The Insider

Top Pentagon weapons tester Michael Gilmore has circulated a point-by-point rebuttal to some of the claims made by a General Dynamics C4 Systems executive last week about the company's product in the high-stakes business of Army radios. Gilmore's document, which consists of an Inside the Army story interrupted with insertions to rebut key points, was circulated to staff on Capitol Hill today, according to a spokeswoman.

For example, the ITA story -- originally posted Oct. 12 on InsideDefense.com -- stated:

Chris Marzilli, president of GDC4, told ITA in an Oct. 11 interview that the Manpack recently demonstrated that all of its issues had been addressed during a follow-up test at Ft. Huachuca.

"It's a good day for JTRS," he said. "We knew the results at WSMR were not representative of the product."

. . . to which Gilmore's memo responds:

During its Limited User Test (LUT) during NIE 11.2 in June 2011, the Manpack radio demonstrated poor range performance for both SINCGARS and SRW waveforms. It also demonstrated inconsistent voice quality and poor reliability during this test. Dismounted Manpack radios also experienced heat problems; on three occasions during the LUT users chose to turn off their Manpack radios rather than risk a heat-related radio failure. These same problems were seen during the benign environment of Government Developmental Test (GDT) 2 conducted at Ft. Huachuca in March 2012. During GDT 2, fewer than 20 percent of Manpack's SINCGARS calls were completed at ranges more than 5 km, radio temperatures exceeded safe levels, and reliability was not improved. Because of these numerous flaws, the DASD for Developmental Test and Evaluation stated that Manpack was not sufficiently mature to conduct the planned MOT&E in May 2012. During the MOT&E, the Manpack’s SRW waveform range was improved, but it once again demonstrated poor SINCGARS range, poor reliability, and heat problems. Over 60 essential function failures were recorded during MOT&E. After MOT&E the Manpack PM identified 14 separate hardware or software flaws which the contractor attempted to fix prior to September’s GDT 3. The contractor's actions to address identified flaws resulted in better SINCGARS performance during GDT 3, but also revealed four new hardware or software flaws which the contractor will have to address to enable the radio to meet reliability requirements. Note that the follow-up test at Fort Huachuca was a relatively short test conducted in a benign developmental test environment, and hence it was insufficient to conclusively demonstrate that the flaws seen during MOT&E have been satisfactorily addressed.

View the Oct. 12 InsideDefense.com story.

View the full DOT&E point-by-point response.

View today's story that highlights Gilmore's response.

The Pentagon recently revised its Defense Acquisition Guidebook, according to an update on the Defense Acquisition University's website:

Revisions include new or revised business practice associated with the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act, the Better Buying Power initiatives, implementation of the Improving Milestone Process Effectiveness policy, and requirements based on various Directive Type Memorandums. In addition, new chapters have been added for Business Systems, Program Protection, and Acquisitions of Services.

The home page for the Guidebook has been re-designed to provide easier access to the chapters and the acquisition framework models.  The Milestone Document Identification (MDID) tool will reside on the Guidebook home page. The MDID tool been updated and an MDID tool specifically related to Defense Business Systems requirements will subsequently be added.

Click here to view the changes.

Air Force Space Command has decided to convene an accident investigation board (AIB) to look into the flawed but ultimately successful launch of a Global Positioning System satellite last week.

The third GPS IIF satellite was launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL, on Oct. 4 aboard a Delta IV rocket booster, but the Delta IV's upper-stage engine -- an RL10-B-2 engine manufactured by Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne -- did not deliver as much thrust as expected. As a result, GPS IIF-3 took longer to reach its orbital location than planned.

The United Launch Alliance is the Air Force's launch provider for medium-class payloads like GPS satellites.

According to an Oct. 11 command statement, the near-term launch manifest is under review “while the root cause of the unexpected performance of the RL10-B-2 engine is determined.”

“While the launch was ultimately successful, the time-honored rigor and earnest process of an AIB will serve us well as we attempt to determine the root cause of this anomaly,” Gen. William Shelton, AFSPC's commander, said in the statement. “In the end our objective is continued safe and reliable launch for our nation.”

The GPS IIF line of satellites is being produced by Boeing.

The top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee sent out a "dear colleague" letter this week to say what he thinks sequestration will mean to "the whole range of Federal responsibilities and, I hope, help make the case for Congress to act responsibly by agreeing to a more sensible approach to deficit reduction."

In his Oct. 9 letter, Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) writes that if sequestration were to take effect, "it is only because it failed to motivate congressional action as intended."

While the White House Office of Management and Budget estimates estimates that the Pentagon will be hit with 9.4 percent across-the-board cuts to key areas, Dicks writes that OMB, under the Budgetary Control Act, "looked at only one aspect of sequestration. As another motivation to act, the BCA also set up a second, separate sequestration to enforce the firewall between security and non-security appropriations. Because the Joint Committee failed, a new and lower defense firewall goes into effect, requiring an additional cut in defense spending."

Consequently, "based on levels in the agreed upon continuing resolution for FY 2013," Dicks estimates that an additional 1.9 percent spending reduction would be needed in 2013 for "function 050" defense accounts, the letter states.

Dicks continues:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has warned that sequestration “could pose a significant risk to national security" and would "literally undercut our ability to put together the kind of strong national defense we have today." He also warned that the unemployment rate could spike 1 percentage point if sequestration took effect. "We'd be shooting ourselves in the head," Panetta concluded.

When he served as Office of Management and Budget Director, Jacob Lew also noted that the across-the-board cuts would endanger our national security. The Defense Department "would almost certainly be forced to furlough large numbers of its civilian workers, training would have to be curtailed, the force reduced and purchases of weapons would have to be cut dramatically," Lew wrote.

The sum of the two sequestrations on defense appropriations (the largest subset of defense function 050) equals $60.6 billion, including $50.5 billion associated with the 9.4 percent cut and an additional $10.1 billion from the smaller, firewall enforcement sequestration. It should also be noted that sequestration will apply to the sum of base and Overseas Contingency Operations.

In addition, under the Budget Control Act, the President has the authority, and intent, to exempt military personnel from sequestration.

Reducing Operations & Maintenance accounts by the amounts required will severely constrain resources for housing, training and equipping the troops. Base Operations Support (BOS) would be reduced by $2.4 billion and Facilities Sustainment, Renovation and Modernization (FSRM) would be reduced by $1.1 billion under sequestration. The safety, efficiency and basic functioning of all military posts, camps and stations, is put at risk by limiting utility services, base security and resources to maintain structures. Sequestration would reduce readiness training by $2.9 billion and limit the availability of combat related training such as home station and rotational exercises required to maintain the readiness of US forces. Another $1.3 billion would be cut from Training and Recruiting, harming efforts to recruit personnel, provide skill development training, provide professional development education and training, and provide officer accession and development (including the Military Service academies). Depot Maintenance would also be reduced by $1.6 billion under sequestration. This reduction would limit DoD’s ability to maintain and modernize key weapon systems, and overhaul weapons systems damaged in operations. Sequestration would severely degrade the Defense Department’s ability to maintain a trained and ready force, and would similarly ensure that the condition of combat equipment and military facilities would deteriorate.

The fiscal year 2013 enacted level for the Defense Health Program is $32.7 billion, which would be reduced by $3.7 billion under sequestration. This reduction is contrary to the premise of DoD exempting military personnel from sequestration and would be fundamentally unworkable because military personnel, their dependents and retirees are entitled to care. Sequestration would also reduce funding available for psychological health, traumatic brain injury, and for suicide prevention activities. Educational programs for military dependents would be cut along with funding to operate Department of Defense Dependent Schools.

The required reduction to Procurement accounts would mean 8 fewer UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters and 5 fewer CH-47 Chinooks, slowing Army plans to modernize its utility and heavy lift helicopter fleet. The CH-47 Chinook has proven especially valuable in Afghanistan because of its effectiveness at high altitudes compared to other utility aircraft. Sequestration would take up to 11 Stryker vehicles out of the program, hurting the Army’s ability to keep Stryker brigades fully outfitted. Two fewer F-18G (Growler) aircraft would be built, impairing the fielding of electronic warfare capabilities. Sequestration will make it more difficult to avoid a carrier-based strike fighter shortfall by building 3 less F/A-18E/F aircraft. And one less P-8A would slow the Navy effort to field new surveillance aircraft. Sequestration would cut $1.7 billion from the Shipbuilding and Construction, Navy account, and depending on allocation, remove at least one new vessel. Sequestration would also cut one Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) potentially disrupting the schedule of military space launches.

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation accounts would also be cut, reducing funding for the Joint Strike Fighter by $1 billion, cutting four aircraft, and reducing advance procurement, putting the production ramp at risk for aircraft planned in the outyears. Sequestration would reduce funding for the Aerial Refueling Tanker program by $99.5 million and potentially slow the EMD contract. Even though Congress accelerated risk reduction activities for the Next Generation Bomber, sequestration will cut funding by $33.7 million.

Sequestration would cut over $2 billion from military construction accounts. This would require the Department of Defense to render its entire construction program unexecutable; the FY 2013 FYDP includes 150 projects ranging from barracks to child development centers. A cut of this magnitude would also have a severe impact on employment in the construction industry.

All Veterans' programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, including administrative expenses, are exempt from sequestration.

The National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) would also be subject to the more substantial defense reduction. Under sequestration, NNSA Weapons activities would be cut by $861 million. With this reduced budget, NNSA would no longer be able to support modernization of the weapons complex, including required life extension programs to ensure the nation’s nuclear deterrent remains safe, reliable and effective. Further, NNSA would not have the resources to maintain a level of emergency readiness commensurate with threat conditions and would be unable to operate and respond in a timely manner, adding significant risk to the first responders and public's safety in the event of a radiological or nuclear incident.

Defense nuclear nonproliferation efforts would also be constrained. NNSA would not have the resources to achieve a four-year lockdown of vulnerable nuclear material, leaving materials vulnerable to terrorist theft and undermining our national security.

Naval Reactor programs would be at risk, as well. One year of sequestration would delay, by a minimum of three years, the Spent Fuel Recapitalization project, the OHIO replacement, and the Land-based Prototype Refueling Overhaul. Each year recapitalization is delayed forces the Government to spend $88 million per year in temporary facilities. In addition to delaying the OHIO replacement, the reduction also eliminates the life-of-ship core, an effort to extend the life of the reactor to that of the submarine. This would necessitate building two more ships than the twelve currently needed to meet deterrence requirements. And delaying the refueling overhaul would reduce the output of trained nuclear operators by at least 33% (approximately 1,000 operators per year), leaving submarines and aircraft carriers inadequately manned for safe operations.

View the full letter.

The Pentagon's inspector general recently released a report on how the military services have undertaken single-bid contracts, and the results of its review aren't pretty. According to the report's cover letter:

The Services did not follow applicable single-bid guidance when awarding approximately $656.1 million in contracts, and did not verify that modifications were only made within the 3-year limitation from base contract award. As a result, the Services have not realized potential cost savings associated with increased competition for 31 of the 78 single-bid contracts and with re-competing 39 of the 47 contract modifications reviewed.

To view the full report, click here.

A Government Accountability Office report issued this week finds that "improved and expanded use" of strategic sourcing "could save billions in annual procurement costs."

The report -- dated Sept. 20 -- states that GAO reviewed strategic sourcing efforts at four agencies -- the Defense, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs and Energy departments -- "that were among the 10 agencies with the highest fiscal year 2011 procurement obligations."

With regard to the Pentagon, GAO "reviewed the efforts of four component agencies -- Air Force, Army, Navy, and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) -- which accounted for 88 percent of DOD spending in fiscal year 2011, as well as department-wide efforts managed by DOD's Program Acquisition and Strategic Sourcing (PASS) office, which is within DOD's Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) organization and reports to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L)," the report states. Further:

According to DOD officials, DOD procurement spending and savings through strategic sourcing contracts in fiscal year 2011 may be underreported, as DOD currently tracks department-wide initiatives on an ad hoc basis. When strategic sourcing contracts were used, selected agencies generally reported savings ranging from 5 percent to over 20 percent of spending through strategically sourced contracts. Further, most of the four agencies' current and planned strategic sourcing efforts do not address their highest spending areas, the majority of which exceed $1 billion and most of which are services. As a result, opportunities exist for agencies to realize significant savings by applying strategic sourcing in these areas.

GAO found that "managed spending and savings varied greatly within DOD," according to the report, which adds:

At DOD -- the federal government's largest procurer of products and services -- the Army, Navy, Air Force, and DLA together reported spending almost 6 percent, or $19 billion, through strategic sourcing contracts. In addition, the Defense Program Acquisition and Strategic Sourcing (PASS) office, which coordinates strategic sourcing efforts across the department, was unable to provide us with a comprehensive list of department-wide strategic sourcing initiatives, and indicated that there are likely more strategic sourcing initiatives that are not accounted for because department-wide initiatives are reported on an ad hoc basis. However, they provided information on a limited number of department-wide strategic sourcing initiatives that together represented more than $1 billion of spending and over $900 million in savings in fiscal year 2011.

The proportion of procurement spending being managed through strategic sourcing varied widely among the military departments and DLA. . . . For example, the Army spent more than $125 billion on products and services in fiscal year 2011, but reported that only $280 million, or less than a quarter of one percent of procurement spending, was strategically sourced. In contrast, DLA spent $36 billion on goods and services in fiscal year 2011, and reported that 46 percent or $16 billion was strategically sourced. According to DOD officials, it is to be expected that a high percentage of DLA's spending is suitable for strategic sourcing because DLA's unique mission is to supply high volume products that are bought across DOD, such as uniforms and food. Although DLA's spending represents only 10 percent of DOD's total procurement spending, DLA's strategic sourcing efforts demonstrate that when DOD approaches procurement from a department-wide level, it can achieve successful outcomes. In addition, PASS officials reported savings of $889 million in fiscal year 2011 from one initiative that leveraged department-wide spending on enterprise software. Specifically, the initiative consolidates DOD commercial software, information technology hardware, and services requirements to obtain lower prices from information technology providers.

Read the GAO report.

CAPE CANAVERAL, FL -- The Air Force’s third Global Positioning System IIF satellite was successfully launched this morning from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL. The Boeing-built space vehicle was sent into orbit aboard a United Launch Alliance Delta IV rocket booster at 8:10 a.m., the first minute of the launch window, and all data shows that the multiple Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle engines are performing as planned, according to ULA.

Boeing provided transportation for reporters to the launch site.

The GPS constellation consists of 31 operational satellites, and GPS IIF-3 will replace a GPS IIA space vehicle that was launched in 1993, according to an Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center spokeswoman. At least one older IIA satellite, which has been operational for 21 years, remains on orbit, Col. Steve Steiner, the chief of the GPS space systems division within SMC's GPS directorate, told reporters last week.

The third GPS IIF vehicle is the first to include an improved cesium clock that should provide better precision, navigation and timing performance, Boeing’s Paul Rusnock said at a media roundtable in Cape Canaveral on Oct. 3. Rusnock is the vice president of government space systems for Boeing.

Company spokeswoman Paula Shawa added that an issue involving trapped air on the IIF-2’s cesium clock had required “higher-than-desired clock maintenance from the ground crew.” Boeing has made manufacturing changes on all later vehicles to mitigate risk, she said.