Weapons Procurement

A Report by the Assessment Panel of the
Defense Acquisition Performance
Assessment Project
For the Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense
Defense Acquisition
Performance Assessment
Executive Summary
December 2005
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/DAPA%2012-22%20WEB%20Exec%20Summary.pdf

A typical DoD Report: it is a shining example of bureaucraticize. It's purported streamlining of the Procurement process will only produce more nonaccountability, without generating the Procurement integration desired and expressed in the Report. Expert Managers are also not the salvation; even the dumbest must understand when they are crossing the line. One of the worst problems is Project creep, where more desired capabilities are hung weapons systems without any Oversight.

Potential Solution:

1) A Congressional Act establishing that a Congress of Combatant Commanders plus their Assistant Combatant Commanders be established, where either the Combatant Commander or his Second in Command must attend every session of the Congress.
2) The Act will state funding for support of committed Troops must come first, before any other Budgetary funds are allocated.
3) Every weapons system will be allocated a a projected Price tag.
4) The Congress of Combatant Commanders and their Assistants will be told they will get only 70% of the projected total funds of the combination of the separate Price tags for the proposed weapons systems.
5) The Commanders and Assistant Commanders must deliver a list of weapons systems which they desire at the 70% Price tag total.
6) the Congressional Act will not allow funding of any other weapons systems, except those selected, without a 75% approval in both the House of Representatives and Senate.
7) Funding for any weapons will cease for the Budgetary Year in which the projected Price tag is exceeded, Defense Contractors expected to pay for development in the absence of funding. lgl