Pentagon acquisition reforms likely to encounter opposition.

• Author: Jean, Grace

Radical changes to the Pentagon's acquisition system may be in place by the end of this year, according to a panel that is charged with a sweeping evaluation of military procurement. But analysts say the panel's propositions may encounter some resistance both on Capitol Hill and inside the Pentagon.

The recommendations have three overarching ideas: reinstituting accountability in the system by re-engaging uniformed services into the acquisition process, making combatant commanders the driving force for requirements, and placing more value on time rather than money in procurement and research and development efforts.

"The acquisition leaders in the community designed for themselves what they think would be an improvement of the system. Some of their ideas are not going to be welcome in the Pentagon," said John Hamre, president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former deputy secretary of defense. The dilemma, he said, is "How do they help the entire Pentagon see that this is good for the whole, not just for the acquisition effort?"

One of the potential hot button issues is the panel's recommendation to set up a separate fund, an "acquisition stabilization account," to cover cost growth in weapon procurement.

"That's a novel idea, and it could have difficulty getting through Congress," said John Douglass, president of the Aerospace Industries Association. In the past, legislators have not been receptive to the idea of establishing separate funds to cover potential problem areas. But Douglass said that it's a good idea, nonetheless, because it creates a way to expedite resources to a problem, curtailing the need to wait through the next appropriation process and saving money in the end.

At the Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment project's final public meeting in December, its chairman, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Ron Kadish, presented the group's findings before a packed room of industry and military representatives.

The panel, he said, focused on what has been termed the "big A"--the three processes of budget, requirements and acquisition. According to the panel's executive summary, it found that "differences in the theory and practice of acquisition, divergent values among the acquisition community and changes in the security environment have driven the requirements, acquisition and budget processes further apart and inserted significant instability in the process."

"These recommendations are designed to attack...