Lead Systems Integrators

Major defense acquisition efforts like the now-defunct Army Future Combat Systems project and the Coast Guard's Deepwater program -- both of which were run by a single contractor performing the role of a lead systems integrator -- have been raked over the coals by lawmakers for incurring delays and cost overruns. With those lessons in mind, a recent Congressional Research Service report outlines potential options for how LSIs could be used in the future:

• Reduce the possible need for LSIs by pursuing separate procurement programs rather than SOS programs;

• Require that certain conditions be met before a private-sector LSI can be used on an acquisition program (analogous to conditions set for use of the multi-year procurement program);

• Require that LSI arrangements include features to ensure transparency, prevent conflicts of interest, prohibit self-certification, require independent assessments, and facilitate meaningful periodic competitions of the LSI role;

• Institute additional or stricter reporting requirements for programs being executed by LSIs;

• Require DOD and other federal agencies to share lessons learned regarding programs executed with private-sector LSIs;

• Prohibit the use of private-sector LSI’s in future acquisition programs;

• Reduce the possible need for private-sector LSIs by building back up the defense civilian and military acquisition workforces, and have DOD assume the role of the LSI, and require that DOD manage all SOS programs; and

• Implement the recommendations of the recent Gansler Commission on improving the acquisition workforce.