New guidance for middle tier acquisitions at the Department of Defense looks to clarify the authorities that procurement professionals can use. However, experts like Eric Lofgren, research fellow at George Mason University, say that the new policy might slow down acquisition. Lofgren told Government Matters that one of the biggest roadblocks is documentation requirements.
That was from the Government Matters synopsis to my interview, “Crafting Policy for Middle-Tier Acquisitions.” It is based on my Defense News article. Watch the whole thing.
Instead of documentation, the issue I didn’t stress well enough is the primary importance of the funding process to determining the success of rapid acquisition reform. The services need funding flexibility to scale new technologies quickly without entering the likely 3 year program budget process. During that time, it is natural for documentation and approvals to proliferate.
The Rapid Prototyping Fund is dead. What replaces it? I often speak about aligning budgets with organizations and missions rather than particular programs. That would allow organizations to allocate funds to highest valued uses based on current information, not locked in plans from 2 or 3 years ago. The concept reflects how public administration had traditionally done it up until the WWII period. Indeed, Roland McKean — a founder of what is now the PPBE (funding) process — even advocated for “to be scheduled” line items due to the presence of uncertainty.
Perhaps 2020 is the year of rising interest in reforming the PPBE process… I suspect that without addressing the PPBE, the rest of acquisition reform will start to bureaucratize with respect to requirements and milestone approvals (e.g., middle tier) and contracting (e.g., OTAs).
Leave a Reply