Share

Bill Would Create New Oversight of Pentagon Costs

by: Ellen Nakashima  |  The Washington Post

photo
The Pentagon. (Photo: Charles Dharapak / AP)

    A bill to end cost overruns in major weapons systems would create a powerful new Pentagon position -- director of independent cost assessments -- to review cost analyses and estimates, separately from the military branch requesting the program.

    Those reviews, unlike in the current process, would take place at key points in the acquisition process before a weapons program can proceed, according to legislation sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)

    Last year, the Government Accountability Office reported that cost overruns on the Pentagon's 95 largest weapons acquisitions system totaled $300 billion even though the government cut quantities and reduced performance expectations.

    "A train wreck is coming," McCain said at a hearing today on the bill.

    The bipartisan legislation would also enable the Pentagon to pull the plug on a weapons project that has a critical cost overrun unless the Defense secretary certifies, with reasons and documentation, that the program is essential to the national security and can be made cost-effective.

    If the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 becomes law, current big-ticket programs such as the U.S. Army's Future Combat System, the Air Force's F-22 Raptor fighter jet, and the Pentagon's Joint Strike Fighter strike aircraft weapon system, could face new scrutiny. All three have come under fire for their expense and the slow pace of development.

    The Joint Strike Fighter and Future Combat System alone account for almost $80 billion in cost overruns and were begun with insufficiently mature technologies and overly rosy assumptions about performance, Levin said. Twelve years after Joint Strike Fighter program was started, three of eight critical technologies are still not mature, he said. Eight years after Future Combat System was launched, only three of 44 critical technologies are mature.

    "Particularly at this time, when the federal budget is under immense strain . . . we simply cannot continue this kind of waste and inefficiency," Levin said.

    Currently, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, the Pentagon's senior acquisitions officer, receives cost estimates on weapons programs from two sources -- the program office in the relevant service branch, and the Pentagon's Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG).

    Under the proposed legislation, the 30-person CAIG staff would fall under the new independent cost assessment director. That new office would have significant authority to obtain data from the contractor and to ensure a program's costs are justified. The director would also have to submit a report annually to Congress.

    At the hearing, four defense experts testified how it was key to have accurate cost estimates at the beginning of the acquisition process. They also emphasized the need to rebuild an acquisitions workforce decimated by two decades of government downsizing.

    Jacques S. Gansler, a former Pentagon senior acquisition officer, told lawmakers that the Defense Contract Management Agency had 25,000 staff in 1990, down to 10,000 today. The Army had five general officers with contract backgrounds. In 2007, it had none.

    "Everything about the bill is going in the right direction," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group."The part that worries me most is that it assumes Congress is going to do its job of serious oversight," she said, "and in general, we're pretty disappointed with Congress in that regard."

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

They might 'want' to find

They might 'want' to find out what happened to the $2.3 trillion that was 'lost' at the pentagon when rumsfeld announced it on sept 10, 2001

This bill really begs the

This bill really begs the obvious question as to why this country needs to spend more than every other country in the world combined on its military operations. Just because the billions of dollars are spent according to budget and a project plan for a bomber does not make the spending any less wasteful.

TOO many powerful interests

TOO many powerful interests influence what gets spent. Congress is really to blame for much of this, given the "jobs" aspect of such spending. But this money could also be spent on creating more healthcare jobs for the poorest VOTERS in those states, too. We need much more popularism on these things and much much more control of spending. We need to eliminate the "special non-governmental armies" such as Blackwater (oops, Xe) and those mercenaries. Spending on the military should be focused on the military. Let's spend on college benefits and better job training, getting these National Guard people back HERE guarding the wealth and creativity of THIS nation and not Iraq. Let's restore the international Greatness of America (which is NOT military but social and economic).