THE NEW ‘GANSLER REPORT’
FIGURE 3
elimination of public-private competi- tions … for work that’s not inherently governmental. For example, would you say that wrench-turning is inherently governmental?
Congress passed a law that says 50 per- cent of all depot maintenance work must be done by government workers—sole source, of course—in government depots. Well, if you had one of them in your dis- trict, you’d understand why that law was passed. Te House Military Depot, Arse- nal, Ammunition Plant, and Industrial Facilities Caucus is the largest caucus on Capitol Hill—135 members—and they insist that all this depot maintenance work be done by government workers. But where they’ve had thousands of com- petitions between the public and private sectors, the average savings has been over 30 percent, and the performance, when measured, has improved.
If you think about the barriers on a global basis, there clearly are some areas where the U.S. is no longer ahead.
Te largest killer of Americans today [in combat] is roadside bombs. And so we decided we would armor those vehicles, and we got the armor from the country that has the most unfriendly neighbors in the world. Who do you think that is? Israel. So we are now using this Israeli armor on our infantry fighting vehicles, and that makes sense—to take advan- tage of the technology that exists in different parts of the world. And the Israeli company fortunately set up their factory in Vermont.
Army AL&T: Is government R&D losing the relevance it once had? Should the gov- ernment just leave it to the private sector?
Gansler: Tere’s no evidence that the government
is leading the 116 research.
MORE REGULATIONS NOT THE ANSWER
Gansler maintains that one of the biggest hindrances to effective acquisition is some 186,000 pages of federal regulations. He uses this slide to demonstrate the absurdity of trying to abide by a body of regulations that no single person could actually master. (SOURCE: Senate testimony of Patrick A. McLaughlin, Mercatus Center, George Mason University)
Tere is lots of evidence that, for example, what DARPA [the Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency] funds does lead in many areas. But there’s still significant cultural resistance in the question of what we buy.
Tere are four parts to acquisition. Te first question is, “What do I buy?” And that should relate to the future, not the past. Te past is based on cultural bias: I want another airplane, I want another ship, I want another tank—that kind of thing. Congress likes that because it’s being built in their districts. So the first issue is a question of, “How do I spend my money?” And I think there’s an example of where [doing] research versus buying some old stuff is one of the key questions.
Ten the second question that relates to that is, “Who will I buy it from?” And that relates to buying commercial and buying foreign, and buying from a defense industry that is highly competi- tive and state-of-the-art. Tose are the options you have, and you want to create a defense industry that is state-of-the-art, that is highly competitive, and by that I mean at least two companies in each area that is critical. In many areas, we’ve got- ten below that. Tat’s a question of what should the defense industrial base be for the future, and should it include com- mercial? Should it include civil-military integration, like the example I gave about Boeing having to split up? Should it include any foreign sources? And should you plan on making sure that it always
Army AL&T Magazine April–June 2015
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 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172
