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
COMMENTARY


TIGHT FOCUS


Acquisition professionals have contracting options to encour- age speed, cut through red tape and maximize value. But there’s no contracting tool that can mature an immature technology by an arbitrarily chosen time. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Adeline Witherspoon, 2nd Infantry Division Sustainment Brigade)


warfighter capability and achieving a 10 percent reduction in weight.


Each of the five components resulted in the award of up to three competing firm-fixed-price contracts for the delivery of proto- types for testing, demonstration and user field trials. What were the results? Te helmet, ballistic vest and hard armor plate efforts each failed to produce products that satisfied the capability the warfighter needed—meeting the minimum ballistic protection requirements with the desired weight savings.


Te updated combat eyewear, featuring a lens that could tran- sition from light to dark within a second, could not withstand Soldier field trials—they were fragile and broke too easily. Te integrated Soldier sensor system also failed user testing—there were too many wires, and it was too complex for Soldiers to oper- ate. For each of these efforts, the contractors delivered prototypes for testing in accordance with the contract requirements. In each case, the individual technologies within each system were mature. However, when these mature technologies were integrated into a military product and operated by Soldiers in a realistic combat environment, the system was deemed operationally unsuitable— not ready for prime time.


Cost-reimbursable contracts might have created incentives for the contractors to make progress in “ruggedizing” a militarily useful product, rather than incentivizing scheduled delivery for payment.


IT’S ALL IN THE EXECUTION A poor plan executed vigorously is better than a good plan executed poorly: It’s a very common theme in operational warfighting units. But does it really apply to defense acquisition? In defense acquisition, a poor plan vigorously executed equates to no capability delivery and wasted resources. Similarly, a poorly executed good plan equates to the same. What we need in defense acquisition is good planning and vigorous execution.


A good plan incorporates lessons learned, has flexible on- and off-ramps and delivers capability to the warfighter using an incre- mental development and procurement approach. Te recent acquisition reform initiatives emphasizing the use of other transaction authority (OTA) are a step in the right direction for streamlining acquisition efforts. Contracts based on the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) remain a barrier to entry into defense contracts for many of today’s most innovative and tech- nologically savvy firms. It is critical to leverage OTA to break down that barrier.


https://asc.ar my.mil 83


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