It may be a coincidence, or maybe not, but just days after Inside the Army spoke to a former service acquisition executive who called for making an internal study of the Army's buying process public, the service is hosting a roundtable session with reporters tomorrow to discuss its acquisition-reform efforts.
The meetup, featuring acting Army acquisition chief Heidi Shyu, is expected to cover the Army's response to that internal study. As Inside the Army reports this week:
Gil Decker, a former Army acquisition chief and the co-author of an internal study criticizing the Army's acquisition process, said last week that the service should make the review public, and he questioned whether recent high-level leadership turnover had caused a "hiccup" in implementing the study's recommendations.
"I feel, we all feel, they should publicize it," Decker said in a July 14 interview with Inside the Army, referring to a report he and former Army Materiel Command chief Gen. Lou Wagner were chartered to craft by Army Secretary John McHugh. "I mean, if they think it's a pile of crap, they should say so. They won't hurt our feelings. But if they say, 'No, this has got value; we've got to do some of these things,' we felt they should publicize it," Decker said.
"Because the Army needs some rational, honest, good publicity," he added.
The results of the Decker-Wagner report, first reported by ITA in February, caused a stir on Capitol Hill early this year, and Army officials have been asked about it at nearly every hearing before lawmakers since then. According to Decker, the study delivered 56 recommendations to improve the way service officials spend funds on anything from pistols to tanks. (The study also acknowledged being one of 80-some such efforts.)
The Decker-Wagner study stood out for the shock value of its arithmetic, delivering the news that the Army spends between $3.3 billion and $3.8 billion annually on programs that ultimately get canceled. "We tried to call a spade a spade, with the data to back it up," said Decker.
The service has never disputed the numbers.
After the story broke, service officials vowed to embrace the study and make the recommended changes. In a May hearing, McHugh called it "long overdue," singling out former Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey as the driving force behind its inception. The study's authors "came back with 76 recommendations, some of which were revelatory," McHugh told members of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee. Out of those, the Army had singled out 63 for implementation, he added.
But the service has remained silent over specifics, not even communicating its leanings to the study's authors, according to Decker. Service leaders also did not take up team members on their offer to assist in seeing the proposals through, Decker added, noting carefully that the Army is under no obligation to do so.
"So far we haven't been called on -- and that's not a criticism. It's their study. We're available . . . if they want us to come in and look at what they're doing," he said.