The Insider

By John Liang
December 6, 2010 at 7:37 PM

The Defense Acquisition University is overhauling its contracting curriculum, "the most significant" effort in that area "in nearly two decades," according to a DAU blog post issued last week. It involves Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 1990 levels I through III. Specifically:

The effort will involve restructure of existing course assets and development of new learning assets. While a strategic goal of DAU is to "provide an integrated, interactive learning environment that helps acquisition workforce members, teams, and organizations improve acquisition outcomes," the restructure is driven in large measure by direction provided in a memorandum by Dr. Ashton Carter, USD (AT&L), entitled "Better Buying Power: Guidance for Obtaining Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending" dated September 14, 2010. The memorandum identified 23 initiatives for reducing inefficiencies and improving cost performance. These initiatives were mapped across the multi-functional portfolio of DAU DAWIA courses. Thirty seven courses have been linked to at least one of the "Carter initiatives." Nine contracting courses were identified. The restructure will provide greater detail of topics in the CON curriculum and identify opportunities for increased rigor and depth of instruction in contracting and contract pricing. Case studies and simulations are anticipated as relevant data becomes available. Course launches are scheduled to begin in Oct 2011 and continue into the start of the 2nd Qtr of FY 2012.

From 31 Aug - 3 Sep 2010, DAU Contracting leaders, course managers, and a representative from Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) met at DAU Headquarters in Ft Belvoir, VA. Their task was to review the entire CON certification curricula with specific focus on Pricing Weighted Guidelines (WGL), Small Business, Services, Industrial Property, Source Selection, Competition, Contract Types (Incentives), and Should (Will) Cost. The restructure will align CON Levels I-III with CON competencies, and leverage continuous learning modules to reinforce the classroom experience.

Click here to view a summary of projected changes.

By Marcus Weisgerber
December 6, 2010 at 5:05 PM

The Senate Armed Services Committee late last week voted to advance Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler's nomination to become the chief of U.S. Strategic Command.

If confirmed by the full Senate, Kehler -- who oversees Air Force Space Command -- would replace Gen. Kevin Chilton, who is retiring.

Kehler appeared before the committee on Nov. 18. President Obama nominated Kehler for the STRATCOM post in early September. Sen. James Webb (D-VA) had reportedly threatened to hold up Kehler's confirmation, but has since dropped those threats.

Appearing on a discussion panel with the majority of the service's four-star generals at an Air Force Association-sponsored conference in mid-September, Kehler had a tendency to answer a number of questions from the moderator like this: “I am humbled by the nomination and look forward to the confirmation process. Thank you.”

When asked to reflect on his three years at Air Force Space Command, he joked, “This is a little bit -- you know -- like the report of my demise is a little premature. I'm not dead yet.”

By Dan Dupont
December 6, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Plenty of news on defense budget and procurement issues was generated last week at a two-day investor conference in New York that featured a slew of senior DOD types. We brought you must-reads from the show on JSF (another here), efficiencies savings and more.

Today CreditSuisse, one of the sponsors of the event, sent out a handy summary along with its own analysis of what went down. Some highlights:

Strong Potential for Negative Topline over Next Several Budget Cycles: Some of our speakers unexpectedly migrated from the current program-of-record, which calls for 1% DoD budget growth, including a 5-year plan to redirect $101B in targeted savings (mostly O&M) to support 2-3% real growth in weapons accounts. Instead, several speakers acknowledged strong potential for eventual spending reductions of up to 15-20% over the next several budget cycles. This magnitude was referenced as historically consistent with previous downturns, but we note that those were driven by abating threat, while today’s challenge is massive deficit. The more uncertain part is timing. We expect that one or two programs will be cut in the FY’12 budget, but major top-line Base Budget reduction is unlikely while we are in a “shooting war."

Profit Margins: It is already widely known that DoD wants to better align contractor profit & risk on development programs, but Dr. Carter emphasized full-rate production margin is a key protected incentive for industry.

Scale Purchasing: General Cartwright was extremely clear that we must buy in bulk (scale) to have sufficient quantities of combat platforms. Current pattern of buying more expensive platforms in fewer quantities will leave us heavily under-equipped. He also downplayed need for exquisite solutions.

Cyber Spending Must Rise: DoD is clearly going to increase cyber funding by FY’12, or FY’13 at the latest. We were warned that defending networks takes 10x the lines of software code for every line used for cyber attack. However, given the late creation of DoD Cybercom in 2010, cyber funding may not ramp up aggressively until FY13.

Unmanned over Manned Is the Way of the Future: General Cartwright clearly favors the fiscal and operating economies of unmanned vehicles, which are developing greater cognitive ability and will soon out-process human platforms at lower cost, with reduced loss of life.

By John Liang
December 3, 2010 at 8:00 PM

While Senate ratification of the follow-on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty may still be in limbo, the uncertainty hasn't stopped the Missile Defense Agency from delineating how the winner of the multimillion-dollar Ground-based Midcourse Defense development and sustainment contract should operate under the terms of the pact.

According to the statement of work attached to the final request for proposals for the GMD DSC effort that was released this week:

3.3.4.4 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty - Vandenberg Air Force Base (CLIN 300, 301)

The Contractor shall be required to support New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) requirements for all activity involving GMD program on Vandenberg AFB, CA. The New START treaty would allow one (1) visit per year designated as a "Type II" inspection, and will require access to Bldg 6819 (Bunker #6) Igloo Storage facility. When a Type II inspection is identified, the Contractor shall provide 24-hr per day personnel availability to open and escort inspection personnel into the facility. The Contractor shall be available upon arrival of the inspection team on Vandenberg AFB CA, and be released upon formal declaration of the inspection team that it is complete with the inspection or have released the facility from further inspection, whichever occurs first. The Contractor shall also provide the capability to measure a booster/interceptor in Bldg 6819 (Bunker #6) to be able to provide proof to the inspection team that the booster does not meet measurements of an item of inspection (i.e. Minuteman or Peacekeeper first stage motor). Measurement methods and criteria are provided in the New START Treaty

3.3.4.4.1 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty Exhibitions; Vandenberg Air Force Base (CLIN 300, 301)

The Contractor shall be required to support Exhibition requirements as outlined by the Seventh Agreed Statement in the New START Treaty. The Contractor shall plan for two (2) exhibition events, the first occurring within the first three years of the treaty entering into force. The second event will occur within the remainder of the 10-year life of the treaty. The Contractor shall also plan for two (2) mock-inspections, one each prior to each exhibition. For actual Exhibitions, the Contractor shall be required to open each of the five (5) GBI interceptor launch facilities, to include opening both silo closure mechanisms (both leafs), and the primary access hatch into the Launcher Equipment Room (LER). The Contractor shall provide appropriate safety equipment and gear to support viewing of the launch facility, both from above-ground view into the silo liner, and below-grade inside the LER and into the silo liner from the LER level. For the mock-inspections, only one (1) launch facility will be opened for access as described above for the exhibitions.

By Tony Bertuca
December 2, 2010 at 6:37 PM

The Army has announced it will host a pre-proposal conference addressing the Ground Combat Vehicle request for proposals issued Monday, according to a notice posted today on Federal Business Opportunities.

The conference has been scheduled for Dec. 16 at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Dearborn, MI.

"Attendance at the GCV TD Phase Pre-Proposal Conference is recommended for only those who intend to submit a proposal in response to the GCV Request for Proposal (RFP); however, attendance is neither required nor a pre-requisite for proposal submission and will not be considered in the evaluation," according to a separate notice posted on the Army's contracting website. "This is not a conference to convey general GCV program information. Only those firms seriously considering submitting a proposal to the Government should attend."

According to the notice, firms will be allowed to submit questions prior to the conference and have them addressed at the event.

"The majority of these questions will be addressed at the conference, time permitting," the notice states. However, "no verbal questions will be allowed at the conference."

Paul Mehney, spokesman for Army integration, said the conference would provide a forum for industry to discuss the RFP with service officials.

"The focus is clarify any issues that industry has questions on in our request for proposal," he said. "It's also to ensure that the government has clearly communicated its intent to the contractors in order to receive responsive proposals from industry by the Jan. 21. deadline."

Mehney also said the conference was an opportunity to the Army to provide industry with "confidence in the acquisition process and the acquisition strategy that has been laid out."

He said generals and civilians from Army leadership would likely be in attendance but did not know who.

By Jordana Mishory
December 2, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Defense Department agencies and components have failed to submit complete information about non-competitive contract awards to the Pentagon's public affairs office, prompting the defense procurement and acquisition policy shop to conduct periodic checks, according to a Government Accountability Office report released Wednesday.

The five-page GAO report states that acquisition rules require defense contracting officers to submit certain details about contract awards worth more than $5.5 million to the public affairs shop by the close of business the day before the date of the proposed award. The required details concern the contract, the contractor, the funding and the competition.

But GAO found that in August 2010 there was a "pattern of contract award announcements that lacked the information required to be submitted . . . for one or more categories." This incomplete information violates DOD acquisition rules and prevents full transparency, GAO writes.

"President Obama has emphasized transparency and openness in how the government spends taxpayer dollars," GAO writes in its report to Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Director Shay Assad. "Every military service and DOD agency that submitted a contract award announcement in August 2010 had at least one submission that did not meet the requirements."

Assad concurred with GAO's recommendation to heed the rules, stating that his office will issue a memo to DOD contracting officers reminding them of their responsibilities to include complete information when notifying the public affairs shop of contract announcements. Assad's office will also conduct "periodic checks" of the information provided to the public affairs shop by DOD departments and agencies, the report notes.

By John Liang
December 2, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Inside the Pentagon reports today that the Defense Department has proposed amending its acquisition rules to strongly encourage discussions with industry prior to making source-selection awards for procurements worth $100 million or more. Further:

The proposed change was recommended by the DOD Source Selection Joint Analysis Team, according to a Nov. 24 Federal Register notice concerning the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). The notice contains a proposed rule with a request for comments. The team was chartered by Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter to revise DOD source-selection procedures, which are being published separately.

According to the notice, the team found there is a "significant positive correlation between high-dollar value source selections conducted without discussions and protests sustained." Hence, to improve the quality of costly, complex source selections and to "reduce turbulence and inefficiency resulting from sustained protests," the team called for officials to hold discussions with industry prior to making source-selection awards worth $100 million or more.

Holding talks prior to the submission of final proposals helps both sides understand each other, giving DOD the opportunity to issue clarifying language and industry the chance to better tailor proposals to meet the department's needs. Such talks could also increase the chances of small businesses being selected for high-dollar value contracts, the notice states. . . .

Briefing slides from a recent defense industry conference highlight the increasing number of defense contractors willing to protest the Pentagon's contract-award decisions.

The slides, from a briefing presented by Wall Street analyst Myles Walton at a PEO/SYSCOM conference last month, show that the number of protests filed with the Government Accountability Office's comptroller general have climbed 65 percent between fiscal years 2002 and 2009. Of those protests, only 39 percent were sustained.

Those sustainment decisions, however, on their own "underestimate" their impact, according to Walton's presentation.

"When there's no downside to protest, why not?" the Deutsche Bank analyst's presentation states. Further, thousand-dollar-per-hour lawyers "likely have the upper hand poking holes" in the Pentagon's contract-award decisions, and "'if we can't have it, no one can' is sometimes the best strategy," according to the briefing slides.

Check out Walton's briefing slides from the 2010 PEO/SYSCOM Commanders' Conference here.

By John Liang
December 1, 2010 at 8:57 PM

House lawmakers today passed legislation that would allow the continued funding of government operations at 2010 levels for an additional 15 days beyond the current Dec. 3 deadline. Republicans opposed to the bill argue the additional time should give the Democrat-controlled House a chance to pass a massive, trillion-dollar "omnibus" spending package for fiscal year 2011.

House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Jerry Lewis (R-CA) didn't like the measure. According to a statement he delivered earlier today on the House floor:

As I have made clear time and time again, I am strongly, unequivocally opposed to any potential omnibus spending bill the Democrat leadership may be planning to bring to the House floor before the end of the year. Likewise, I remain adamantly opposed to extending the CR for the balance of the fiscal year at current spending levels which are, frankly, too darn high.

Instead of this last ditch effort by the Democrat majority to give themselves more time to spend taxpayer dollars, Congress should extend the CR until the next Congress. This would allow the new House Republican majority to begin putting our Nation’s fiscal house in order by completing the Fiscal Year 2011 Appropriations bills at 2008 levels, saving taxpayers $100 billion. In addition, we should immediately pass my bill, the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Rescission Act" (HR 6403), to rescind billions of dollars of unspent federal "stimulus" funding and apply it to deficit reduction.

At a time of historic deficits, record debt, and ten percent unemployment, I believe we owe our constituents more than the status quo. The message from the American people is loud and clear -- they want us to stop the explosion of government spending that is hurting our economy and our financial future.

By Sebastian Sprenger
December 1, 2010 at 6:25 PM

Army folks aren't the only ones thinking about the impact of the global economic crisis on U.S. defense operations. Defense Business Board officials, whose recommendation to close U.S. Joint Forces Command made waves over the summer, are slated to brief the results of a new study on the hot topic at their Jan. 20 meeting, a board official told us today. According to the study's title, the review will also consider the effects of the economic crisis on allies.

Some meeting notices for the DBB task force previously suggested a separate report would be released on the country of Germany. That is because at one point the board's plan was to release a series of reports, each focusing on one U.S. ally, according to the DBB official. But board members changed their mind and are now planning to consider all allies in one treatise, the official said.

By John Liang
December 1, 2010 at 5:51 PM

The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, whose final report was released this morning, has some interesting defense-related recommendations. One of them deals with requiring the president "to propose annual limits for war spending." Specifically, the administration should:

Create a separate category for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).

Discretionary spending constraints must not ignore spending for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and other future conflicts. At the same time, budget rules should not determine war policy. In order to balance these competing goals, the Commission chose as a starting point the more gradual of CBO’s troop drawdown scenario, while providing the President and Congress with an opportunity to adjust the path to more accurately track with actual projections of OCO spending needs.

Spending for OCO would not count against the general security spending cap, but would constitute a separate category subject to a dollar limit of its own. The Commission proposes establishing limits on OCO spending based on CBO’s projection for a reduction of troop levels to 60,000 by 2015. In his FY 2012 budget, the President may propose adjustments to the limits on OCO spending to reflect the administration’s projections for the costs of current war policy. Any spending above the OCO limit must be either offset or subject to a 60-vote point of order (and all other requirements established for regular emergency spending).

OCO funds would be limited to spending that meets the OMB criteria for OCO designation. Under these criteria funding for OCO could only be used in geographic areas in which combat or direct combat support operations occur, and would generally be limited to: 1) Operations and maintenance for the transport of personnel, equipment, and supplies to, from and within the theater of operations; deployment-specific training and preparation for units and personnel to assume their directed mission; and the incremental costs above the funding programmed in the base budget to build and maintain temporary facilities; provide food, fuel, supplies, contracted services and other support; and cover the operational costs of coalition partners supporting US military missions; 2) Military personnel spending for incremental special pays and allowances for Service members and civilians deployed to a combat zone; and incremental pay, special pays and allowances for Reserve Component personnel mobilized to support war missions; 3) Procurement costs to replace losses that have occurred, but only for items not already programmed for replacement in the Future Years Defense Plan; 4) Military construction spending for facilities and infrastructure in the theater of operations in direct support of combat operations; and 5) Research and development projects required for combat operations in these specific theaters that can be delivered in 12 months.

Another recommendation calls for the White House to "unleash agencies to begin identifying savings." Specifically:

Every federal agency will need to do its part to live within tough spending caps. The Commission recommends that as part of their annual budget submissions and Congressional Budget Justifications, all agency heads should be required to identify a share of their budget recommended for cancellation and to identify ways to shift from inefficient, unproductive spending to productive, results-based investment. As a tool to improve productivity, agencies should be given a two-year window to conduct employee buyouts, and expanded latitude for personnel realignment. Congress should also consider a "BRAC commission" for terminating major weapons systems, appointed and headed by the Secretary of Defense, for trimming redundant or ineffective weapons from the Defense Department’s inventory.

By John Liang
December 1, 2010 at 1:13 PM

Looks like the North American Aerospace Defense Command's annual Santa Tracker website, due to be launched today, is in for some competition. According to a Russian news report that came out earlier this month, Father Frost, Russia's Santa Claus, will have "a staff featuring a GLONASS satellite navigation system so he can be tracked on his New Year's gift-giving journey." Further:

The system will transmit Father Frost's coordinates to a special center, which will publish them on the internet so that everyone can follow his progress on his traditional New Year voyage.

"Technical innovations have become an essential part of modern life. Therefore, Father Frost has mastered computer skills, receives e-mails from children, has blogs in social networks and uses a cell phone to communicate with other magicians," said Ivan Nechayev, the executive director of the Russian Navigation Technologies company, which presented the staff.

The GLONASS module was installed in the crystal-shaped top of the staff, which is 180 cm long and weighs some 3 kg.

Last year, Father Frost's sledge and other vehicles at his residence in the town of Veliky Ustyug were also equipped with GLONASS navigation systems.

In response, NORAD earlier this month published a statement on its Facebook page:

We welcome the competition from our Russian friends this holiday season. Maybe this enterprise will one day be a uniting force.

By John Liang
November 30, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Getting Islamic extremists to stop conducting terrorist activities may not be enough to counter the threat, according to a new RAND Corp. study. In fact, "deradicalizing" them, or changing their beliefs, "may be even more important," a RAND statement reads. The report "examines counter-radicalization programs in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Europe."

Further, according to the RAND statement:

Although there has been much research about the radicalization and recruitment of Islamist extremists, there has been little study until recently about how one deradicalizes those who have been recruited into the Islamist extremist movement.

A key question is whether the objective of counter-radicalization programs should be disengagement (a change in behavior) or deradicalization (a change in beliefs) of militants. A unique challenge posed by militant Islamist groups is that their ideology is rooted in a major world religion, Islam.

"Getting militants to refrain from violence is only part of the process," said Angel Rabasa, lead author of the study and a senior political scientist with RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "Ideally, the goal is to get the individual to change his belief system, reject the extremist ideology and embrace a moderate worldview. This is difficult with Islamist extremists, because the requirements of the ideology are regarded as religious obligations."

But deradicalization may be necessary to permanently defuse the threat posed by these groups, Rabasa said. If a militant agrees to stop fighting purely for practical reasons -- such as a condition for one’s release from prison -- when the circumstances change, the person may once again return to terrorist acts.

The RAND study identifies and analyzes the processes through which militants leave Islamist extreme groups, assesses the effectiveness of deradicalization programs and summarizes the policies that could help to promote and accelerate the processes of deradicalization.

The best-designed deradicalization and counter-radicalization programs in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Europe leverage local cultural patterns to achieve their objectives, Rabasa said. For that reason, these programs cannot simply be transplanted from one country to another.

Deradicalization programs have two other important goals. One is to obtain intelligence on extremist organizations and the second is to discredit the extremist ideology. Challenging the extremist ideology with an alternative interpretation of Islam is not only likely to effect a more permanent change in the militant’s worldview and to reduce the risk of recidivism, but it also helps to weaken the appeal of radical Islamism. An important indicator of success is convincing rehabilitated militants to speak out against extremist groups and ideology.

Because counter-radicalization or deradicalization programs are embedded in a war of ideas, the counter-ideological component of these programs is extremely important. Most Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian programs use a form of theological dialogue in which mainstream scholars and sometimes even former radicals engage extremists in discussions of Islamic theology in an effort to convince the militants that their interpretation of Islam is wrong.

However, because many of these programs are focused on eliminating the domestic terrorism threat, they may forbid terrorism in the home state because the government is Islamic, but condone it elsewhere.

Rabasa said he and his colleagues found that there isn’t enough reliable data to reach definitive conclusions about either the short-term or long-term effectiveness of these programs. Many state-sponsored programs guard their statistics and some programs target terrorist sympathizers more than hardcore radicals.

While the United States does not have these kinds of programs in place now, the study notes that Islamist extremism and terrorism is a global threat, and the lessons learned from the research has policy implications for the United States.

Researchers say programs that aim to rehabilitate radical Islamists should focus on influencing participants by offering material incentives, practical assistance and alternative support networks. A counter-ideological component designed to induce militants to question their radical ideology is another crucial element.

The study, "Deradicalizing Islamist Extremists," can be found here.

By John Liang
November 30, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Raytheon plans to relocate its Patriot New Equipment Training program to Ft. Sill, OK, beginning early next year, according to a company statement.

The move is in response to the Army's Base Realignment and Closure-related decision to relocate the Air Defense School to Ft. Sill. The program trains Army personnel on upgrades to the Patriot system.

Raytheon's Patriot missile business would likely not be hurt anytime soon by the next-generation Medium Extended Air Defense System, regardless of what decision is made on the latter program, according to company CEO William Swanson. As Inside Missile Defense reported earlier this month:

Patriot has 12 customers around the world, compared to three for MEADS, (Swanson) said last week, adding: "We expect Patriot to be around for a long time." MEADS is seen as an eventual replacement for Patriot.

Funding for the MEADS trinational missile-defense program is divided among partner nations: 58 percent from the United States, 25 percent from Germany and 17 percent from Italy. Lockheed Martin is developing the system in conjunction with Lenflugkorpersysteme in Germany and MBDA-Italia; the current design-and-development contract is for roughly $3.5 billion. MEADS is envisioned to eventually replace the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 system, which Raytheon developed.

Sister publication Inside the Army reported last month that with the Army's air and missile defense portfolio review in full swing, service acquisition chief Malcolm O'Neill and Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly had met recently to discuss how they might work together on MEADS.

By Dan Dupont
November 30, 2010 at 3:17 PM

The Army has released its much-anticipated request for proposals for the Ground Combat Vehicle, according to a statement that just reached us. The service says it "anticipates awarding up to three contracts for the Technology Development phase in the early third quarter of 2011."

More:

Delivery of the first production vehicle is expected within seven years of the initial contract award. The Infantry Fighting Vehicle will be developed in three phases commencing after the initial contract award: Technology Development, Engineering and Manufacturing Development, and Production and Deployment. The prime contractors selected for the Technology Development phase will focus on the identification of effective and affordable vehicle technologies, development -- including preliminary design -- of competitive vehicle component prototypes, planned technical reviews and reduction of program schedule risk.

The Army will rely on mature technologies and affordability targets in designing and developing the vehicle to meet these objectives. The Army anticipates awarding three fixed-price incentive fee contracts for the Technology Development phase. The RFP allows industry to utilize existing technologies and innovative solutions in their proposals. Industry will be allowed to propose non-developmental items (NDI), modified non developmental items, or new development solutions in response to the RFP. These approaches will enable the Army to field an Infantry Fighting Vehicle that provides critical Soldier protection and full-spectrum operational capabilities for a 21st Century threat environment.

The Army held a widely attended industry meeting in early October 2010, which provided valuable feedback from industry regarding the Ground Combat Vehicle program and provided the Army with an opportunity to convey its priorities and objectives for the program to the public.

The RFP release follows dedicated efforts by Army leaders and key stakeholders to ensure the Ground Combat Vehicle program succeeds as an achievable and affordable acquisition program. Comprehensive reviews of the vehicle’s acquisition strategy, planned capabilities, operational needs, program schedule and vehicle technology readiness helped formulate the RFP.

The Army remains firmly committed to the Ground Combat Vehicle program as the centerpiece of its combat vehicle modernization strategy, which will provide Soldiers with protected mobility and a decisive edge in both current and future combat environments. The RFP clearly conveys the Army’s priorities in terms of capabilities, while providing industry with a successful framework to design and develop an effective and affordable Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

The Ground Combat Vehicle acquisition program will follow Department of Defense best acquisition practices, including full and open competition.

By John Liang
November 29, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Congress should fund an Army force of 700,000 active-duty soldiers, according to an Association of the U.S. Army statement released today. The 700,000 troops should be "drawn from the Active Army, the Army National Guard and Army Reserve," a goal that is a "key piece" of the organization's legislative agenda for 2011, the statement reads. Specifically:

In the preamble to its resolutions approved by 122 of AUSA's chapters, the Association noted, "The demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply." The preamble added that legislative and regulatory policy changes are needed to "allow the Reserve Component to execute its role" as an operational reserve to meet the requirement for 700,000 Soldiers to be serving in the active force.

To pay for this, the Association is seeking congressional approval to increase "non-supplemental defense spending to at least 5 percent of gross domestic product," increase the Army's share of the defense budget from 24 to 28 percent and provide a consistent funding stream.

As in the past, the resolutions "focus on people, readiness and Army modernization." Adding,  "People are the heart and soul of the Army – Soldiers, Civilians, Family Members and Retired Soldiers."

The resolutions call for closing the pay gap between soldiers and Army civilians and the private sector; revising and enhancing the compensation package for the reserve components; and warns against an "erosion of benefits, especially in health care . . . to ensure the continued success of the all-volunteer force."

They also recognize the Army's efforts in "refining understanding of Full Spectrum Operations through training and professional dialogue [and] reducing the backlog in professional military education."

The resolutions recognize the stress of continued conflict upon soldiers and their families and acknowledge the efforts to build resilience through programs such as Comprehensive Soldier Fitness and Health Promotion, Risk Reduction and Suicide Prevention.

On modernization, the resolutions state, funding must be available to execute the revised strategy "for developing the interoperable network and a new ground combat vehicle." The resolutions also address the Army's need for funds for research, development and testing for future forces.

Money to repair and replace equipment lost during nine years of war will need to continue for several years after hostilities end.  At the same time, "Funds associated with base realignment and Closure, Global Posture Reviews and the Quadrennial Defense Review must be provided" to all the Army "to remain the world’s dominant land power."

Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey told Inside the Army in a September interview that he fears that efforts to save money on defense could turn on cutting end strength, a step he believes should not be taken in the near term as the service recovers from combat operations in Iraq and continues fighting in Afghanistan. Specifically:

"For the Army, the big thing for us is to maintain our end strength for a sufficient amount of time so that we can reset and reconstitute the force," Casey told Inside the Army on Sept. 14 after speaking at an economic-development event on Capitol Hill sponsored by the North Carolina congressional delegation. "I worry . . . the first thing folks look at is Army end strength," he said.

His comments come amid efforts at the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill to find savings in the defense budget. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has set a target of $100 billion in savings over the next five years through improved efficiencies. He has been careful to note that the move does not amount to a cutting of the defense budget.

Meanwhile, lawmakers are more closely scrutinizing the Pentagon budget, with the Senate Appropriations Committee last week approving a spending bill $8 billion below President Obama's $678 billion request for fiscal year 2011.

"We've seen this coming," Casey told ITA, noting Army efforts since 2008 aimed at reforming "the way we manage ourselves." The idea, he said, is to generate enough efficiencies through these reforms so end strength cuts are unnecessary. "We were already moving down this road" before Gates announced his savings push earlier this year, he added.