adequate oversight and that the Army maximizes the public’s contracting dollars for the benefit of the Soldier?
A. One of the missions of the Contracting Command is to do this oversight in con- junction with the Defense Contract Man- agement Agency, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, the Army Audit Agency, etc. These agencies need to share perfor- mance data and lessons learned. I don’t think we have a contract performance online information technology system that allows the Contracting Command to manage contracting and contractors. Modern information systems are available to do this, but I don’t believe it has begun its implementation in AMC. Additionally, as noted above, there needs to be more focus on services, which are more than 50 percent of all contract dollars.
Q. We all recognize the likelihood that the DoD budget may see reductions as part of the Nation’s need to adequately address our deficit and debt problems. Also, the military services may have personnel authorizations reduced as an outcome of the budget reductions and the pull-backs from Iraq and Afghanistan. What do you foresee is the effect of those likely cuts on progress already made in increasing the stature of the Army contracting work- force—both military and civilian—and the Army Contracting Command?
A. With the focus on “doing more with less,” smart contracting becomes even more critical. The Army needs to contin- ually make its case that the Army spends $120 billion on goods and services, and how many qualified people we need to do these procurements correctly. The report shows the seven times’ increase in actions and three times in dollars, with significant reductions in personnel. For our commis- sion, we never knew if the 1992 baseline was correct.
With all the data we have, the Contracting Command should be able to develop an actions-to-contracting-personnel guide. DCMA should be able to do the same. I think that trying to equate procurement dollars to contracting personnel required is not as powerful as equating contracting actions to contracting personnel required. If we don’t have a credible staffing guide, we need to develop it. The cuts will come, and the Contracting Command will first have to convince the Commanding Gen- eral of AMC that there are more fertile areas to plow for spaces. The emphasis on “affordability” will help justify this action.
The full text of the Oct. 31, 2007, Gansler Commission Report, Urgent Reform Required: Army Expeditionary Contract- ing—Report of the Commission on Army Acquisition and Program Management in Expeditionary Operations, is online at
http://www.army.mil/docs/Gansler_ Commission_Report_Final_071031.pdf.
DR. JACQUES S. GANSLER is Director of the Center for Public Policy and Private Enterprise at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, where he is a Profes- sor and holds the Roger C. Lipitz Chair. He is also the Glenn L. Martin Institute Fel- low of Engineering at the A. James Clarke School of Engineering and an affiliate fac- ulty member at the Robert H. Smith School of Business, both University of Maryland entities. Gansler is a member of the Defense Science Board and the Comptroller Gener- als’ Advisory Board. He served as the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Tech- nology, and Logistics from November 1997 until January 2001. He holds a B.E. in electrical engineering from Yale Univer- sity, an M.S. in electrical engineering from Northeastern University, an M.A. in politi- cal economy from the New School for Social Research, and a Ph.D. in economics from American University.
DR. JACQUES S. GANSLER
The Gansler Commission report’s
‘Four Key Elements to Future Success’
1. Increase stature, quantity, and career development of contract- ing personnel, military and civilian (especially for expedition- ary operations).
2. Restructure organization and restore responsibility to facilitate contracting and contract man- agement in expeditionary and CONUS operations.
3. Provide training and tools for overall contracting activities in expeditionary operations.
4. Obtain legislative, regulatory, and policy assistance to enable contracting effectiveness in expedi- tionary operations.
ASC.ARMY.MIL 105
CONTRACTING
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 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180
