Democracy in America

Forget sole-sourcing, there was an article just the other day that a huge percentage of Pentagon contracts go to companies that have committed fraud against the Pentagon before. So not only is there no competition, they're handing over massive checks to known fraudsters.

But of course, we can't touch that because guns are cool and make loud noises. Neat-o!

Follow this article with one about where most military procurement officers go when they leave government service.

Airforce Colonel A　awards a no bid government contract to Aerospace Company B. 5 years later Airforce Colonel A retires from government service. Strangely enough, Aerospace company B happens to need a consultant with his skillset and he gets a job with a 6 figure income.

Defense contracting is one of the biggest messes in government. Many of these contractors have no one to rely on but the Pentagon for dollars, there's no reason to have to pay a dime for data rights. For any grant work we do it's right in the contract we own any data produced as part of it, it's standard in our field. While the Pentagon obviously doesn't work this way currently I don't think the current system makes sense. Screw the contractors, if you want to bid the Pentagon owns the data.

What are they gonna do, try to sell Raptors to Bill Gates? No other country can afford these weapons. Who are they going to sell them to, China? Russia? France? Not gonna happen. The government has the power here, with weapons systems there's no reason to coddle suppliers, companies will bid whether or not the government gets the data for free. There are probably a handful of exceptions, but for the most part if the government writes a contract that favors the Pentagon over the supplier there's not a whole lot the supplier can do about it. What's the Humvee company going to do, let the competitor win a bid that size because they feel protective about the data? They'll take the money, the have little bargaining power here, they're too specialized.

What's lacking here is public pressure. Agencies like mine are under pressure for every dollar spent, this kind of crap doesn't fly. People go all starry eyed for the Pentagon however, so it gets to act like a giant venal office holder under Louis XIV. Shouldn't fly, give the Pentagon the good kicking we get in the disability field every budget cycle and this will stop.

OneA,
Lately you have seemed to be full of anger. I support it. The Clash told me "anger can be power," and I believe it.

One of Murphy's Laws of Combat Operations is: " Never forget that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder." Now you're telling me that even that's not true? Jiminy. I suppose I can still find solace in the truth of another: "If both sides are convinced they're about to lose, they're both right."

Speaking of which, let's all remember what happens with competitive military contracts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-X

Any company that develops a technology, >50% of the proceeds from the sale of which are derived exclusively from departments in the federal government, should hand over the intellectual property involved. Such IP is not developed in private, via the market, but rather behind closed doors, by the largesse of the public and should reside in the public domain like the financing that supported it.

Military procurement has, unsurprisingly, followed the path of least resistance since WWII. If you've always got a blank check, why bother putting in the hard work of getting maximum value for every dollar? There has never been real prolonged budgetary pressure on them before; that's changing.

The military's top brass at least gives lip-service to notion that America's fiscal crisis is the #1 threat to its continued dominance. Here's hoping they do something about it.

The more sacred, the more attractive to profanity. Heroes are heroes twice, once in the moment of bravery and again because they're willing to get screwed over for it.

TV,

Yeah, I'm not sure at what point the "angst" button got switched on but apparently it's been on for a while, looking back over my posts.

I just see the amazing juxtaposition of cutting money provide milk to babies while simultaneously trying to allocate $3 billion to design jet engines to sit on warehouse floors and get a bit worked up.

It is a farce of cosmic scale, only no one seems to be laughing.

"One of the biggest reasons for sole-sourcing has to do with corporate-data rights."

That can be fixed by:
A) Having it written into the bid/contract.
B) Congress passing a law that allows it to be over-ridden in times
when our troops are deployed into harm's way (note how I avoided the word "war").

Regards

The more government micromanages finances, the less efficient it becomes. You can be sure that private defense contractors get the best price for their own supplies. So what if we privatize the military below the division level? Let them procure their own equipment. It'd kinda be like if we turned all public schools into charter schools.

Inevitably someone will bring up Blackwater but there's a simple solution. Make all contractors subject to the UCMJ at all times, making them indistinguishable in liability to our current government-run military.

The way you fix this is by cutting the Pentagon's budget. If Congress keeps writing blank checks for the Pentagon, the Pentagon is going to keep writing blank checks for the contractors.

If you cut funding to the point where some of these programs will have to be cut, trust me - these contractors will find a way to "increase efficiency" such that they continue to secure funds from a smaller Pentagon budget.

1) Require all blueprints, schematics and design data for all defense systems to be handed over to the Pentagon upon purchase. Systems still in design may be kept private, as can any system or product not purchased. Manufacturing processes and techniques may, similarly, be kept private.

If company A can build the same weapon as company B, but for half of the price due to their proprietary manufacturing process, then company A should be SOL regardless of whether or not they first developed the weapon... especially since one would normally assume that their greater familiarity and experience with producing the weapon would provide a clear competitive advantage over company B.

2) Update the rules on country of origin for all parts, labor and materials to require any given system can be manufactured entirely within country (with a very narrow exception for those requiring mineral or other resources truly unavailable domestically) and mandating that, in the event of disrupted inter-continental trade, at least 75% of current production capacity would remain intact.

Furthermore, institute rules regarding fraud to the effect that repeat violations cannot happen. Permanent blacklists are one potential avenue of prevention. Charging senior management and majority shareholders of companies found to have defrauded the Pentagon with High Treason might be another. Normally, I consider capital punishment an ineffective and unjust deterrent, but normally it is not considered for highly educated and risk-aware members of the capitalist class committing plainly premeditated crimes against our national security apparatus.

3) Add weighting to the bidding process such that "obvious choices" receive preference when their work history actually merits this, but do not when it is simply inertia and misconception. Replacing personal opinions with an index value considering a company's record of finishing on/under budget and on/before deadline, maintaining strong quality control (perhaps as a ratio between working:defective goods received) and the fraction of production/research/management is done domestically and any other competitively meaningful factors could go a long way toward breaking the cycle of quid pro quo between contractors and procurement officers.

As with fraud, institute and enforce zero-tolerance corruption and data falsification policies. Start the punishments at dishonorable discharge with forfeiture of rank and benefits, end it with treason. Again, I'm no fan of capital punishment, but I feel it is entirely appropriate to charge those who would cause clear, intentional harm to our national security for personal gain with the highest possible offense.

These are big changes, to be sure, but properly implementing any of them would allow for HUGE reductions in our defense budget with little or no loss of force readiness or military capability. Plus, none of them are ideologically infeasible, meaning that congressional and bureaucratic shills would be largely unable to oppose them without being exposed and discredited. of course, given that those same shills tend to be the ones in charge of setting policy, I am confident I'll see none of those changes in my lifetime.

Starve the beast, eh, martin horn? I like the way you think.

eric meyer wrote:

" Never forget that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder."

It gets better than that eric...
Since the 1990's, who provides the wiring harnesses for the F-16? Cobra helicopter gunships? The Bradley Fighting Vehicle?
Who provides the electronics for the Patriot 3 Missile System?

Proudly made by Federal Bureau of Prison inmates in UNICOR, Federal Prison Industries Inc.

Federally Mandated wage? $0.90c per hour.

The Pentagon should check how the Wehrmarch got the best machine gun ever, the infamous MG 42:
http://wartard.blogspot.com/2010/12/mg-42-my-favourite-evil-gun.html

with a competitive bidding process.

The problem is monopsony, the result of an unwarranted Federal usurpation of States' Rights. If we had 50 competing defense departments, the magic of the market would take care of this inefficiency. Indeed, if each of us maintained our own personal nuclear deterrent, a MIRVed ICBM would be as cheap as an automobile.

"IN LAST week's paper we reported that America's fiscal crisis seemed to have put even the once-sacrosanct defence budget on the chopping block."

The 'once-sacrosanct' Defense budget, as a percentage of total budget outlays was at 70% back in the mid-50s. It's been hovering in the high teens-low twenties (percent) for the past 20 years.

Well, there's always nationalization, but federal agencies aren't (on the balance) exactly a paragon of efficiency, effectiveness or integrity either. On the other hand, why the US Gov't does not claim exclusive rights to the university research developed with federal grants completely baffles me. Those should be profit centers. Ditto NASA, USGS, USDA etc.

Pacer, that's how it used to be, but the government made it so difficult to use the intellectual property that no one bothered. To deal with that problem, the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980 allowed the IP to stay with the creating institution. That caused an enormous increase in entrepreneurship - it seemed like every science professor since as started a business based on his research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh-Dole_Act