The Senate’s plan to reform the Pentagon’s acquisition system may be getting pushback from military leaders, but some contractors are excited that the Defense Department is at least trying something new to fix its difficult-to-access procurement system.
The Senate-passed version of the fiscal 2017 National Defense Authorization Act would split the Pentagon’s top acquisition, technology and logistics position into two jobs: one focused on the day-to-day business of buying things, and one to prioritize innovation.
Geoff Orazem is the managing partner of Eastern Foundry, an incubator for contractors in the D.C. area that provides a working space and gives them tips and mentoring to ensure their first time working with the government goes smoothly. About 75 percent of its more than 80 members are small contractors looking for Eastern Foundry’s help in overcoming hurdles to doing business with the government. The remainder are companies that may be large but are still struggling to work with the government for the first time.
While Orazem said Eastern Foundry’s members were initially worried by any change after working to make their business in line with the government’s process, he said they are now overwhelmingly excited that the department is trying to be more agile.
“Once our members took the time to read it and took some time to think about it, they’re all really excited about this change,” he told the Washington Examiner. “What we’ve been hearing is they’re so happy to see people are trying anything new. Everyone is so painfully aware that system isn’t working, especially for small innovative companies. … We’ve heard some of our members say, ‘I have no idea if it’s going to work or not, but thank God they’re trying.’ ”
While the Senate’s bill would form the new dual-hatted AT&L office, the House bill would not. Lawmakers met for the first time on Wednesday to begin hashing out some compromises on this and other areas of difference between the two bills, the biggest of which is a drastically different funding mechanism that gives the military an additional $18 billion for base priorities in the House plan.
Rep. Mac Thornberry and Sen. John McCain, the leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, said negotiators are off to a good start and expect to be able to compromise on a final bill.
“I don’t believe we’re going to break a 53-year tradition,” McCain said, speaking about the bill’s passage streak. “Because we all agree that it’s too important to the men and women serving in the military.”
While some contractors may be a fan of McCain’s plan, it doesn’t have unanimous support. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, told reporters this month that while he’s eager to hear McCain’s argument in support of the proposal, “that doesn’t make sense to me.”
Defense Secretary Ash Carter has also taken issue with the plan, saying that separating manufacturing from research and engineering could lead to the same types of problems that have surrounded the procurement of the F-35.
“Separating these functions makes no sense, as procurement and sustainment costs are controlled by decisions made during development. This proposal could also derail the success we’ve had lowering our contract cost growth on the most high risk contracts to a 35-year low,” Carter said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing this year.
