thinkers as contrasted with the management thinkers, and the rapid and traditional acquisition cadres.


Congress took a first step in reshaping the defense acquisition bureaucracy last year with provisions in the FY16 NDAA, which increased the individual services’ program approval author- ity. Specifically, each service’s acquisition executive would gain milestone decision authority (MDA) for major defense acquisi- tion programs unless the secretary of defense made an exception. Te USD(AT&L) already had the discretion to delegate this authority to the services and did so frequently, along with del- egating MDA for smaller acquisition programs to the service acquisition executives.


Also in the FY16 legislation, the service chiefs took on a bigger role in acquisition, with a requirement that the MDA consider the appropriate chief ’s views on the program’s cost, schedule, technical feasibility and performance trade-offs.


While not without critics who see just more bureaucracy, these changes are baby steps compared with what the NDAA for FY17 could do to DOD’s acquisition chain of authority—assuming the House and Senate agree and the president signs the final legislation. Te House version of the bill, spearheaded by Torn- berry, hews relatively closely to the status quo, whereas McCain is pushing hard for major changes at the heart of the decision- making process: the Office of the USD(AT&L).


Te Senate-passed bill called for dividing the office into two undersecretaries: one for management and support, focusing on business operations, and the other for research and engineer- ing, focusing on technology and innovation and harking back to 1986, when the USD(AT&L) replaced the undersecretary for research and engineering. Te revived position would have an assistant secretary to set DOD-wide acquisition and industrial


WHERE TO NEXT?


Program officials conduct preflight system checks on reconnaissance drones at NIE 16.1 at Fort Bliss in September 2015. A review of acquisition reform studies over the past decades reveals consensus on the importance of getting new technologies like drones into the hands of warfighters faster and cheaper, but suggests a wide range of approaches on how to best accomplish that goal. (Photo by John Hamilton, White Sands Missile Range Public Affairs)


1994 Secretary of Defense William J. Perry’s ‘Acquisition Reform: A Mandate for Change’


• Addressed shrinking industrial base.


• Emphasized use of commercial technolo- gies when appropriate, reducing military specification except as necessary.


• Cautioned that commercial technologies were outpacing DOD.


1996 Clinger-Cohen Act


• Provided guidance to ensure a fair and open competitive process for procurement of contractor support.


• Gave contracting officers more discretion when making competitive range determi- nations.


• Permitted simplified acquisition proce- dures in procuring commercial items valued at up to $5 million.


ASC.ARMY.MIL


25


ACQUISITION


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  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192