Takeaways from Bill LaPlante’s confirmation hearing for USD A&S

Here are some notes on William LaPlante’s confirmation hearing to become USD Acquisition & Sustainment — courtesy of the excellent Pete Modigliani.

Congress gave DoD rapid contracting and prototyping authorities yet need to bridge the Valley of Death

• He will work with program offices to make it their job to do continuous upgrades of technology

We need multiple hot production lines for munitions, UAS, etc.

Q: Where to innovate, take risks vs where we need more rigor?

• Lessons from Ford and F-35 are we need to have mature technology, thoughtful designs, and adhere to Independent Cost Estimates
• A little time in the beginning pays dividends in the long run
• To innovate, we need Modular Open Systems Approach for tech upgrades – the best tech will win its way onto the platforms

Q: Innovation Accelerators?

• Regional ecosystems across the country are the future. Accelerate public-private partnerships – explain our problems to industry and academia. We’ll fund you not just for your prototype, but for production too.

Q: Cyber risk – can’t sustain if risk of cyber attack

• Deliver Uncompromised – Must deliver parts uncompromised, not bake in afterwards. Will check programs and have red-teams to assess the cyber vulnerabilities of the major programs to be responsive to the changing cyber threats

Q: Speed is important – cannot wait decades for new technologies, risk averse – competitors do iterative tests.

• Failed test is one where you don’t learn. AF/DARPA hypersonic had 2 tests in 2010, both failed and DoD stopped, while China key testing and iterating

Q: Modularity is important

• Yes. MOSA known for 20-30 systems. B-21 open standard. Need in all future RFPs.

Q: Use more COTS/Commercial vice overly customized/defined DoD requirements + IP to additive manufacture the parts so we can do AM on ships, deployed…

• Yes, many vendor locks with OEM where AM could help break that.

Q: Massive consolidation of the Defense Industrial Base, effects prices, plus subcontractor quality and cyber issues.

• Highlighted the DIB consolidation chart. Need competition to drive speed and innovation.
• Suppliers – Need to pressure primes to know supply chain 3-4 levels down. “Contractor privy” doesn’t allow primes to know suppliers 3-4 levels down.

Q: Do R&D but not enough production

• Need to have metrics on getting things to production.
• Up the current production lines of munitions and UAS
• Cross the Valley of Death to inject new tech into PORs

Q: What private company does R&D to production well?

• SpaceX – Agile SW development, launch every 2 weeks – unheard of speed.
• Small biz need to see business opportunities beyond one off contract

Q: We spend X on R&D before transitioning?

• Agile SW study – Industry does research then iterate to see value in short cycles < 6 months, if not pivot to something else. OK to stop if not paying off.
• Have ability in SW to stop things – need to apply Agile concepts to HW

Q: Need to tap private sector, lower barriers for small biz – what is proper balance of small biz, non-traditional/startups, and traditional DIB?

• Want widest amount of competition possible. When businesses get out of defense biz, that’s bad for us.
• Traditional defense contractors shouldn’t get complacent – can be disrupted by smaller businesses

Q: Will you commit to work with Navy and USMC work with them on their requirements and not have OSD dictate their requirements?

• Yes.

Q: Future Vertical Lift lessons – Small and disadvantages businesses critical to agility. What role for SDB/WOSDB in the DIB?

• 70% of lifecycle costs are in sustainment. Need small business/startups to be our “ace in the hole”, address Cost Accounting Standards, IP, time to award contracts, Authority to Operate.

Q: Supply Chain issues with defense industry – What strategy for choke points and contested logistics?

• Must have more hot production lines across the country, even with duplication to reduce the single point of failure. Open source analysis of critical nodes in supply chains. Ensure DoD and industry uses them more.

Q: Valley of Death – Specific steps to cross VoD?

• Prototypes should have a plan that if successful, what program would it go into. Production and sustainment need to be thought through early. Work with Shyu to get tech across VoD.

 

Here are Pete’s takeaway from the Advance Policy Questions submitted by LaPlante:

9. If confirmed, what are the top priorities you would plan to focus on during your tenure as the USD(A&S)? What would be your plans for achieving these priorities?

Our troops must have what they need to confront and overcome rapidly evolving challenges from a fast-moving pacing threat and peer competitors. As such, my top priority, if confirmed, would be ensuring that the defense acquisition system has a laser-like focus on delivering capabilities that meet the needs—both current and future—of U.S. forces.

I would also focus on improving our ability to acquire software and software intensive systems, sustaining our fielded weapon systems in a cost-effective manner, and strengthening the Defense Industrial Base and our supply chains.

I would do this by transitioning emerging technologies—hypersonics, artificial intelligence, autonomy, directed energy, and others—into programs of record and fielding them for operational use; tapping the innovation of the private sector by lowering barriers to doing business with DoD for small businesses, commercial firms, non-traditional defense contractors, and startups; and empowering and enabling the dedicated professionals who comprise the defense acquisition workforce.

10. In your opinion, what are the greatest challenges facing the DOD’s acquisition and sustainment communities?

I believe the greatest challenge facing these communities is the rapidly evolving threat environment and the constant changes in acquisition and sustainment priorities that result. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine only a few weeks ago has provided a stark reminder that the threat environment can change at any time, and the DoD’s acquisition and sustainment communities must be postured to deliver the capabilities needed to confront and overcome rapidly evolving challenges from a fast-moving pacing threat and peer competitors. Technology is also changing fast, and our warfighters must have access at scale to the best technology to do their job. At the same time, we face an enduring strategic challenge from China that comprehensively stresses the Defense Acquisition System and on which we can never lose focus.

11. What would be your plans for addressing these challenges, if confirmed?

The key to addressing these challenges is an innovative, empowered workforce, backed by an acquisition system that empowers decision-making authorities and program managers, institutionalizes critical thinking, and employs shorter, iterative product delivery cycles. Close cooperation with the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Research & Engineering (OUSD(R&E)) will also be critical to ensuring we can bring leading edge capabilities to the field as quickly as possible.

I understand the Department continues to implement a number of acquisition reforms that will ensure the Defense Acquisition System is capable of keeping pace with a dynamic threat landscape. This includes the Adaptive Acquisition Framework, which provides an adaptable, flexible, and responsive policy foundation which encourages greater flexibility and empowers common-sense decision making, while also maintaining discipline and the employment of sound business practice.

18. If so, please elaborate, and if not, explain why your viewpoint has changed, and what additional reforms to the defense acquisition system, particularly stemming from the Section 809 Panel, you view as especially important.

I continue to support the Section 809 Panel’s core recommendations, particularly its support for acquiring innovative commercial technologies and approaching the market in a way that allows commercial capabilities to complement our defense unique capabilities by solving many problems for which they are suited. I also support portfolio management approaches to acquisition as outlined by the Section 809 panel.

19. In your view, what are the advantages and disadvantages of having two separate organizations: one to manage acquisition and sustainment, and one to manage research and engineering?

I believe having two separate organizations allows each to focus on its respective area of expertise. While the transition area between these portfolios can introduce challenges as we transition emerging technologies from research and development programs into fielded capabilities, these can be overcome through close collaboration between A&S and R&E.

32. Traditionally, acquisition programs are managed on a program-by-program basis. In your view, what are the advantages and disadvantages of moving toward a more portfolio-based management approach?

As a member of the 809 Panel, I recommended a review of moving to a portfolio-based management approach. If confirmed, I will work with USD(R&E), the SAEs and CAPE to review the advantages and disadvantages of moving toward a more portfolio-based management approach

36. What specific steps would you take, if confirmed, to ensure the acquisition enterprise is collecting the appropriate authoritative data, including data from industry partners and other DOD organizations, to effectively model risk, and use appropriate indicators of program and portfolio health?

The Department has been taking steps to ensure availability of authoritative data for a number of years and I will continue scaling these efforts. I intend on leveraging my previous experiences along with current efforts across the Department to scale while preserving transparency to Congress and ensuring effective use of data throughout the Department. As such, I will evaluate current data collection to ensure alignment with industry best practices. Accurate, timely, clearly understood and authoritative data is absolutely essential to transparently understanding the status of how we’re performing and where we should seek to improve.

38. What do you believe are the major barriers to DOD fully adopting modern software development approaches, and what additional steps, if confirmed, would you take to drive their adoption throughout DOD?

While DoD has made considerable progress in adopting modern software practices over the last few years, there is still much work to be done in transforming our processes, tools, culture, and workforce. If confirmed, I will work with OSD, Joint Staff, the Services and others to further build on DoD’s initial momentum, and modernize enterprise processes, strategies, tools, and culture for rapid digital capability delivery. I would partner with key organizations to further tailor DoD interoperability, test and evaluation, contracting, and requirements processes for software. I would champion investments in DoD’s workforce to hire more software experts and develop DoD’s workforce with modern training and career fields for software development and acquisition. As software is central to every DoD mission and system, we must ensure our policies, processes, and culture support speed and agility in development.

 39. What is your assessment of the current capabilities of the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) to properly execute agile software development?

The Section 809 Panel, on which I served, identified many recommendations needed to move the DoD and its industrial base toward a more streamlined and agile acquisition system in sync with the information age. I understand many of the firms in the DIB are growing their agile software development capabilities and practices, yet we still see many struggles with software approaches integrated into major hardware development. There are barriers preventing widespread adoption of business models and best practices common in the tech industry. If confirmed, I would seek to promote leading private-sector industry practices throughout DoD where delivery of capability is done iteratively and collaboratively with the government, which can reduce cycle times and be more responsive to changing technologies, operations, and threats. This is particularly true for software, which is central to every major DoD mission and weapon system.

40. What is your opinion on the merits of DOD incorporating iterative development approaches centered on fielding minimum viable capabilities?

Best practices in software development focus on rapidly fielding a minimum viable capability to get into the hands of users to accelerate learning, capture feedback, and use the insights to shape requirements, design, and strategies. The Defense Science Board Study on Software and Acquisition, which I co-chaired, made many recommendations I support. Similarly, the Defense Innovation Board’s Software Acquisition and Practices (SWAP) study came to many of the same conclusions. The Section 809 Panel, on which I served, likewise articulated “the need for speed” in acquisition, “without forgetting integrity, competition, transparency, and delivering lethality.” Iterative development can reduce cycle times and be more responsive to changing technologies, operations, and threats. If confirmed, I would seek to promote the DoD’s use of this leading industry practice.

41. To what extent do you believe DOD has broadly implemented commercial best practice agile development approaches adequately for software and hardware systems?

I understand the DoD has made significant progress over the last several years to enable more modern software development and acquisition practices, policies, pilots, and training, with strong Congressional support. I also understand DoD has taken important steps such as issuing the new Software Acquisition Pathway which is purpose-built to implement best commercial agile approaches and enable modern software practices for both applications and embedded software. DoD is still in the early stages of effectively implementing agile and modern software approaches with progress in software intensive systems that can be leveraged for application to more of our hardware systems. If confirmed, software acquisition will be a high priority.

46. What impediments to technology transition do you see within the Department?

Technology transition continues to be a critical issue across the DoD. We must aggressively exploit new commercial and government technologies, integrate them into our programs, and deliver to operations. DoD needs the ability to rapidly invest in new technologies and products and must rethink our technology and business approaches to do so. From my view, there are a few key impediments that make collaboration and alignment of emerging technology to current needs difficult: budgeting timelines with the PPBE process, outmoded requirements systems preventing programs from moving rapidly, and complex decision-making processes.

47. If confirmed, what steps would you take to increase the rate and frequency at which proven technologies developed by DOD, defense industry, or the commercial sector are transitioned into programs of record?

DoD should build and deliver capabilities in iterations similar to industry to reduce cycle times and be more responsive to changing technologies, operations, and threats. This is particularly true for software which is central to every major DoD mission and weapon system. We must continue to employ modular, open systems approaches as well as commercial as-a-service models, and invest in foundational enterprise infrastructure that allow rapid insertion of emerging technologies. We must organize around capability or mission area portfolios that rapidly harnesses a wide-array of commercial and defense solutions and enable rapid insertion of emerging technology. If confirmed I will work with my counterpart in USD(R&E) to align acquisition programs with advances in the technology sector.