Up front, I'm not pointing the finger solely at contractors. As Ken White put it, there is plenty of blame to go around and I recognize it. Contractors (speaking of the companies more than the individuals) are there to make money and, as such, they have a responsibility to their shareholders, employees, themselves, to figure out how best to turn a profit. In that, they are going to do everything they can to sell themselves. That includes justifying their continued utility, lobbying Congress, etc.
"“… plus the fact that we've essentially let the contractors take over the job of telling us what we need…” Completely false. This is not how the acquisition process works. For the Army, TRADOC (Training and Doctrine Command) determines doctrine and needs. These are given over to the AMC (Army Material Command) activity, which interfaces with the contractors. It is generally in this area that the requirements process breaks down, for the service, the civil service and contractors."
-It is not completely false. You are correct, I do need to learn more about the acquisitions process, but at the same time, I can still have a valid observation without be an acquisitions expert. I know that TRADOC, MCCDC, and others are supposed to be determining doctrine and needs and in many cases that is happening. However, the contractors can still inject themselves into the process (as they rationally should be doing to make a profit) and tell the military what it needs and how that contractor can supply it. Because the bureaucracy is short staffed, etc, it often takes these "great ideas" and presentations and runs with them, finding out way to late just how little work had been done beyond the powerpoint. This falls on the shoulders of both the contractors who are selling subpar ideas/products, as well as the civilians and officers staffing the DoD side. A quote from an officer who was part of one of these deals, discussing how we would actually employ a program that was sold to DoD essentially through his office, "It looks great on powerpoint, but you (the operating forces) will have to figure out how to make it work" because the powerpoint briefing at least in parts was completely out of touch with reality. That office was fed crap by the contractor, then put the stamp of their office on the slideshow. Again, both are culpable.
-"“The answer to everything seems to be to hire contractors…” Yes. Because of:
a. Congressionally determined authorized end strength.
b. Retention problems for highly skilled technical fields.
c. Inflexible Civil Service rules regarding hiring and firing."
-Agreed. I understand why contractors are being relied on and how the DoD has forced that situation, but the bottom line is that the contractors have their hooks in the DoD, and Congress, and the DoD is increasingly being steered by them due to its own shortcomings. Completely rational behavior on the part of the commercial contractor, but this is a very unequal relationship. You have a crippled bureaucracy, subject to Congressional and Executive directives, that is not governed by dictates of profitability or business competitiveness permeated by commercial entities, that ARE governed by the need to make a profit, that have powerful access to Congress and the Executive. This is not a healthy relationship.
-"5. “… who will then work into their study, their procedures, whatever, the trojan horse of how you are going to need them forever and how you need to increase the scope of their contract so you can pay them more money.” No. And in addition to being false, it is also extremely insulting. "
-Not false, and shouldn't be insulting unless you are feeling extremely defensive or guilty. My wording of "trojan horse" perhaps is pejorative, but I think that it is apt in that, once contractors are in the door, they are going to try to stay there and increase their profits. What company in their right mind would not attempt to demonstrate their utility and, more importantly, once given insight into the DoD's needs by working on a given contract, what company would not try to expand their "market share" by proposing other services they can offer? DoD is culpable in that it needs an appetite suppressant, as is Congress in that they can sometimes force DoD to buy what it acknowledges it does not need.
Furthermore, the nature of the contracting industry, with its networked set of companies that (a) are often huge with many different branches with very different functions (b) often own subsidiaries or have mutually beneficial relationships with other companies and (c) are frequently shifting, renaming, and reorganizing, presents problems and conflicts of interest. Example: Massive defense corporation A has an analytical branch. It is contracted to do a study of issue X for a TRADOC-like entity. It also has branches that can provide manpower and systems that will carry out the recommendations of such a study. The TRADOC-like entity is under no obligation to implement the findings of the study, but the contractor in this case is telling the TRADOC-like entity what it needs. It the TRADOC-like entity decides to implement the findings of the study, won't corporation A be likely to have a huge advantage in the bidding? Not to mention that the surveys that the high-paid PhD and his crew came up with would fail any graduate level research design class as completely flawed.
You'll probably tell me again that I am slanderous and ill-informed, but I'll leave it to others to judge. You don't have to be an acquisitions expert to have valid criticisms of all aspects of the situation, although many would like to say so, in order to ensure that only the insiders are allowed to criticize themselves.
Originally Posted by pjmunson
As I've been reading through the thread
Bookmarks