ACQUISITION REVIEW
Panel Members Figure 2
GILBERT F. DECKER CO-CHAIRMAN – Former Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition) and Army Acquisition Executive; Chair, Army Science Board; and Vice Chair, Board on Army Science and Technology
LOUIS C. WAGNER JR. CO-CHAIRMAN – General, U.S. Army (Ret.); former CG, U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC); U.S. Army Deputy Chief of Staff (DCS) for Research, Development and Acquisition; and CG, U.S. Army Armor Center
WILLIAM H. FORSTER – LTG, U.S. Army (Ret.); former Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition); CG, U.S. Army Operational Test and Evaluation Command; and PEO Aviation
DAVID M. MADDOX – General, U.S. Army (Ret.), former Commander in Chief, U.S. Army Europe; CG, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Analysis Command; and TRADOC DCS for Combat Developments
GEORGE T. SINGLEY III – Former Principal Deputy Director, Defense Research and Engineering; Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research and Technology); and PEO Combat Support Aviation
GEORGE G. WILLIAMS – Former PEO Missiles
to reestablish the difference between independent research and development (IRAD), and the bid and proposal pro- cess. Too many potential vendors are using IRAD to anticipate the next RFP, the panel found. The review also encour- ages the Army to increase its visibility into contractors’ IRAD programs, using site reviews to exchange information, not just as a “grading exercise.”
In the area of International Traffic in Arms Regulations, the panel recom- mends applying such restrictions only to
“narrowly defined, high-value, militarily useful technologies, rather than subject- ing readily available commercial products to these barriers.”
ALIGNING ORGANIZATIONS In its review of organizations and lines of accountability, the panel has high marks for Capability Portfolio Reviews (CPRs) and recommends codifying the way they are conducted in an Army regulation. The Vice Chief of Staff of the Army and Army Acquisition Executive should co- chair Session 1 of the materiel CPRs, the review states.
The panel has a number of recommenda- tions for realigning specific organizations, including:
• Disestablishing the U.S. Army Research, Development, and Engineering Com- mand, which the panel found has not reduced duplication as intended. Its command elements would return to the life-cycle management commands (LCMCs), and an Executive Direc- tor for Research, Development, and Acquisition would be named, report- ing directly to the AMC commanding general. Laboratories and research, development, and engineering activities would be reviewed annually to eliminate low-value-added, duplicative efforts.
76 Army AL&T Magazine
• Redesignating Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier as PEO Soldier and Small Unit.
• Splitting up PEO Combat Support and Combat Service Support into two PEOs.
• Redesignating PEO Command, Con- trol, and Communications-Tactical and Joint PEO Joint Tactical Radio System as PEO Mission Command.
• Redesignating PEO Integration as PEO Network.
The panel recommends refocusing LCMCs as the lead organization for field- ing and post-fielding logistics. Program managers (PMs) would be the leads for acquisition logistics during development through successful fielding of an initial operational capability.
The review also looks at how Army lead- ership can improve communication with industry, such as through more frequent industry days. “Partnering” with industry could help solve issues short of formal protests, the review states.
ADEQUATE RESOURCES A stronger workforce and more stable funding are the two areas where the review panel focused its recommenda- tions for resourcing the requirements and acquisition processes.
More general officers should be assigned as PMs of complex ACAT I programs, the panel said. Also, the panel recommends that the Army select only PMs and program exec- utive officers with expertise and experience in their product lines; and that it improve the qualifications of TRADOC capability managers (TCMs) by selecting a colonel- level TCM with appropriate operating force experience for each key ACAT I program.
In the area of professional training, U.S. Army Acquisition Corps (AAC) members should have the opportunity for full resident
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
