An Alternative to Acquisition Business as Usual.

• Author: Dunn, Richard L.
• Position: Viewpoint

Cries for acquisition reform can be heard in the speeches of senior Defense Department leaders and members of Congress. There is much wringing of hands over the slow pace and high cost of fielding defense systems.

There are concerns that the American defense establishment is not accessing innovations as rapidly and effectively as it should. Mixed in with the speeches, articles and internet blogs are occasional references to "other transactions." There is but slight evidence that the potential of innovative contracting techniques like "other transactions" is actually understood by those calling for reform.

All the elements needed to create a responsive alternative to the traditional system exist. They were described in "Other Transaction Contracts: Poorly Understood, Little Used" published in the June edition of National Defense. That article described some of the characteristics of contracting authorities found in sections 2371, 2371b and 2373 of title 10, United States Code. This article describes how authority to use other transactions is currently available to create an alternative acquisition system.

The first question is whether there is a need for an alternative to the traditional system under the Federal Acquisition Regulation and Department of Defense Instruction 5000.1, The Acquisition System. Unfortunately, asking this question is exactly where reform breaks down. Many influential practitioners of the traditional system just below the most senior levels and at mid-levels don't really believe an alternative is necessary.

Despite decades of unsuccessful attempts at tweaking or fine-tuning the system through so-called acquisition reform, many career bureaucrats and military acquisition professionals believe nothing more than selective and minor adjustments may be needed. Senior leaders rely on these seasoned acquisition professionals to carry out their calls for reform. The result is that nothing profound happens.

The fine-tuning approach has been tried repeatedly since the 1970s and even earlier. In 1986 the Packard Commission asserted that defense systems take too long and cost too much. In the 1990s, several rounds of acquisition reform legislation repealed, amended and enacted a large number of laws. This might have been considered going beyond fine-tuning, but all this activity was in the basic construct of the existing system.

Additional reforms have been implemented in the last 10 years. Defense systems still take too long and cost too much. In fact many "reforms" merely added to the complexity and arcane nature of the system. The unique business processes and related overhead required by the traditional system isolate the defense industrial base from the much broader and often more innovative national industrial base.

The people and organizations that have a vested interest in preserving...