The strategy of ‘deal-making’ is a hallmark of the political approach employed by the Trump administration and some in Congress. But a deal-making approach is a simple-minded strategy for public policy that disregards crucial implications and complexities that are inherent in politics, that can have negative implications for national security interests.
Emphasis on accountability, although valuable and necessary, can impede the defense acquisition process rather than alleviate problems. Acquisition reform must look beyond placing blame and create an environment that values collaboration and risk-taking as it seeks to improve the challenges in the acquisition process.
On August 1, DoD submitted a report to Congress outlining its plans to split the responsibilities of the current Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics (AT&L) into two new positions. Rhys McCormick and Andrew Hunter answer the critical questions surrounding the reorganization of the defense acquisition system.
By the end of June, we should have an idea of what the FY 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) will look like, and acquisition reform is sure to be on the agenda. Andrew Hunter explains why we should avoid the standard cynicism surrounding acquisition reform efforts and analyzes HASC Chairman Mac Thornberry’s latest bill.
This report examines how such incentives are used in PBL contracting and looks further towards how incentives can best be utilized in a PBL contracting environment. This report is structured in three parts: a review of the available literature on the use of incentives in PBL contracting, a data analysis of where and how PBL contracts are used in the DoD, and a summary of initial findings from the experts CSIS has interviewed on the subject.
This study examines the literature on how contracts are fulfilled for both civilian and defense crisis funds, primarily focusing on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), disaster funds, and Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds. Utilizing publicly available data, the study provides a methodology for classifying the contracts and analyzes the data based on noncompetitive awards, undefinitized contract actions, and reachback contracts.