The Insider

The Senate Armed Services Committee this afternoon approved 394 pending military nominations in the Army, Navy and Air Force as well as several civilians, among them Jamie Morin as director of the Pentagon's cost assessment and program evaluation office.

In response to advance policy questions submitted to the committee earlier this month, Morin -- up until now the Air Force's comptroller -- said he plans to review the organization's workforce, which has been singled out as a problem area since its inception.

If confirmed, Morin said, he would move to review the size, shape and organization of the CAPE workforce "in detail to ensure the organization is aligned to meet current and future needs." As Inside the Pentagon reported Oct. 17:

CAPE was established by the 2009 Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act to "provide independent analysis and advice" to senior defense officials on a variety of issues -- including cost estimation and cost analysis for major defense acquisition programs and major automated information systems. CAPE replaced the department's now-defunct Program Analysis and Evaluation office.

However, CAPE has struggled to build up a staff suited to perform its expanded responsibilities. And now the tight fiscal environment may force the office, along with other agencies across the department, to reduce staffing and resources, such as money for federally funded research and development centers, Morin wrote.

"If confirmed, I expect to immediately undertake a review of the organization and its ability to fully meet statutory requirements, with the goal to provide clear recommendations regarding changes to organizational structure and additional resource demands," Morin said. "Given the significant statutory responsibilities under WSARA and the relatively limited growth of CAPE staffing since its enactment, I plan to be both an active manager of organizational resources and a strong advocate for the organization's mission."

Last year, CAPE launched a data-gathering effort on the workforce size, grade, demographics, and education and experience levels, according to a spring report signed by CAPE's then-director Christine Fox.

Other nominations approved by the committee today include:

Michael Lumpkin to be assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict;

Jo Ann Rooney to be under secretary of the Navy; and

Kenneth Mossman to be a member of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

The Pentagon released a report to Congress this week assessing the impact of corrosion on Defense Department facilities and infrastructure.

"The enclosed facilities and infrastructure corrosion evaluation study identified key corrosion cost drivers, assessed a planned facility construction program, and examined documentation of maintenance and facility engineering processes in regards to corrosion," Defense Department acquisition chief Frank Kendall writes in the cover letter to the leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services committees.

While the report's evaluation team "found the military services are doing what they can in the areas of corrosion prevention and control (CPC) . . . opportunities for improvement exist throughout DOD," the report states, adding: "The study team also noted that corrosion is often perceived as rust and oxidation of metals, rather than the more comprehensive definition in congressional language. Discussions of corrosion challenges became more fruitful after a clear definition of corrosion was understood. That lack of awareness did not diminish the compelling need of the facilities and infrastructure community to address materials degradation."

Among the report's main findings:

* The study team identified key cost drivers using maintenance databases. These cost drivers were then confirmed during site visits. Policy makers and facilities maintainers can use these cost drivers as a reference point for addressing strategic enhancements in the sustainment of their installations.

* Installations located in severe environments (as measured by the Environmental Severity Index, or ESI) are subject to greater corrosion costs, as indicated by a recent cost-of-corrosion study.

* After an extensive review of DoD facilities and infrastructure policies and criteria5 in relation to corrosion mitigation, the study team compiled a list of guidance documents that specifically address CPC in the acquisition, development, and long-term management of DoD facilities and infrastructure. The study team noted considerable variability in the awareness and implementation of these CPC policies and guidance.

* Congress requested an assessment of a planned facility construction program. The D, CPO selected a construction program in an extreme ESI to assess CPC considerations during the planning, design, and construction phases. The study team noted that several design-phase requirements from that project included CPC material and installation criteria that were drawn from established DoD guidance and the experiences of the design community. The study team's assessment demonstrated that appropriate CPC planning and decisions made during the planning phase directly enhance a facility’s life cycle—a good model of military construction from a CPC perspective.

* Maintenance and facility engineering processes in relation to CPC vary to some degree from installation to installation; however, most sites included in the study had similar CPC processes and practices, despite differences in mission and facility objectives.

* Resource constraints were a consistent concern at all sites included in the study. Compliance with required programs (such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design [LEED], Anti-Terrorism Force Protection, and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966) reduces the funding an installation commander has available to eliminate or control the negative effects of corrosion.

* The study team noted several opportunities to improve the content and delivery of CPC training for the facilities and infrastructure community. Increased on-the-job and formal CPC training of facilities and infrastructure personnel would result in better corrosion-related decision making and help balance investments in preventive and corrective maintenance.

* Corrosion mitigation technology in the buildup of future facilities is purposefully explored by the military services, with some research and development funding provided by the D, CPO. The study team found that installations are reluctant to implement all but the most mature technologies, because of the inherent risk of failure and fear of losing scarce resources. These concerns can be alleviated somewhat; only proven and mature corrosion mitigating technologies are transitioned into the design and construction criteria.

* The process of transitioning new technology into criteria can be cumbersome and time consuming, resulting in large time lags before the new technology can be easily included in a contract.

* The study team believes better cross-installation communication would improve the dissemination and sharing of CPC best practices and accelerate the acceptance and implementation of new technologies.

* Effectiveness of contracting for facilities and infrastructure maintenance and repair varied across the services and installations. Where contracting personnel were familiar with facilities and infrastructure requirements, better CPC outcomes were achieved. Where contracting personnel were not familiar with facilities and infrastructure requirements, improved outcomes were not achieved. User involvement in the contracting process (from public works and engineering staff) improved the identification of CPC requirements and delivery of effective contracting solutions.

House Armed Services Committee leaders today announced a series of hearings aimed at illuminating military aspects of the Obama administration's pivot to the Asia-Pacific region. Led by Randy Forbes (R-VA), the seapower and projection forces subcommittee chairman, and panel member Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D-HI), the series is expected to last through early 2014.

Of the five hearings slated to take place, four will be more or less explicitly about China. Topics are the 2013 annual report of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission; the Defense Department's role in the government's orientation toward the Asia-Pacific; responding to China's military space capabilities; maritime disputes in the region; and the People's Liberation Army's “naval and aerospace modernization,” according to a fact sheet handed to reporters at a roll-out event today.

An Oct. 10 hearing about the Pentagon's Air-Sea Battle concept marked the beginning of the hearing series, according to the document.

The Pentagon's Joint Test and Evaluation Program is calling on the services and other military agencies to nominate efforts in need of testing, according to a recent memo.

"The Office of the Secretary of Defense-sponsored Joint Test and Evaluation (JT&E) Program is requesting joint test nominations (now a biannual process) for the first cycle of fiscal year 2014," a Sept. 3 memo states, adding: "The JT&E Program Manager requests the Services, Joint Staff, combatant commands (CCMD), and other Department of Defense (DOD) agencies provide candidate nominations to the JT&E Program Office (JPO) for consideration no later than November 29, 2013." Further:

Nominations should contain sufficient detail to convince the Planning Committee and JT&E Program Senior Advisory Council (SAC) members that the proposed joint test will significantly improve joint warfighter operations and capabilities. If a nomination package does not contain the required information or sufficient detail, JPO will return the package to the nominator with specific rationale and guidance. JPO will invite the nominator to submit a revised package for consideration during the ongoing joint test nomination cycle. If the nomination package still does not contain all of the required information, JPO will once again return the package to the nominator with specific rationale and guidance, and invite the nominator to submit a new package for consideration during the next joint test nomination cycle.

A "planning committee" will meet on Jan. 29, 2014, to determine which nominations to forward to the JT&E Program Senior Advisory Council for consideration at its meeting the following month, according to the memo.

The Congressional Research Service recently issued a report on the Navy's shipbuilding plans.

The Oct. 18 report -- prepared by CRS naval affairs specialist Ronald O'Rourke and published by Secrecy News -- discusses "issues for Congress in reviewing the Navy's proposed FY2014 shipbuilding budget, its proposed FY2014-FY2018 five-year shipbuilding plan, and its FY2014 30-year (FY2014-FY2043) shipbuilding plan." Specifically:

Proposed issues for Congress in reviewing the Navy’s proposed FY2014 shipbuilding budget, its proposed FY2014-FY2018 five-year shipbuilding plan, and its FY2014 30-year (FY2014-FY2043) shipbuilding plan include the following:

* the impact on Navy shipbuilding programs of the March 1, 2013, sequester on FY2013 funding and unobligated prior-year funding;

* the potential impact on Navy shipbuilding programs of a possible sequester later this year or early next year on FY2014 funding and unobligated prior-year funding;

* the potential impact on the size of the Navy of reducing DOD spending (through sequestration or regular appropriations activity) in FY2013-FY2021 to levels at or near the lower caps established in the Budget Control Act of 2011;

* the future size and structure of the Navy in light of strategic and budgetary changes;

* the sufficiency of the 30-year shipbuilding plan for achieving the Navy's goal for a 306-ship fleet; and

* the affordability of the 30-year shipbuilding plan.

O'Rourke also testified this week before the House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee on the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan.

"Major points of discussion about the 30-year plan, particularly the affordability challenge it poses, are now so well established, and repeated so often, that discussion of the plan is now at some risk of becoming stale and unproductive," O'Rourke said in his prepared testimony. "Accordingly, the remainder of this statement is intended to offer some potential new perspectives on the plan, so as to refresh the discussion and make it potentially more valuable to Congress as its carries out its oversight of Navy shipbuilding programs and the Navy's budget in general."

The Army's top cyber official said yesterday that the service will have to partner with industry to solve many of its cybersecurity problems.

Lt. General Edward Cardon told reporters at the Association of the United States Army's annual meeting that Army cybersecurity efforts cannot take seven to 10 years like standard acquisition programs. He advocated more partnerships with industry to better prepare the service for new threats.

"We didn't build with cybersecurity in mind before and I think there's growing realization that those problems are not going to be solved by the U.S. government," Cardon said. "It's got to be involved with partnership with industry that takes security more into account."

An Army cyber field manual is "in the works," he noted, and Army Secretary John McHugh is "very close" to making a decision on the establishment of an Army cyber center of excellence. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno approved the center -- where all service cyber personnel would receive training -- in July. The center would likely be based at Fort Gordon, GA.

Cardon also said the three-week government shutdown has hurt the Army's cybersecurity efforts because the service was forced to halt some training."Cyber is highly characterized by competence," he said. "The challenge with cyber is it's uncertain . . . we need every drop and readiness we can out of every dollar. Every day you have to think that you're a little bit vulnerable. If you don't think that you're vulnerable, you're probably not going to have a good day."

Cybersecurity has become a hot button issue for the U.S. government in the past year, with several reports of rampant computer espionage and theft of commercial and government data coming to light. In May, a confidential Defense Science Board report revealed that more than two dozen U.S. weapon systems had been compromised by Chinese hackers.

Lawmakers and military leaders alike are working to combat the problem. In June, the House Armed Services Committee passed its version of the fiscal year 2014 defense authorization bill, which contained language on cyber operations, including a requirement that the Defense Department "conduct a mission analysis for cyber operations and examine the proper balance of cyber capabilities across national security organizations as well as a report on coordination of cyber and electronic warfare activities."