ACQUISITION REVIEW
RATHER THAN THE CURRENT, SEQUENTIAL APPROACH
TO STAFFING AND APPROVING REQUIREMENTS, ACQUISITION, AND TESTING DOCUMENTS, THE ARMY ACQUISITION REVIEW RECOMMENDS
INVOLVING THE SAME HIGH-LEVEL PLAYERS AS NOW.
REQUIREMENTS PROCESS Rather than the current, sequential approach to staffing and approving requirements, acquisition, and testing documents, the Army Acquisition Review recommends a collaborative process involv- ing the same high-level players as now: the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), AMC, Army Requirements Oversight Council, and Joint Requirements Oversight Council.
An Integrated Capabilities Development Team led by TRADOC and representing the Army Staff and Secretariat, U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC), AMC, and other Army commands would collaboratively develop requirements doc- uments for most Army programs.
This new approach would not alter the tasks involved, but rather when they are performed. Current reviewers would become part of the development process, reducing the total time it takes, now 15 to 22 months. The panel faulted the cur- rent Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System process and recom- mended changing it to focus on the front end of the process, or abolishing it.
For key Acquisition Category (ACAT) I pro- grams, the panel recommends establishing
74 Army AL&T Magazine
a special task force, chartered by the Chief of Staff or Secretary of the Army and co- chaired by a TRADOC major general and an acquisition general officer or member of the Senior Executive Service.
The task force would include experienced representatives of the Army Secretariat and Staff, TRADOC, AMC, ATEC, and other Army commands; and, as appropri- ate, representatives of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Director, Operational Test and Evaluation in the Office of the Secretary of Defense; and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
It would collaboratively develop a com- prehensive, consistent set of products to support milestone decisions and source selection, including Initial Capabilities Documents, Capability Development Documents, and requests for proposal (RFPs). The task force could also provide members to serve on the Source Selec- tion Evaluation Board or Source Selection Advisory Council.
The panel also recommends institutional- izing rapid acquisition in policy guidelines and amending Army Regulation 71-9, Materiel Requirements, to support rapid acquisition in response to Operational
Needs Statements from combatant com- manders during quiescent periods.
Finally, the panel recommends synchro- nizing TRADOC and Army requirements approval, Materiel Development Deci- sion, Milestone (MS) A, and MS B actions to align with the Army’s budget development schedules and thereby avoid a one-year delay.
In his Senate testimony, McHugh called uncontrolled requirements the number one problem in Army acquisition and the canceled Future Combat Systems (FCS) program “the poster child” for this prob- lem. He said the Army is making progress toward a more measured, collaborative requirements process.
“We’ve tried to do a better job in stating the requirements, keeping them less reliant on immature or unavailable technolo- gies,” as witness the RFP for the Ground Combat Vehicle, which was re-released in November 2010 to reduce the top-tier requirements by 75 percent compared with the original RFP released in February 2010.
MANAGING RISK The review panel recommends manag- ing acquisition by program risk rather than by scope alone. It breaks acquisition
A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS
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
