Sec. 800. Sense of Congress on the desired tenets of the defense acquisition system
760 words·~3 min read·
/bill/114/hr/1735/rh/section-800·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
Congress finds the following: The Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives held a series of hearings in 2013, 2014, and 2015 gathering testimony from key acquisition leaders and experts. It is clear that the acquisition reform efforts of the last 50 years continue to founder because they fail to address the motivational and environmental factors in which they must be implemented. The acquisition system, though frustrating to all, is in one sense in equilibrium.
The acquisition system provides enough benefits to proponents and opponents to continue, with only minor changes, despite its shortcomings. The Armed Forces continue to pursue too many defense acquisitions, chasing too few dollars. Consequently, there remains a vast difference between the budgeting plans of the Department and the reality of the cost of its systems or the services it acquires. To keep programs alive, the Department develops and Congress accepts fragile acquisition strategies that downplay technical issues and assume only successful outcomes from high-risk efforts.
As a result, the Department often ends up with too few weapons, with performance that falls short, that are difficult and costly to maintain, delivered late at too high a cost. Congressional and Department of Defense leadership have limited insight into the services acquired or what services need to be acquired in the future. Furthermore, the conventional acquisition process is not agile enough for today’s demands. Finally, the Department of Defense continues to struggle with financial management and auditability, affecting its ability to control costs, ensure basic accountability, anticipate future costs and claims on the budget, and measure performance.
Too often today, all stakeholders in the Department of Defense, Congress, and industry, accept that— for the acquisition process, success is defined as maximizing technical performance or protecting organizational interests, without regard to funding disruptions and delivery delays of needed capability or services to the warfighter; and the acquisition process is— reactive, meaning issues are addressed late and at great cost only after problems are realized; plodding, meaning the bureaucratic processes are sclerotic and cumbersome; opaque, meaning that limiting information is necessary to protect programs; and traditional, meaning that customary approaches and suppliers are preferred over perceived risk of new or unique concepts and vendors.
Today, the United States is at a cross-roads, and if changes to the acquisition system are not made soon, the trend of fewer and more costly systems and services that fall short of the needs of the Armed Forces will continue. Congress, the Department of Defense, and industry all have a stake in making positive changes. Each plays a role in contributing to the current system. Each gains benefits from that system, but each is frustrated by it as well. The acquisition improvement effort of the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives proposes a different approach from previous efforts by seeking to improve the environment (i.e., statutes, regulations, processes, and culture) driving acquisition decisions in the Department of Defense, industry, and Congress.
The Committee has solicited input from industry and the Department of Defense, as well as others in Congress, and will continue to do so. The Committee recognizes that there are no silver bullets that can immediately fix the current acquisition system in a holistic and long-standing manner. Therefore, the reform effort will be an ongoing and iterative process that will result in legislation not only this year, but will be embedded in the Committee’s annual and regular work. It is the sense of Congress that all stakeholders in the acquisition system—the Department of Defense, Congress, and industry—should be governed by the following tenets:
Success in the acquisition system means the timely delivery of affordable and effective military equipment and services. The acquisition system should be proactive, meaning— the system should recognize that development and acquisition problems can occur; and officials at all levels should be empowered to solve problems and reduce risks by surfacing issues early and honestly and taking action to resolve them. The acquisition system should be agile, meaning that needed program adjustments to both respond to emerging threats and the rapid pace of technological change and to address development or production issues should be proposed and adjudicated quickly.
The acquisition system should be transparent, meaning that— all decision makers should be given useful, relevant, credible, and reliable information when making commitments; Government and industry communication should be clear and open; and the Department of Defense should produce auditable financial management statements. The acquisition system should be innovative, meaning that barriers should be removed that preclude companies from undertaking defense business or officials from proposing new approaches.