search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
From the Editor-in-Chief I @


Email Nelson McCouch III ArmyALT@gmail.com


BACK TALK


Let us know how well we are meeting your needs. Send an email to ArmyALT@gmail.com.


For more news,


information and articles, please go to the USAASC website at


http://asc.army.mil. Click on the Publications tab at the top of the page.


know what you’re thinking as you look at the theme for this issue: “Really, acquisi- tion reform again? Didn’t we just do that?” Or, more to the point, “It’s beyond repair.


Why bother?”


If acquisition reform were a straight-up matter of making what the military needs, it would be a simple 1+1=2 equation: Figure out what you need, build it and deploy—but it’s not. Billions of dollars equals thousands of manufacturers, which equals hundreds of senators and representatives vying for a piece of the pie for their constituents, which equals jobs. As former House Speaker Tomas P. “Tip” O’Neill is often quoted as saying, “All poli- tics is local.”


To ensure that taxpayers’ dollars are spent respon- sibly, there are countless laws and policies in place, and congressional oversight. Te House and Senate produce an annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that guides overall defense spending and even drills down to the type of equipment the military should have and where it will be stationed. Sometimes lost in the shuffle is the military’s pri- mary challenge of identifying threats and needed equipment far enough in advance to be able to conceive, build and deploy the equipment before it becomes obsolete. Given all the above, you can appreciate that the challenge of acquisition reform is vastly complex. It sure ain’t easy!


Nonetheless, acquisition reform is underway once again. Tis time, it is seeing some progress in the hands of House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Tornberry, R–Texas. His legis- lation, now part of the NDAA for FY17, aims to thin out regulations that focus more on paperwork than production, correct incentives that lead to poor performance, and increase accountability for acquisition projects. However, the Senate version of the NDAA would introduce more sweeping than incremental changes, decentralizing DOD-level acquisition authority and empowering the ser- vice chiefs to regain responsibility for acquisition programs.


At this writing, the House and Senate versions have yet to be reconciled. In any case, President Obama has threatened to veto both bills, warning that “these


changes would roll back the acquisition reforms of the last two decades.”


Not all of the action is on Capitol Hill, though. Te Army acquisition executive (AAE), the Hon. Katrina McFarland, isn’t waiting for a final decision on the NDAA. Since becoming AAE in February, she has focused on how to reset and rebuild acqui- sition, albeit with fewer people and more tasks than ever. According to McFarland, we’ve lost sight of the mission to equip the force and instead have been caught up in the bureaucracy.


Notably, McFarland favors putting the Army chief of staff in the center of acquisition processes to ensure that the Army develops requirements that are in sync with procurement decisions. She also wants to restore capabilities to the acquisition workforce—such as operational research scientists and advisers, the people who weigh the threat from an operational point of view, not just in terms of materiel solutions—that the Army lost as a result of misapplied Goldwater-Nichols Act provisions. McFarland also wants acquisition to happen more rapidly; to accomplish that, she fully supports the establishment of the Army’s Rapid Capabilities Office. (See “Seizing the Advantage,” Page 30.)


To get needed capabilities to Soldiers as quickly as possible is the job of Army program executive offices (PEOs) and the 37,000-strong acquisition workforce. In so many respects, reform is a job best done at the program level. See how the Joint PEO for Chemical and Biological Defense is looking to streamline acquisition by “tailoring” oversight and management, in “Catch 5000.02,” Page 129. In “Interservice Integration” on Page 94, see how, despite reform being an “echelon above reality,” the Army and Air Force teamed up in Qatar to con- tract for construction together.


Our biannual readership survey will launch this month, so please take it and let us know how we’re doing and what we can do better!


If you have ideas for an upcoming magazine theme, an idea for an article you would like to write or like to see us write, or just a comment, please contact me at ArmyALT@gmail.com.


+


Nelson McCouch III Editor-in-Chief


ASC.ARMY.MIL 5


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