DoD Profligacy

[Sargent]

Below are links to a video on the recent GAO report of waste in defense spending and the report itself.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/...ctid1599920223

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08467sp.pdf

One of the biggest causes for this is that there is no way to force contractors to keep to the costs and timetables they promise when they are competing for contracts. Adam ran up against this when he was at SYSCOM. In the midst of deploying a new system one of the contractors told him that the product they had promised at $3 million in 3 months would actually cost $6 million and take 6 months to develop -- which they demonstrated in a 100+ slide power-point presentation. [Perhaps they ought to have less time on that and more on the actual product.] At the end of the day they basically told him to suck it up, there was nothing he could do about it -- what, were they going to sue the contractor? He did make them give him someone to yell at for a while -- he likes to joke that they trolled the cafeteria and offered a couple of guys a bonus to go sit in a conference room to be ranted at by a Marine Captain. Nothing changed, but it did make him feel a little better.

One thing that bugs me about this issue is that there is a far greater degree of vigilance and penny pinching on personnel costs. Why can't they apply the same conservatism to the constractors as they do to the people actually putting themselves in harm's way?

It might be time to reconsider the pros and cons of government arsenals. These things are cyclical after all.

Regards,
Jill

[Ski]

There are major problems with the arsenals as well. I can send you a PM if you are interested in a personal story I had with one...that had a major impact on personnel, safety and some other choice stuff.

[Sargent]

Sure, I love personal anecdotes!

As for the arsenals generally, I'm not suggesting that it would be easy, without its own perils, wouldn't require oversight, etc. I'm just wondering whether it isn't worth considering.

Cheers,
Jill

[J Wolfsberger]

Adam ran up against this when he was at SYSCOM. In the midst of deploying a new system one of the contractors told him that the product they had promised at $3 million in 3 months would actually cost $6 million and take 6 months to develop -- which they demonstrated in a 100+ slide power-point presentation.

There are, indeed, some sleazy contractors. If you want horror stories, I can easily top that one.

But the coin has a flip side. Was the $6M, 6 mo. product really the same as the $3M, 3 mo. product? The government has to be willing to hold the line on requirements. In fact, the guilt for that ... well, no one is innocent. It takes work, hard decisions and discipline to nail down system requirements up front. See: Better Weapon Program Outcomes Require Discipline, Accountability, and Fundamental Changes in the Acquisition Environment GAO-08-782T

[Sargent]

Wolfsberger wrote: But the coin has a flip side. Was the $6M, 6 mo. product really the same as the $3M, 3 mo. product?

Yes.

Regards,
Jill