking at a more holistic approach to help us iden- tify requirements that potentially could be consolidated. Tat ties into what the Army has today in terms of their legal contract, which was put together by the
Army AL&T Magazine
April–June 2013
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168
