Army General: Screw this procurement nightmare.

I'm sympathetic to the general's feelings...

I posted this legislation on Sunday and I found it interesting that he griped before the House Armed Services Committee which then gave him:  H.R.4741 - Acquisition Agility Act.  That bill is an example of future sections "to improve and perfect" the acquisition process in the next version of the NDAA.  Of course, there was "improvement and perfection" in the long list of prior NDAAs with more "improvement and perfection" to come. 

That is the product of Congress:  "endless improvement and perfection."  At least in the collective mind of Congress.

The General does not know how good he has it. At least he has weapons available for use.  Cannot say the same for some of the US Allies.  For example, the General should be thankful that he is not in the German Army.  "Recently a German battalion assigned to NATO's rapid response force used broomstick handles instead of guns on a joint exercise due to chronic equipment shortages" -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11420627/German-army-used-broomsticks-instead-of-guns-during-training.html

policyguy:

Well, I suppose a U.S. Army general officer is grateful that he's not in the German army, or the British Army, or the French army. But it sounds to me like a client is unhappy with the service he is getting from acquisition professionals. Are you saying that he should be satisfied with the system that we have because it doesn't perform as badly as someone else's badly performing system? Is that how acquisition policy people think?

$365 M, for what appears to be a commercial item, and two years of testing? Terrible.

JMG said:

$365 M, for what appears to be a commercial item, and two years of testing? Terrible.

Did you head down to Ruminant Procurement to see how they were coming along on the sheep specs?

When I hear pistol procurement, I think of this:

http://www.gao.gov/assets/500/492927.pdf

I can purchase a pistol within 2 miles from my house. 

However, I don't need to use it in extreme temperatures, I don't need it to fit a wide variety of hands, I don't need to train thousands of different people on how to use it,  and I don't need to incorporate it into a complex logistical system for ammo/spare parts.  The General is making a decision that the advantage of purchasing Glocks off the shelf outweighs these considerations (and many more I cannot think of).

I think the root of his objection is the one-size-fits-all mentality which leads to the large spec-book and consequential customization and marathon testing.  Does the military need to standardize to the degree it does?  Is the perfect pistol for the Middle East the same as the perfect pistol for South America?

“We are not talking about nuclear subs or going to the moon here. We are talking about a pistol.” Said the General (the requirements lead)

Vern Edwards said:

policyguy:

Well, I suppose a U.S. Army general officer is grateful that he's not in the German army, or the British Army, or the French army. But it sounds to me like a client is unhappy with the service he is getting from acquisition professionals. Are you saying that he should be satisfied with the system that we have because it doesn't perform as badly as someone else's badly performing system? Is that how acquisition policy people think?

He is a major player in the "system", he should know better.  He is the Army Chief of Staff and did not come to that office without having some experience with the DOD/DA acquisition system.  You have previously written yourself that  "..contracting with the U.S. government is the most complex business in the world. It’s right up there with trading derivatives."  

If he has a problem he has courses of action to pursue such as he can submit to Congress a legislative proposal to make changes to the acquisition system to his liking and then press the FAR System and the Army to implement them in the Army supplemental regulations; he can submit to Congress a request for an supplemental appropriation for Glock pistols of his liking, he can do, as one of the articles mention above, seek to add the requirement for Glock pistols to an existing contract, etc.   

As you have previously written "by the spirit of John Galt (Ayn Rand’s fictional hero in Atlas Shrugged) If you can’t play with the big boys you should have stayed off the field...".

I'm sorry but I don't have much sympathy for this General.  He reminds me of the General  in a book and movie that HBO made from it called "The Pentagon Wars" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars). 

Perhaps that is not how policy people should think but I try to do the best I can with the acquisition system that we are given.

policyguy:

Screw sympathy. Who cares whether you sympathize with the general? He hasn't asked for sympathy. He's complaining, which is every soldier's right. He sees a problem and he wants it fixed.

The system he is complaining about was constructed mainly by DOD, not by the Army. Moreover, he is a new chief of staff and to my knowledge has not previously had acquisition authority or responsibility and wasn't responsible for the requirement. (I could be wrong about that, but he was just appointed Chief of Staff.) In any case, he is happy that acquisition management authority has been returned to the services by Congress. Now we'll see what the Army will do with it.

The truly interesting question is not whether the general deserves sympathy, but whether his complaint is valid. I've looked at the RFP: 351 pages, not counting attachments. We could discuss why the requirement is not for a commercial item, and what is the justification for imposing design and performance requirements that are not commercially available. The general seems to be asking that.

So, now that you've vented, what do you think? As an acquisition professional, what would you say to the general? Would you defend the current system or would you say, "I'll fix the problem if you'll give me authority, a free hand, and the go-ahead"? If he gave you the authority, a free hand, and the go-ahead, what would you do?

It seems that we aren't even doing the best we can with the acquisition system that we've been given.  After reading about this requirement a couple of weeks ago I could not reconcile the approach the Government is taking with what I've read in the FAR, particularly the following:

FAR 1.102 (b) "The Federal Acquisition System will -- (1) Satisfy the customer in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness of the delivered product or service by, for example -- (i) Maximizing the use of commercial products and services..."

FAR 7.102 (a) "Agencies shall perform acquisition planning and conduct market research for all acquisitions in order to promote and provide for -- (1) Acquisition of commercial items or, to the extent that commercial items suitable to meet the agency's needs are not available, nondevelopmental items, to the maximum extent practicable (10 U.S.C. 2377 and 41 U.S.C. 3307)"

FAR 12.101 "Agencies shall -- (a) Conduct market research to determine whether commercial items or nondevelopment items are available that could meet the agency's requirements; (b) Acquire commercial items or nondevelopmental items when they are available to meet the needs of the agency..."

I've read case studies of past procurements where the Government found itself in a poor position by stretching the definition of "commercial item" to use FAR Part 12 procedures (http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports/FY06/06-115.pdf).  Here the Government appears to be doing the opposite.

I have my popcorn ready, waiting for responses to the questions in post #11.

I think the general is qualified to be the source selection authority -- so he is qualified to select the evaluation criteria and the members of the evaluation team and make the best value selection decision.  And he could hold both program management and contracting authority as a PEO does.  If I was his contracting officer and he gave me authority, I could make him happy and have the contract awarded quickly and fairly.  The acquisition system should be serving him (see Matthew's post above and FAR 1.102( b )).

The Air Force is doing its B-21 bomber acquisition in its Rapid Capabilities Office reporting directly to the Secretary instead of using the normal organization Air Force Materiel Command.  Good for the Air Force -- if AFMC cannot deliver, let someone else do it.  

http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/news/local-military/new-bomber-built-in-secrecy-outside-of-wpafb/npSrW/

If you read many of the dozens of articles about this matter, the real laugher is all the GIs talking about wanting "stopping power." I can understand wanting a pistol that will knock a big man down like in the movies, but it's mostly hooey. A .22 can stop a man if you hit him in the right place under the right circumstances. But that's the rub, isn't it. For most soldiers the handgun works like a pacifier. You'll never do anything with it, but you feel better having it than not. Buy a good commercial one. Of course, the Army wants it to work under salt water and wants waterproof cartridges. Seriously.

Read this; http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2013/01/stopping-power-myths-legends-and-realities.aspx

Be sure to read the comments.

WARNING: Graphic photo on first page.

(Now EVERYONE will read it.)

Is the requirement really for it to work under salt water and use waterproof cartridges? You may be joking but your point is valid. The procurement process gets a bad reputation for taking too long, but if you peel back the onion a lot of times it comes down to ridiculous specifications pushing the edges of technology, perhaps the new weapon calls for it to use a smart cartridge that will go around corner's, too. So the General should look first at the requirement writers before blasting the entire procurement process.   A little off topic, but my father a WWII vet, tells the story of preparing to ship out without a revolver, his squadron commander bought every one of his troops a revolver with his own money before they deployed. None of his men were going without a side arm.  That 38 is still in the family today, and is pretty darn accurate. Where are those leaders today??

My favorite comment on the article Vern just shared.

Quote

My preferred weapon of choice is a 77 plymouth with snow tires. Flattens criminals out.

If I worked for that General I’d be drafting a sole source justification.  I’m pretty sure he’d sign off.

The difference in stopping power is marketing nonsense.  To put it in acquisition terms, accuracy and quantity when combined are significantly more important than caliber (within certain parameters).  The 9mm has less recoil than a larger caliber weapon meaning follow-on shots are easier to put on target when firing in rapid succession.  And, comparably sized and weighted, the magazine for a 9 holds a greater quantity of rounds than the magazine of any larger caliber.

As at least one other has poster noted, this isn't 100% about picking a handgun. It's about ammunition and holsters and webgear, and training and maintenance, and likely several other things I'm too unqualified to list. If it were only about a firearm, we could set up a website and pre-select which of several choices were available to a soldier, based on MOS and assignment, and some other factors. Each choice would have a negotiated price. The soldier could log onto the website from an authorized terminal (or via phone with appropriate authorization/authentication) and choose which firearm they personally preferred to carry. It could be drop-shipped from the supplier to the soldier's local armory and an invoice would be automatically generated. Easy peasy. Just like Amazon or a host of other sites. Heck, you could even set up options, such as ivory handles (not pearl) or special sights, and those would be billed directly to the soldier's personal credit card.

But because it's also about those other things, it can't work that way. A general ought to understand that.

He is an O-10. I'm pretty sure he understands how acquisition works. Army's Program Managers are O-5s.  We have a requirements problem. Again.

jwomack said:

If I worked for that General I’d be drafting a sole source justification.  I’m pretty sure he’d sign off.

I don't recall this standard (Chief of Staff's signature) as one of the circumstances permitting other than full and open competition...

Full and open competition is not the problem. Requirements and source selection procedure are the problem.

Most soldiers who are issued a pistol will never use it in action, and if they use it they won't hit anything with it.

Maintenance? Keep your ammo clean. Clean the piece after use, otherwise, once a week. According to the general, they'll cost about $500 each. 86 it if it breaks.

I don't know all the testing that is being contemplated, but it sounds like somebody may have pulled out an old after action report on the fielding of the M-16 and is not wanting to repeat those problems.  Maybe an issue of applying lessons learned to the wrong problem.

If you create a bureaucracy whose specialty is to develop requirements, guess what they'll do?

You want a new pistol? Send me to Cabelas with $17M.

~CoS

Here are some of my favorite statements the General had made concerning acquisition:

“You give me $17 million on a credit card, and I’ll call Cabela’s tonight, and I’ll outfit every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine with a pistol for $17 million. And I’ll get a discount on a bulk buy.”

"It’s not a lack of oversight. We’re not asking for free rein, let’s go party, I’m saying: Let me — and then hold me accountable — figure out what type of pistol we need, and let me go buy it and not go through nine years of scrutiny.”

He blamed layers upon layers of processes, where centralized and bureaucratic lawyer-guided solutions to accountability problems have gummed up the system. Milley said the best fix is to “empower and decentralize” while maintaining accountability.

“I think I should be able to look at someone and say here’s your task, here’s why you’re doing it, here’s the purpose. Here’s the end-state I want you to achieve by such-and-such a time. Go forth and have at it. If you succeed, you’re promoted, and I give you a medal. If you fail, you get fired. And you hold people accountable,”.

This story reminds me of another blunder by an Army General, when General Shinseki ordered the black berets for the Army.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/army-demotes-its-black-berets/2011/06/15/AG9nfRWH_story.html

On 3/24/2016 at 5:11 PM, Vern Edwards said:

policyguy:

So, now that you've vented, what do you think? As an acquisition professional, what would you say to the general? Would you defend the current system or would you say, "I'll fix the problem if you'll give me authority, a free hand, and the go-ahead"? If he gave you the authority, a free hand, and the go-ahead, what would you do?

I would advise the general to do two things.  First I would recommend he review the Report of the “Commission on Army Acquisition and Program Management in Expeditionary Operations”:  http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/contingency/reports/docs/gansler_commission_report_final_report_20071031.pdf. It appears that many of these issues highlighted in the report, although for expeditionary contract related acquisitions,seem to me they are still found regardless of what is being acquired.  I believe the general would benefit from reading this report and see what can be taken from this report and applied to this situation.

The second recommendation I would give is for him to hold accountable the Army acquisition officials that should be helping him, which if I'm not mistaken, is the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Procurement:

http://www.army.mil/article/95781/Deputy_Assistant_Secretary_for_Procurement__Mr__Harry_P__Hallock/

As a contracting practitioner on the receiving end of the general's complaint, I would not advise him to read any commission reports or visit any links. That would be insulting and would invite a well-deserved rebuke, if not worse. He has a bachelors from Princeton and a masters from Columbia. Look at his bio. He can decide for himself what to read or get a list from his chief of staff. Instead, I would say, "I understand the task. I can fix what bothers you, or at least some of it. Tell me how much authority I have, and I'll make it better to that extent. If you give me complete authority, I'll take complete responsibility, and I won't break the law or embarrass you. Order me to report status directly to you, once a week, in 30 words or less. If I fail in the end, you won't have to fire me."

He would have to put up or shut up. It he put up, it would make me or break me. I would take it for granted that he would hold me responsible. How do you think he got four stars?

I was trained by the U.S. Army, 1964 - 1967. I won't whine or defend myself, or explain my performance through commission reports and websites.

I think I know what you'll say.

Hi, Vern,

I think it is wise to omit this sentiment from your response to the general:

Quote

A .22 can stop a man if you hit him in the right place under the right circumstances. But that's the rub, isn't it. For most soldiers the handgun works like a pacifier.

How does you response or procurement strategy differ if the general was referring to the primary weapon, rather than the back-up pistol?  Asking as a firearms-ignorant person, is it sufficient to purchase a good commercial weapon in this circumstance?

apso:

I'm not sure that I understand your question. By "primary weapon," do you mean a rifle? Are you asking me if I would accept a commercial rifle, such as the infantry use? If so, the answer is no, if for no other reason than the fact that no commercial rifle is capable of automatic fire.

A think there is a good discussion deciding if the current primary infantry rifle is commercial or not. I don't think the weapon being select-fire (single, three round burst, or fully automatic) makes it non-commercial. Plenty of private citizens and non-governmental organizations (security companies, gun ranges - in Arizona and Las Vegas you can rent a full auto) own select-fire rifles and machine guns (fully automatic only). I wonder if the current FN USA or Colt Defense contracts for M4s are commercial, and if not why not. The military style gun market is large and many buyers want exactly what the SEALs or DELTA are using and will pay an unjustified amount of cash for it.

From a procurement perspective, I think the debate would be largely about mil-spec standards, but many buyers purchase mil-spec rifles and prefer them over the commercial standard. Some figure if it's good enough for the military it's good enough for them, many just want to play soldier on the weekend, while others can articulate why they have a technical preference.

Maybe I'm just interested because I like building rifles...

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/09/tim-harmsen/respect-the-mil-spec-but-keep-it-real/

I quit the NRA once, in the 1990's, I think. The American Rifleman magazine published an article with full scale illustrations of the TWO parts that would turn a semi-automatic Colt AR-15 into a selectable full-automatic rifle (essentially an M-16). I think that the dimensions were also provided but it was a long time ago.  I believe that a gun smith could have used the drawings to fabricate the parts. The article said that it would be illegal to install the two parts but gave full description and instructions on how to perform the conversion!  So, don't be so sure that certain commercial versions of rifles are that different from the mil spec/military versions from the same manufacturer.

Thanks, Vern- I did mean rifle.  Appreciate the explanation.