The Insider

START Compliance
By John Liang
May 5, 2011 at 8:08 PM

The Pentagon is still working on how to make heavy bombers -- especially aircraft destined only for conventional, non-nuclear missions -- compliant with the follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, senior Defense Department officials told lawmakers this week.

Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO), during a May 4 Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee hearing on implementing the New START Treaty, asked Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler, head of U.S. Strategic Command, how heavy bombers are being modified to make them compliant with the pact. Kehler responded:

Senator, you have to think about heavy bombers, I think, in three contexts. There is the context of those that are in the boneyard, essentially, that we don't want to have counted against any limits in the treaty, and that we will just take destructive measures to deal with.

Then there is the category of heavy bombers that will be dual-capable, nuclear-capable bombers that will also be available for conventional missions.

Then there is the category of them that we will not have nuclear-capable at all, but will be available for conventional purposes. That is the category that I think you are talking about. In that case, we will propose, for our own compliance review group, a series of steps that we would take that would make it clear that the bomber was not capable of carrying or delivering nuclear weapons, but still retained its full capability as a platform to deliver conventional weapons, to include precision-guided weapons that are conventional.

So we haven't gotten to the complete end of that string yet about approvals to represent it that way with the Russians. That is pending, and we believe we have a good way to do that that still allows them to be capable for conventional missions.

Principal Deputy Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller, who also testified at the hearing, added the following:

As Gen. Kehler said, we are not at the end of that process yet, in particular for the B-52Hs that would be converted to conventional-only, which we plan to do. We are still working through exactly how that will be done and have not yet done an exhibition of that to the Russians.

We did do an exhibition of the B-1B bomber because we have been, as General Kehler knows as well, undertaking conversions of those to conventional for some time. And that first exhibition of the B-1 bomber, that will allow them to be non-accountable. That occurred just a few weeks ago.

As Inside Missile Defense reported in November:

New START allows each country to have 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads, with each deployed, nuclear-capable heavy bomber counting as one warhead toward that limit.

Under the treaty, each heavy bomber would be assigned a unique identification number that would be included in the paperwork both countries' share with each other that can be confirmed during inspections, according to a State Department fact sheet.

"The rationale for this 'discounted' attribution of one weapon for each heavy bomber is based on the fact that bombers are not fast-flying, first-strike weapons, and are thus considered to be stabilizing systems," according to a State Department "article-by-article" analysis of the treaty.

"What people have lost sight of is that the intrusiveness of the bomber inspections is also considerable and it actually is more intrusive in some ways than" this treaty's predecessor, Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance and Implementation Rose Gottemoeller told attendees of a Nov. 8 Arms Control Association forum.

"We have not had our bombers on strip alert for many years, [and] in fact our heavy bombers are largely devoted to long-range conventional missions," Gottemoeller said. "That's another reason that we felt confident that the bomber counting rule was an adequate representation of the continuing nuclear mission that is tasked to the bombers, but on a day-to-day basis, they don't really carry nuclear weapons at all."

Under New START, the verification regime for bombers "is very intrusive and allows for objects inside the bomb bay to be checked with radiation-detection equipment," according to Gottemoeller. "So, we can basically confirm on bomber inspections that the Russian bombers are not carrying nuclear objects, and it's the same, of course, for the Russian Federation -- at our bomber bases, they can use the same radiation-detection equipment and check our bombers as well. "It's kind of lost in the noise a bit, that the bomber inspections are very intrusive as well as the reentry vehicle on-site inspections," she continued.

Bearing All Costs
By Jason Sherman
May 5, 2011 at 6:07 PM

GE spokesman Rick Kennedy issued the following statement on the GE/Rolls Royce Fighter Engine Team's offer to foot the bill for continued JSF alternate engine development:

The Fighter Engine Team (FET) today announced it has committed to bear all costs for continued development of the competitive F136 fighter engine for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) through the end of fiscal year 2012.

This unique offer requires no appropriated government funding in fiscal year 2012, nor does it hinge upon any financial commitment from the government in 2013 or beyond. Under this agreement, the FET would be provided access to the engines, components, and testing facilities to continue development work.

The Fighter Engine Team believes that at a time of enormous fiscal stress, competition is essential to saving taxpayer dollars. The independent Government Accounting Office has estimated competition would save $20 billion over the life of the program.

A competing engine is also important to insure we have the best technology for our armed forces. The FET proposal would preserve the $3 billion taxpayer investment in the competing engine, which is 80% complete, while requiring no additional costs to taxpayers.

This is the third time the FET has offered proposals to drive acquisition reform. The first two proposals involved fixed-priced concepts for early production JSF engines. Leaders of the House Armed Services Committee have recognized the unique opportunity that this self-funded F136 development program presents in driving meaningful acquisition reform, and the Senate Committee on Appropriations has called the F136 engine a “near model program.” This is in sharp contrast to the performance of the other JSF engine, which has had $3.4 billion in cost overruns.

GE Aviation CEO David Joyce stated, “Real acquisition reform requires a contractor commitment to invest, compete, and be measured on the merits of your performance. Our proposal accomplishes these important objectives.”

General Electric Company CEO Jeff Immelt said, “We believe so strongly in our engine and the need for competition in defense procurement that we have committed to self-fund F136 development costs for this fiscal year and next. Competition is vital to rein in defense spending and will produce long-term savings.”

The Fighter Engine Team realizes this is a bold move, and there are those who will mischaracterize this commitment based on their own parochial interests.

This commitment is consistent with acquisition reform policy, and will drive competition, improve contractor behavior, and reduce costs. We hope this is the beginning of eliminating sole-source contracting while driving contractor accountability.

Engine Alternatives (updated)
By Jordana Mishory
May 5, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, spoke at the Heritage Foundation this morning about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s alternate engine program, an initiative that the Pentagon has long sought to cancel:

GE and Rolls Royce are aware of the current stresses on the defense budget and the taxpayer. So I'm pleased to announce that instead of being part of the problem, they have decided to be part of the solution. Instead of lobbying for the final 20 percent needed to finish the engine, the GE team has committed to funding the engine for fiscal year 12 on their own dime. I will accept and support their approach. They believe in their engine and they believe in competition.

Thanks to their willingness to compromise, we'll break up a monopoly; potentially harvest billions in savings, while fielding a more capable, more robust fighter jet -- all at zero cost to the taxpayer. That sort of acquisition reform from the defense industry should be rewarded and applauded at every opportunity and I thank GE and Rolls Royce for coming to us with a smart, viable solution to a tough problem.

UPDATE:

McKeon told reporters after his speech he is hopeful the Defense Department would be willing to supervise the final training of the alternate engine, despite the fact that defense officials successfully advocated for its termination.

“Their complaint was, at least their basis for shutting it down was, that we couldn’t afford it,” McKeon said. “So, if GE is going to pay for it, there should not be another objection, I would imagine.”

When asked how to GE might be provided access to governmental facilities, McKeon said he had not discussed the issue but suggested it would be taken care of in legislation. He noted that he does not believe the alternate engine will need funding past FY-12.

Engine Block
By Gabe Starosta
May 5, 2011 at 3:13 PM

A Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee is expected to spearhead another effort to kill the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine program in the next few weeks.

In its mark-up of the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill, the House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee included a provision that would prohibit the Defense Department from funding “performance improvements” to the F-35 aircraft's engine system unless it also funds a second propulsion system, an attempt to keep the second engine alive. Subcommittee Chairman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) has been a prominent supporter of the second engine, but is receiving vocal opposition from Rep. Thomas Rooney (R-FL), a member of the subcommittee.

“I am deeply disappointed to see that the defense authorization bill, which should be focused on funding our troops, is being used in a backdoor effort to restart the wasteful extra engine program,” Rooney said in an April 4 statement. “The House of Representatives has sent a loud and clear message that we’re not going to continue to earmark funds for this wasteful project.”

Rooney spokesman Michael Mahaffey said this morning that Rooney is likely to offer some type of amendment -- either in front of the full House Armed Services Committee next Wednesday or later, on the floor of the House -- to rid the bill of the second engine directive.

“We could strike it, or we could add something onto [the bill] to subvert that language,” he said. “We're working on that now.”

The marked-up version of the FY-12 bill was accepted unanimously by the subcommittee Wednesday afternoon, without amendment.

U.S., Russia Talk BMD
By John Liang
May 4, 2011 at 7:19 PM

U.S. and Russian officials held a missile defense meeting in Brussels on May 2, according to a joint statement released by the Defense Department this afternoon. Russian Federation Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov and U.S. Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller headed their respective delegations, the statement reads. Further:

The meetings of this group support implementation of the decisions by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and U.S. President Barack Obama to explore ways to cooperate on missile defense and to implement any agreements that may be reached.

The results of these consultations should become U.S. and Russian defense authorities’ contribution to the development of a comprehensive joint analysis of the future framework for missile defense cooperation. This builds on the decisions taken by the heads of state and government at the NATO-Russia Council Summit in Lisbon. The U.S. and Russian delegations discussed various military technical aspects of potential missile defense cooperation in Europe, which should not adversely affect strategic stability.

U.S.-Pakistan Meeting
By John Liang
May 3, 2011 at 11:10 PM

Oh, to have been a fly on the wall of this little confab: U.S. and Pakistani defense officials just concluded the 20th meeting of the U.S.-Pakistan Defense Consultative Group.

As a senior defense official said during a background briefing with reporters yesterday on the killing of Osama Bin Laden:

I think -- and to the broader point about cooperation, I think that, you know, since 9/11, in some areas, Pakistan has been quite a steadfast partner in counterterrorism.  We appreciate, for example, the positive statement that came from their Foreign Ministry today.

In other areas, that cooperation has not been what we would like it to be, and we continue to have a very candid conversation with the Pakistanis about what more we can and should be doing together to deal with this common challenge.

The DCG meeting took place from May 2 to May 3, according to a U.S.-Pakistani joint statement issued late this afternoon:

The 20th meeting of the U.S.-Pakistan Defense Consultative Group (DCG) was held in Washington, DC on 2-3 May 2011. The two nations' delegations were respectively led by Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Syed Athar Ali, Pakistan's Secretary of Defense, and Ms. Michèle Flournoy, the U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. The DCG is the primary forum for exchanging views and coordinating defense policy discussions, with the goal of strengthening the defense relationship based on mutual trust, mutual respect, and mutual interest. The last DCG meeting was held in August 2010 in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

Both delegations acknowledged that the recent counterterrorism operation resulting in the death of al-Qa’ida leader Usama bin-Laden underscores the importance of cooperation in our efforts to defeat terrorism. Both sides affirmed their mutual commitment to their strong defense relations, which they stressed should continue to serve as the foundation of the broader strategic partnership.

During the plenary session DCG participants reviewed achievements in the field of defense collaboration. Both delegations concluded that the accomplishments of the Exchanges on Defense Planning (EDP) process and the announcement of a U.S. multi-year security assistance commitment to Pakistan were significant milestones over the past year. They stressed the significance of continuing these important efforts toward identifying and meeting Pakistan’s resourcing requirements.

The Pakistani delegation described the Pakistan military’s operations since the last DCG meeting and the U.S. side briefed on International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) activities in Afghanistan. Both sides expressed appreciation for the efforts by their respective militaries and commended the growing operational cooperation that has reinforced the effectiveness of efforts on both sides of the border. They both expressed their deep appreciation for the sacrifices of all military personnel in the common fight.

Each side shared lessons they had learned from ongoing military efforts, including from the "clear" and "hold" phases of the strategy, and followed up with a discussion on the necessity of improving "build" and "transfer" capacities. They reviewed the numerous challenges facing regional security, and shared their views regarding the importance of regional peace and stability.

The delegations reaffirmed the DCG remains an invaluable forum to discuss strategic defense policy issues and exchange views on shared security concerns and committed to continue working together to establish a shared framework for coordinating defense cooperation and pursuing agreed-upon mutual objectives.

Romania Visit
By John Liang
May 3, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher is in Romania this week, and this morning she participated in a ceremony announcing a new missile defense site that would support the Obama administration's phased adaptive approach to defending Europe from ballistic missile attack. According to the State Department's text of her remarks:

It is a great honor for me to be back in Romania on behalf of the United States as we mark this important milestone and also a great privilege for me to travel to Olt County to discuss the deployment of a United States missile defense interceptor site.

The United States and Romania have a strong and cooperative relationship. Romania is a close friend and a valued NATO Ally. Our two countries are working together on some of today’s most pressing security challenges, such as Afghanistan and Libya.

The announcement we have made today is a very important milestone for our two countries and for NATO. It provides Romania with a leading role in NATO’s new missile defense capabilities. This cooperation demonstrates how our two governments are working together to make NATO’s landmark Lisbon decision on missile defense a reality.

The site also provides a new mission and new opportunities for Deveselu Air Base and the nearby towns. We are very appreciative of the excellent cooperation we received from the Romanian Government as we conducted our review of potential sites. Of all the sites we reviewed, Deveselu ranked the highest in terms of suitability, as well as ease of development. The site has many advantages, including existing infrastructure and advantageous geography.

The United States looks forward to continuing and enhancing our bilateral relationship with Romania over the coming years and working together to strengthen NATO. Doing so will increase the security and protection of both of our nations and our Allies.

JFCOM Reassignments
By John Liang
May 2, 2011 at 8:03 PM

The Pentagon released a statement this afternoon outlining "the approved reassignment" of organizations and functions related to the soon-to-be-defunct U.S. Joint Forces Command "to designated combatant commands, military services and the Joint Staff." Specifically:

These organizational reporting reassignments ensure the most critical functions and expertise are maintained for the joint warfighter.  This reassignment plan was developed in coordination with the Office of Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, combatant commands, and the Services.  This organizational transfer of authority for critical functions includes such reassignments as the Joint Enabling Capabilities Command to U.S. Transportation Command, the Joint Warfare Analysis Center to U.S. Strategic Command, the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency to the Air Force, and the NATO School to U.S. European Command.

"Our goal is to transfer streamlined, relevant joint functions to appropriate Department of Defense entities," said Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command.  "We will ensure we sustain the momentum and gains in jointness while maintaining critical interaction with NATO and other multi-national partners."

When the transition is complete, nearly 50 percent of USJFCOM personnel and budget will remain in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia along with core missions, such as joint training, joint force provider, joint concept and doctrine development, and joint integration.  These functions will be aligned under the Joint Staff for leadership and direction.

The formal transfer of these organizations and functions to designated commands will be completed by late summer.  Under the current timeline, USJFCOM will be disestablished as a four-star combatant command by the end of August 2011.  The physical moves of all USJFCOM activities will be completed by March 2012.

Last month, Inside the Pentagon reported that JFCOM had recently completed its "most complex modeling simulation" exercise -- the kind of joint exercise that will fall under the purview of the Joint Staff J-7 directorate as JFCOM prepares to disestablish, according to JFCOM Chief Gen. Raymond Odierno. Further:

The exercise, known as the Unified Endeavor Afghanistan mission rehearsal exercise, was conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 4, said JFCOM spokeswoman Kathleen Jabs.

Odierno mentioned the exercise in his testimony on Capitol Hill last week as he tried to assure Congress that JFCOM's disestablishment plans would streamline, rather than hamper, the military's commitment to jointness.

Unified Endeavor was, "the most complex modeling simulation exercise that we've done where we incorporated and exercised preparing units from Afghanistan," Odierno told the House Armed Services readiness subcommittee March 31.

"It was completely joint -- joint and multinational in every way," Odierno said.

Participants included U.S. Army's 1st Cavalry Division, the Marine Corps' II Marine Expeditionary Force and the 1st German Armored Division, Jabs said.

U.S. Raid Killed Bin Laden (Updated)
By Christopher J. Castelli
May 2, 2011 at 7:55 AM

A small, elite team of U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden Sunday in a firefight during a "surgical" and "especially dangerous" helicopter raid on a protected compound in the affluent Pakistani city of Abbottabad, senior administration officials told reporters in the wee hours Monday following President Obama's Sunday-night announcement of the killing.

Senior administration officials declined to clarify whether the American personnel involved were U.S. military forces, although officials noted the intelligence community and the Pentagon worked together to plan the mission.

Senior administration officials provided only a few details of the raid, which they said lasted about 40 minutes. The "extraordinarily unique" compound where bin Laden was killed, worth about $1 million, is roughly eight times larger than other nearby homes, with 12- to 18-foot walls equipped with barbed wire, internal security walls, few windows and no phone or Internet connection, officials said.

U.S. officials believe the compound was built in 2005 to hide bin Laden, though they said it is unclear how long he had been living there. Before the operation, administration officials had high confidence that the compound harbored a high-value terrorist target, very likely bin Laden.

Bin Laden died after resisting the assault force, officials said, noting U.S. forces now have his body and will treat it consistent with Islamic traditions. Officials said two of bin Laden's couriers and another man, perhaps one of bin Laden's sons, were also killed along with a woman who was used as a human shield. One helicopter suffered a mechanical failure during the operation, but U.S. forces were able to depart in another helicopter, officials said.

The death of bin Laden is the culmination of years of work by the U.S. government. Prior to the operation, the intelligence community gathered data on bin Laden's personal couriers using information from detainees, officials said. One courier in particular had the constant attention of U.S. intelligence officials. For years, U.S. officials were unable to identify his true name or location, but four years ago they uncovered his identity and about two years ago they found areas where the courier and his brother operated, an official said. Still, they were unable to pinpoint where the couriers lived. Last August, U.S. officials found the couriers' residence in the compound about 35 miles from Islamabad in the relatively affluent Abbottabad, the official added.

The administration began planning the mission last year, officials recounted. By mid-February of this year, officials decided there was a sound intelligence basis for pursuing bin Laden at this location. By mid March, Obama began chairing at least five National Security Council meetings on this effort, an official said. No intelligence related to the mission was shared with Pakistan or other countries in advance of the operation, officials said, noting only a very small number of people in the U.S. government knew of the operation in advance.

UPDATE 2 p.m.: U.S. Government Graphics Of Osama Bin Laden Compound

Cash Flow
By John Liang
April 29, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Beginning July 1, the Pentagon will require all contracting officers to use a new analysis tool to compare the costs and benefits of using performance-based payments instead of the usual progress payments, according to a memo posted this week on the Defense Department acquisition portal website.

Last September, Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter issued a "better buying power" memo in which he called on the director of defense procurement and acquisition policy "to develop a cash flow model to be used by all contracting officers contemplating financing other than customary progress payments, such as Performance Based Payments (PBP). In addition, guidance was to be developed that ensures that the improved cash flow opportunities provide benefit to both industry (at both the prime and subcontractor level) and the taxpayer," the April 27 memo, signed by DPAP Director Shay Assad, states. Further:

The timing and amount of cash flows provided to the contractor through Government financing has a measurable cost to the Government and a measurable benefit to the contractor. Those costs and benefits can be determined by performing a discounted cash flow analysis which takes into account the amount and timing of cash flows over the contract period. Discounted cash flow is the technique commonly employed by businesses to analyze the financial return on a project or investment opportunity involving a series of cash flows over time.

PBPs offer the contractor improved cash flow as compared to customary progress payments. Because of the differing view of the time-value of money between industry and the Government, PBPs provide a unique opportunity for a win-win financial arrangement. This difference in the time value of money produces a PBP price that is lower than that warranted with customary progress payments, and yet is a better financial arrangement for the contractor.

As a matter of practice, for new contract awards, the basis of negotiations for fixed-price contracts shall be the use of customary progress payments. For competitive fixed-price acquisitions the request for proposal[s] will state that the proposal and award will be based on the use of customary progress payments. After agreement on price, or contract award in the case of competitive acquisitions, the contractor shall have the flexibility to propose PBPs for the Government's consideration. This will allow the contracting officer to determine the reasonableness of the consideration being offered by the contractor for a more favorable payment structure.

PBPs are not practical for use on all fixed-price contracts and require considerable effort between the contractor and Government to identify the appropriate PBP events and establish the proper completion criteria for those events. Therefore, the contractor should be instructed that if PBPs are desired, a proposed PBP schedule should be submitted which includes all PBP events, completion criteria and event values along with the contractor's expected expenditure profile. This will allow the Government and the contractor to determine the practicality of PBPs for that contract. If PBPs are deemed practical, the Government must evaluate and negotiate the details of the PBP schedule.

The contracting officer must clearly identify the consideration received in the post-negotiation clearance document whenever a payment schedule more favorable to the contractor than customary progress payments is negotiated. Because the tool we developed uses the cash flows provided by customary progress payments as the baseline against which to determine the win-win arrangement, it is perfectly suited to evaluate the consideration offered. The negotiated consideration must be specifically approved by the clearance official or one level above the contracting officer, whichever is higher.

Consequently, Assad's office developed a Microsoft Excel-based analysis tool that would "allow the contracting officer and industry to easily compare the financial cost and benefits of using PBPs versus customary progress payments. The model will also determine a win-win price that equitably accounts for the cost, benefits and potential risk associated with PBPs."

That analysis tool can be found here.

Assad notes in his memo that federal acquisition rules do not allow "contracts from having both progress payments and PBP financing on a contract at the same time. Therefore, for modifications to contracts that already use PBP financing, the basis for negotiation must also be PBPs. In those situations, the tool above can be used in the same manner to help determine the win-win price for the modification."

Open Committee
By John Liang
April 29, 2011 at 3:31 AM

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) plans to make the most detailed release to date of documents related to the upcoming annual defense authorization bill, according to a memo sent to the press today. Specifically, the memo states:

Chairman McKeon is going above and beyond new House requirements to post all bill language online the day before consideration by a full committee or one of its subcommittees.  In fact, he has instructed Armed Services Committee professional staff to post the descriptive section-by-section analysis and Directive Report Language in addition to bill language.

As most of you know, this new level of transparency is a major break from previous committee practice, which was to release a detailed summary only after the full committee approved the legislation.  Specific bill and report language were traditionally not made available to you or the general public until all details were published by the Government Printing Office.

Below are specific dates and times for when you should expect the HASC Communications Office to release information about each of the subcommittee and full committee marks and post details on the Armed Services Committee website:

Military Personnel Subcommittee—Tuesday, May 3rd, at 10:15 a.m.

Emerging Threats and Capabilities Committee—Tuesday, May 3rd, at 11:45 a.m.

Strategic Forces Subcommittee—Tuesday, May 3rd, at 1:15 p.m.

Tactical Air and Land Subcommittee—Tuesday, May 3rd, at 2:45 p.m.

Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee—Tuesday, May 3rd, at 4:15 p.m.

Readiness Subcommittee—Wednesday, May 4th, at 9:15 a.m.

 

Full Committee—Monday, May 9th, at 12:00 p.m. (will include programmatic funding tables)

In addition to releasing and posting the bill language, section-by-section analysis, and Directive Report Language for each subcommittee at the above time, the HASC Communications Office will release opening statements for chairmen at the commencement of each mark, in addition to streaming each markup live on our website. Markups are scheduled to take place at the following times:

Military Personnel Subcommittee—Wednesday, May 4th, at 10:30 a.m.

Emerging Threats and Capabilities Committee—Wednesday, May 4th, at 12:00 p.m.

Strategic Forces Subcommittee—Wednesday, May 4th, at 1:30 p.m.

Tactical Air and Land Subcommittee—Wednesday, May 4th, at 2:30 p.m.

Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee—Thursday, May 5th, at 10:30 a.m.

Readiness Subcommittee—Thursday, May 5th, at 12:00 p.m.

Full Committee—Wednesday, May 11th, at 10:00 a.m.

Reviewing
By Christopher J. Castelli
April 28, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been meeting with senior defense officials about the Pentagon's upcoming budget-cutting review and plans to establish the outline of the review process by next week, Defense Department spokesman Col. David Lapan said today.

Gates recently discussed how the assessment might use the threat scenarios that informed the QDR as starting point for considering ways to eliminate missions and thereby glean savings to reduce the federal deficit.

JLTV Teaming
By Tony Bertuca
April 28, 2011 at 5:25 PM

BAE Systems and Navistar Defense -- partners on the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program -- announced today that they were adding Northrop Grumman to their team, according to a statement from the companies. Northrop will be tasked with developing the vehicle's communications and surveillance systems.

“By applying Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems' substantial domain expertise, the team will develop a net-ready, open architecture system, allowing the warfighter to configure the JLTV platform rapidly and inexpensively for current and future mission needs,” according to the statement. “Northrop Grumman will serve as the C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) lead, responsible for the integration of command and control hardware and software, computers and communications equipment, sensors and sensor suites for intelligence gathering and force protection.”

Three industry teams are competing for the JLTV contract, now in its technology development phase. The Army and Marines have announced plans to award up to two contracts for the engineering and manufacturing development phase in early 2012. The EMD phase will be subject to an open competition, however.

Other teams competing for JLTV include Lockheed Martin with BAE Armor Holdings, and General Dynamics with AM General. Earlier this month, Oshkosh Defense told Inside the Army it planned to compete for an EMD contract. Force Protection has also said it would explore a JLTV bid with its Ocelot vehicle.

Procurement Competition
By John Liang
April 28, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Pentagon Procurement and Acquisition Policy Director Shay Assad this week is seeking to amplify guidance he sent out last November on improving competition in defense purchases.

As Inside the Pentagon reported in December:

The Nov. 24 memo from Shay Assad, the Pentagon's director of defense procurement and acquisition policy, provides additional instructions for competitive situations in which only one offer is received. Assad's memo to the services, defense agencies, U.S. Special Operations Command and U.S. Transportation Command expands on Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter's Sept. 14 guidance on boosting the department's buying power.

"The intent of this guidance is to ensure more effective competition that will result in more effective use of the department's resources and savings for the taxpayer," Assad writes.

To maximize the savings that are obtained through competition, contracting officers will no longer use the standard on obtaining certified cost or pricing data in Federal Acquisition Regulations to determine that the offered price is based on adequate competition when only one offer is received, according to the memo.

In a memo released yesterday, though, Assad writes:

The focus of my memorandum was on maximizing competition in situations where only one offer is received in a procurement utilizing competitive procedures. The purpose of this memorandum is to amplify that guidance in response to questions that have been raised.

The policy guidance set out in the November 24, 2010, memorandum is applicable to all competitive procurements 0f supplies and services above the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT), including commercial items and construction. Further, it covers procurements accomplished under the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement (DFARS) parts/subparts 8.4, 12, 13.5, 14, 15, and 16.5. Exceptions to this policy are procurements in support of emergency acquisitions for contingency operations, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, peacekeeping operations, or recovery from nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attacks against the United States. However, the use of these exceptions does not mitigate the need for competition nor the requirement for a determination that the price is fair and reasonable.

Unless an exception applies or a waiver is granted, the following procedures apply:

* If the solicitation was advertised for fewer than 30 days and only one offer is received, then the contracting officer shall cancel and resolicit for an additional period of at least 30 days; or

* If a solicitiation allowed at least 30 days for receipt of offers and only one offer was received, then the contracting officer shall not depend on the standard at FAR 15.403-1(c)(ii) in determining the price to be fair and reasonable. Rather, the contracting officer shall use price or cost analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 to make that determination. If the contracting officer believes that it is necessary to enter into negotiations with an offeror, the basis for these negotiations shall be either certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, in accordance with FAR 15.403-1(c). DFARS 215-403-1(c) and FAR 15.403-3(b). The negotiated price should not exceed the offered price.

Waivers to the policy requirement to resolicit or the requirement to conduct negotiations are permitted. The waiver authority is the Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA). However, the HCA may delegate this authority to not lower than one level above the contracting officer.

I realize that implementation of this policy may have the unintended consequence of increasing the contracting community's workload, but given today's scarcity of resources we need to ensure effective competition to the maximum extent possible. Every dollar saved through effective competition benefits the warfighter and the taxpayers.

Change of Command
By Christopher J. Castelli
April 27, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Assuming the Senate confirms CIA chief Leon Panetta as Defense Secretary Robert Gates' replacement, the White House's plan is for Gates to step down June 30 and Panetta to take over at the Pentagon July 1, a senior administration official told reporters today.

And if the Senate confirms Gen. David Petraeus as the next head of the CIA, the administration would like to have him take the post by the start of September, the official said, noting the general plans to retire from the military and would lead the CIA as a civilian.