Transcription Summary
NamePANEL20090603.wav
Duration01:26:27

Decipher Transcript

Start TimeDurationUtterance
00:00:001.38 (s)all that and review you like
00:02:021.66 (s)yeah the be um
00:02:059.56 (s)permission of the minority staff in there and gracious cooperation we are going to begin i want to welcome the witnesses and the members of the public and the media to this morning's hearing
00:02:152.38 (s)and i want to begin by thanking um
00:02:188.56 (s)my colleagues on this panel further diligent work in the efforts that led to be acquisition reform legislation signed by the president twelve days ago
00:02:277.34 (s)this panel wasn't panel uh very brief period of time to go in each of the members both the republican and democratic side
00:02:355.96 (s)uh put in a significant amount of time and learning these issues in in a very valuable contribution to that effort
00:02:4112.38 (s)which is now become long and did want to express my appreciation to the staff as well as the colleagues on the panel for their hard work our work uh as we see it is only about twenty percent done
00:02:542.16 (s)in that statute maybe all bit less than that
00:02:575.70 (s)but obviously we have a responsibility as the statues implemented to understand whether it's working or not
00:03:032.18 (s)uh and to determine what that means
00:03:0712.82 (s)but by any definition about eighty percent of the procurement done by the department offenses not touched by the statute the president signed twelve days ago because it dealt with that major weapons systems exclusively
00:03:206.16 (s)uh as this panel knows well as many members of the s. r. i. stuff our panel
00:03:261.20 (s)you know very well as well
00:03:285.74 (s)that about sixty percent of the procurement done by the department things service is not good
00:03:3521.06 (s)and of the uh forty percent that is uh hardware major weapon systems only make up a part of that need a half of that says a lot of work left to be done the towel began waited a series of questions the first question that we started with was what uh set of metrics should exist or can exist properly measure
00:03:572.68 (s)the difference between what we are paying
00:04:003.06 (s)uh for goods and services computer by the d. o. d.
00:04:037.00 (s)and what the value of those goods and services it it the delta if any between what we're paying and what we're getting
00:04:117.98 (s)and after a series of hearings on that we're now ready proceed to our next at which is to ask the question why hypotheses are out there
00:04:2012.42 (s)and so why that difference exists in other words given the fact that the evidence is radically or that there is a gap between what we pay and what we receive one of the problem other causes of that cat
00:04:339.72 (s)today is the first in a series of hearings that will be structured around the idea of a hypothesis as to what those clauses are supporting the the hypothesis would be that
00:04:435.86 (s)the gap between what we what we receive is in some part explain will
00:04:504.78 (s)by the absence of effective coordination among the requirements process
00:04:563.62 (s)uh be procurement process in the budgeting process
00:05:0058.94 (s)but when one looks at those three significant initiatives that must be accomplished in the department defense there is either little or no coordination on too many occasions now there are exceptions to that rule there been any instances where there has been very effective coordination um i think the bulk of the evidence is that that's more a function of the talents and commitment of the individuals that are involved not necessarily administrative structure within which they're working one of the larry hypotheses to this is maybe it doesn't they're much what the the straight structure is that it's entirely dependent upon the skills and personalities of the people involved and that there are very finite limits as to what we can do with manipulating it administrative structure that may well be the case but the general purpose of this morning's hearing is is to hear from three incredibly accomplished individuals with deep experience and broad knowledge in this area to address this hypothesis
00:05:593.20 (s)uh to the extent that there is a lack of coordination
00:06:037.38 (s)among the requirements setting process the procurement process and the budgeting process to what extent is this the cause
00:06:113.60 (s)uh we've identified the gap between what we pay and what we get
00:06:1510.94 (s)uh after this morning's hearing will we'll proceed with a a lot of other hypotheses that people have suggested over the years and try to evaluate those and uh come to some understanding as to what
00:06:2711.50 (s)combination of hypotheses make the most sense in meeting our ultimate objective which is to come up with a series of legislative recommendations to try to make the system work better pleased to be joined by our
00:06:397.68 (s)friend uh from colorado mr cough and i realize just dashing that would give we have to make an opening statement if he so desires
00:06:473.88 (s)i think mr i was sort of my uh uh statement for the record
00:06:5120.92 (s)uh after the me but would appreciate you all for upcoming here and look for two testimony thank you very much mr. kaufman without objection opening statements from any other member of the powell will be included in the record should they choose this method we appreciate indulgence the witnesses in waiting and and writing i'm going to get very brief by a lot biographical uh introductions because
00:07:1312.98 (s)each he truly is a person needs no introduction around here we need that as a compliment um but very briefly just to gordon england is not present in e. six partners l. l. c. a firm specializing in international business
00:07:264.62 (s)as we well know he's previously served as the twenty ninth deputy secretary of defense
00:07:328.28 (s)he also served at the seventy second and seventy third secretary of the navy and the first deputy secretary of the department of homeland security
00:07:4122.08 (s)um he's a native of baltimore graduated from the very perceive maryland in one or his master's in business administration from the and j. the only school of business in texas christian university is the leader and say they can travel organizations as well as his exemplary service to our country welcome secretary england nice to have you back with us think you um
00:08:052.92 (s)admirals next right i was here
00:08:1227.74 (s)add know anything jim bass d. n. a. is that correct am guess or i'm from new jersey so i got a lot of practice excellent absolutely um he joined a lady in north america it in january two thousand is chairman of the board of directors in addition he serves as director s. r. i. international inc monster worldwide ink the atlantic council of the united states e. q. group in the united kingdom
00:08:4116.16 (s)um a career nuclear submarine officer of the admiral retired from active duty in october first two thousand seven is last assignment he as the nation seven vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the second highest ranking military officer
00:08:582.56 (s)he's a native of of can still in new york
00:09:0114.90 (s)he graduated from the u. s. naval academy nineteen seventy we should just welcome you thank you your so thank you chairman and lieutenant general ronald k. cache is presently the vice president partner in the aerospace marketing group for booze allen hamilton in
00:09:1629.78 (s)he joined that from a every fifteen two thousand and five he's distinguish himself there is house here men of the defense acquisition performance assessment examining the strength deficiencies the current defense acquisition process uh he's work with us for a very long time this committee as the director of the missile defense agency the office of the secretary sense as director general case was the acquisition executive for all holistic missile defense systems and programs and um
00:09:472.62 (s)the end of the air force in nineteen seventy
00:09:5018.04 (s)after graduating from the r. o. t. c. well problem in saint joseph's university in philadelphia his we had another state chose witnesses aurora i said block will never die to those witnesses right general i it's great to have u. s. jamil start with secretary england you know the rules well that we ask people too
00:10:0815.38 (s)uh summarize their oral testimony about are written testimony rather about five minutes you are written statements in their entirety will be part of record try to maximize the not question time for the members so we can get the benefit of your actual work sums to secretary wrong
00:10:244.98 (s)so first uh mister chairman thanks for the opportunity come by again um
00:10:305.04 (s)first wife for joe you have to be pretty brave entered this arena as you know um
00:10:3614.12 (s)in my uh commercial days i i've ran several define defense signs were studies on acquisition reform and probably served on doesn't uh over my career when i became the deputy i had a uh
00:10:5124.48 (s)a group in fact uh general cage was one of the leaders of that group to look at the one hundred and twenty three i believe prior formal studies on acquisition report and i didn't include all the work by think tanks and everybody else in g. a. o. in the congress and so this is not new ground being plowed right but that would tend to indicate that this is an extraordinarily complex topic uh that sure about
00:11:168.84 (s)and uh and i would make this a couple recommendations and and observations in terms of how you might improve his process all this requirements is key
00:11:267.58 (s)i'm sure i would you advise that you'll have something to say about that because he actually ran the organization terms requirements
00:11:3410.64 (s)i do believe there are some there are some uh organizational changes that were put uh in the department frankly when i was there that there hopefully beneficial
00:11:467.84 (s)other help hide together the requirements of budgeting the acquisition in fact the operational and this business
00:11:5413.06 (s)oh we now do we now have processes in place i have they're still in place of specific all the dog it was it that you survive through working group which is all the senior leadership basically four stars ensue in leadership
00:12:0813.52 (s)met every week several times a we can literally whenever every single program with the budget was it was the performance but was it in the requirements of that we an egregious across department because programs are no longer
00:12:2231.02 (s)operators individual programs there now over arching capabilities so then we also put processes together the look across all the programs in terms of how the video integrate because frankly the all come together at some point time so they have to be synchronized and everything else should be synchronized so that it all works together when it comes together in terms of being feel that because all this is integrated some very high level of individual programs so i think some steps have been made to address that but
00:12:541.60 (s)well look just like complex
00:12:563.80 (s)issue in that wishes one process that was tried
00:13:015.08 (s)as a way to get better visibility and and better ways of controlling
00:13:0734.14 (s)in my statement i made a few recommendations uh for slog will tell you the system is very complex counter intuitively that means you want to give managers more flexibility the more complex the system the more flexibility of managers need the trend is always the other way that is i guess more complex we add layers of bureaucracy and regulation and control and that makes it almost impossible to run very tip very complex programs so the system today is way overburdened server burn by department server per about the congress
00:13:426.56 (s)and as a becomes a more complex system we need a simple flight otherwise manager should not going to be able to operate
00:13:4911.92 (s)of the the other come and i will make a sliding multi years uh we have a long for remote year contract stability is what counts in these programs predictability of programs
00:14:023.80 (s)today we have multiply years space moments savings
00:14:072.88 (s)but frank i might be that's the criteria
00:14:119.00 (s)a multi year programs almost always hit their targets year after year it cause there is a long term commitment of money
00:14:204.92 (s)uh to the program people know what the schedule is a know which requirements are
00:14:253.32 (s)they can rely on future years companies can and that's
00:14:2910.80 (s)so we look at saving money my own view is we should have more more multi years on the basis of providing stability program should cost doesn't grow i mean one approach is
00:14:419.44 (s)the look at cost savings she other approaches how do you put a struct replace the cost do not grow in the future so i would turn that process of ram
00:14:516.42 (s)of my last comment would be uh you mentioned metrics i think you need to decide which are objective this year
00:14:5810.64 (s)uh you mean not all things are quote going to come out with a perfect danger me just like our international relations i mean you have to set what the object is
00:15:0911.78 (s)this is an extraordinarily complex process with many competing interesting cross currents should go in every day and every year in industry and government in it you would be in the military
00:15:211.86 (s)and so you have to decide
00:15:234.44 (s)what what is supplied so you're trying to achieve in this because otherwise
00:15:295.74 (s)i think if we're looking to end up with this sort of perfect system perfect meaning manageable like
00:15:3518.80 (s)well most of the car company but that's probably a bad manageable like a commercial product you know where we put out regular prob like sort of repetitive spaces i mean it's never going to achieve that level of performance because that's not the the nature of what this businesses about so
00:15:5534.90 (s)few comments my statement hopefully is clear in terms of some observations or recommendations but but i would like to engage in a discussion with the members thank you um sectarian we had a chance to read your testimony prior this we appreciate very much and i appreciate giving us a chance to expand question time to add all welcome back it's great to have you with again thank you chairman and uh thanks to you any uh all the members of the committee for uh inviting not only me but obviously this group to participate this morning and it's incredibly important hearing i might just mention that
00:16:3143.18 (s)the fact that you have focused on if you will requirements budgets and acquisition is is gratifying to me because recently uh over the last year i've been helping the secretary of the navy out and is advisory panel and mine mine for a frankly for a year jazz band requirements budgets and acquisition but i would tell you it's been integration of those as opposed to just coordination of them coordination is that level this very helpful but if you can integrate these in bring them to higher level frankly i found you you're much more successful in the long run it also feels like old times again to be here with these three individuals
00:17:1526.60 (s)one didn't mention it but uh and and run may but i will preempt here and just tell you the last time the three of us appeared together in a hearing on this very subject was september of two thousand and five before the senate armed services committee uh we also had uh can create the time who is the new undersecretary we were all word and i were new one our roles as can create wasn't run was working on that
00:17:421.60 (s)after report the uh
00:17:4433.18 (s)defense acquisition performance assessment so it is all times here this morning let me uh uh make a few points here and you may hear a little bit of repetition on the stability front uh and what uh gordon talked about but first of all as i said i'm very pleased that pleasing uh covering this a fundamental premise in my view to our success is based on well former risk management uh a very important thing well informal risk management and i call the requirements
00:18:1819.54 (s)if you will the budget any acquisition portions of this stuff three legs of the stool and i'll refer to these three legs an integration of them repeatedly but i would emphasize with the three legs there's three things that i've always found important across all of them and that is affordability
00:18:382.40 (s)stability and simplicity
00:18:426.34 (s)and let me just talk about requirements for a couple of moments again a lot of summarize what i've got in my statement
00:18:4926.10 (s)uh i participated and he's requirements generations frankly since i was in my first commanding officer role in the early eighties and then onwards uh throughout successive coming in successive two words in the pentagon and then and how like positions in my opinion at least fifty percent of getting a programmer right is establishing realistic
00:19:151.06 (s)sound
00:19:173.90 (s)practical simple requirements up front
00:19:211.20 (s)and then of course
00:19:231.22 (s)speaking with them
00:19:2511.22 (s)affordability stability and simplicity those three factors are really important in an executable set of requirements for any procurement
00:19:367.96 (s)in my view we talk just for a moment on the affordability front all too often this word is forgotten in the course of
00:19:4513.02 (s)talking about this the affordability piece right up front uh we need to give military officers who work tasks with defining requirements more and better insights into the cost drivers
00:19:591.74 (s)the cost drivers
00:20:012.32 (s)in the requirements they are defined
00:20:042.76 (s)now i just might mention this uh
00:20:082.50 (s)i uniquely had out of very
00:20:1219.44 (s)good relationship here with this gentleman next to me he was a wonderful me in a work with this the deputy secretary and i might mention three process these that i spent a lot of time working in the first one to mention was the deputy advisory working group what he didn't tell you is is that is the deputy secretary
00:20:324.92 (s)one so far is sending me is the co chair of the deputies advisory working group
00:20:3727.64 (s)this was very important once again to bring the military side of the equation in the civilian side to produce capabilities for service personnel together he didn't that early on and it was very important so that helped me work in the concept in e. resource side and they co share of this for a very important the second thing obviously i was the chairman of the joint requirements oversight council
00:21:0610.44 (s)which sets military requirements but thirdly and just as important i served as the co chair of the defense acquisition board
00:21:1811.76 (s)so those three things allowed me as a senior military officer to work in all three legs of the stool if you will any align way
00:21:304.78 (s)very important and recommendations i've made in to today
00:21:3627.96 (s)uh for example in sec they have advisory panel you know with a business executives for national security and the rest is to make sure that we in fact take senior military leaders and allow them to be participating in a functional way in all three of these legs so that i think you will help to make better decisions at least from my perspective as a military officer uh
00:22:0517.70 (s)cost driver analysis as i said and he's is very important and i can collaborate on that and clearly my statement does but i borrowed most of the cost driver analysis techniques from reviews i learned early on in the acquisition process
00:22:2324.26 (s)see co chairman of the defense acquisition board we are looking at the joint tactical radio system g. p. r. s. we were looking at that national earth orbit satellite system and frankly we then introduced and made in requirements through with chairman and uh instruction that all of the services had to bring in cost drivers very important
00:22:481.98 (s)uh unstability front
00:22:5133.24 (s)it should be no news to anyone sitting in this hearing just as gordon england has said is that setting realistic a requirements during program definition in subsequent requirements creeps our major causes of feeling programs and let me just reiterate one important point here i believe that delivering eighty to ninety percent of the solution in time with a lifecycle maintenance plan allowing for further growth is far superior to trying to go after a hundred or a hundred and twenty percent solution
00:23:252.44 (s)stabilizing requirements of stuff
00:23:296.66 (s)we all see how a program could be better if we could incorporate the latest technology or some additional capacity
00:23:362.86 (s)which leads me to my last point of simplicity
00:23:409.04 (s)we have done best in my view as i said by trying to be simple i've given you a series of examples in the written testimony f-sixteen sixteen
00:23:4921.34 (s)the series of the f-sixteen sixteen f. eighteen super hornet e. f. g. los angeles class early burke class for virginia class submarine these have all been successful programs and are successful programs because we kept simplicity if you will affordability we kept that block approach
00:24:116.38 (s)as we provided these capabilities funding stability is incredibly important
00:24:1821.42 (s)gordon mentioned greater use of multi year by is i cannot over emphasize how this takes risk out of be in does real side of the equation intakes risk out on the defense side the ability to plan ahead the ability to invest in our in b. the ability to invest in installation it
00:24:4012.84 (s)and the rest is incredibly important all those programs i cited before in general had some type of multi year or risk management that really made them incredibly effective
00:24:5421.92 (s)lastly budgets have no memories it's something and all pentagon saying i learned very early yeah in order to and memory to the process of procurement if you will writ large across our government multi year buys are important risk reduction techniques to inject a memory into the budget
00:25:206.80 (s)one last point i'll just make and it's very important and again i borrowed these from the uh
00:25:283.46 (s)acquisition side and they are the introduction
00:25:329.42 (s)of technology readiness levels in manufacturing readiness levels into the requirements generation piece where you take these the list them
00:25:4217.68 (s)if you will from the acquisition side you bring them into the requirements generation so you're not trying to shoot for the moon you're keeping it simple and reduce the risk on a program to make it if you will more doable and make it more successful
00:26:003.40 (s)the conversation to do all of this stuff between industry
00:26:044.74 (s)the civilian and military side and between with congress is incredibly important
00:26:1010.04 (s)thank you again for allowing me to uh uh introduce my written testimony chairman and uh members of the committee recommendations recording this
00:26:2025.32 (s)three legged stool if i could leave you with one point those three words affordability stability and simplicity thank you thank you have a very much again we've had the chance review written testimony look for two questions general case welcome back it's good to have you with us it's great to be back german uh i aria i spent a lot of time in the system and uh quite frankly have been a victim of it managing certain
00:26:468.48 (s)uh and so i have a perspective and secretary england allowed me to uh spend some time around next mission call back uh uh the fence
00:26:554.02 (s)acquisition performance assessment group to think about this even more
00:27:009.18 (s)and my statement has a lot of uh what the dapper report uh came up was not so much interesting but this group for the specific recommendations
00:27:1010.60 (s)as it is to describe the problem a little bit more detail and how that we saw the issues that the schools secretary know that give us only talk about
00:27:225.50 (s)but uh there's just a couple of points i'd like to re emphasize and i'd also recommend of
00:27:284.06 (s)if you allow to have that that report your record without objection
00:27:330.66 (s)the uh
00:27:341.84 (s)the first issue is uh
00:27:378.16 (s)uh it is never really been clear to me when we looked at the system what the criteria for success is and what we would be satisfied with
00:27:465.16 (s)we talked a little bit about the metrics and the value equation that's certainly an important aspect
00:27:5210.86 (s)but as you look at the the uh in the history probably studies have been done in fact you can go probably tools civil war and earlier on some of these very same issues
00:28:048.86 (s)the fact that matter might be that we need to adjust our expectations a little bit in the sense of the outcomes of this uh
00:28:141.34 (s)all of the hardware
00:28:188.40 (s)if not most of the hardware and the equipment we have put out of the system over many years they've given us a technological it's
00:28:276.94 (s)so we shouldn't forget that there's a there are thousands of people working out there every day to make this happen in doing
00:28:351.00 (s)very good job
00:28:372.18 (s)now we see some of disasters
00:28:403.54 (s)but i think that's more a function of the difficulty of the job
00:28:443.28 (s)these systems are we're talking about and even the services
00:28:483.34 (s)under very difficult circumstances in our cases
00:28:527.26 (s)are difficult tasks especially in wartime environment and the peacetime army or face the cold war
00:29:005.54 (s)we produce some of the most technologically sophisticated elements that the world's ever see
00:29:0615.76 (s)and the newest examples you could go right down the list from you a. two uh some of the uh uh robotics that we're doing today and especially in the medical fields uh it's it's a normal would enable carpets so we should we start at
00:29:240.46 (s)but
00:29:2615.66 (s)in the process of trying to improve the system over many years we've made it almost on intelligibility complex understand and that complexity drives a lot of what problems we see today and i would challenge anybody
00:29:420.58 (s)two
00:29:444.84 (s)in in in one day study try to understand how we actually do business
00:29:498.78 (s)i think you might be experiencing that yourselves in the in the sense that even people who spend careers like myself here are still marvel at some of the things that
00:29:594.20 (s)that uh we have a normal book that we just don't necessarily understand
00:30:043.68 (s)so that complexity is is is a out albatross
00:30:086.88 (s)around our expectations is and it gets translated into thank you schedules time
00:30:156.64 (s)uh that so that is out of control and all translates into huge horse expectations are not
00:30:272.58 (s)however the system is if you look at it
00:30:301.22 (s)to be simply describe
00:30:321.20 (s)requirements budget
00:30:341.62 (s)acquisition and
00:30:363.72 (s)they need to somehow work together and then on the charts it looks pretty good
00:30:421.72 (s)in addition the complexity
00:30:445.46 (s)we because of the way we operate in deep and it in each one of those processes
00:30:511.52 (s)we introduce instability
00:30:547.90 (s)and that's financial ability i i don't think i've ever been in a program where my budget didn't change every twelve to eighteen
00:31:038.56 (s)uh it's remarkable that the people we have out there doing this every day can make this work still under the systems that we impose or so
00:31:131.04 (s)also good reason
00:31:163.66 (s)there are a lot of heroes out there really making this work
00:31:203.46 (s)uh and i will say in spite of this is
00:31:267.54 (s)and and we tend to especially are level with them gervasio instuctor england would work very hard
00:31:342.34 (s)at the top level and we could we could
00:31:376.74 (s)very easily see that these things uh are solvable in the sense of make requirements for simple
00:31:441.58 (s)i'll just take one example
00:31:475.70 (s)we we came up with the system key performance parameters not not many years ago
00:31:548.62 (s)and the the idea was very simple if we could meet three to four maybe five key performance parameters every it specifies system
00:32:033.88 (s)uh we would be satisfied with that system if we didn't
00:32:083.50 (s)we would have to come back and reevaluate whether we want to that's it
00:32:121.68 (s)well now uh
00:32:151.92 (s)we have programs with
00:32:171.48 (s)fourteen fifteen
00:32:192.10 (s)sixteen key performance parameters
00:32:224.72 (s)and each one of those key performance parameters prior specification of the tree right
00:32:272.68 (s)uh matter down to
00:32:315.98 (s)twenty five hundred to three thousand and ten thousand specific specification required so
00:32:374.10 (s)so are the decisions that looked very simple oh here it
00:32:422.86 (s)and practical at the top of the pyramid
00:32:466.10 (s)it implemented through the system and through following all the rules into very complex
00:32:531.30 (s)and difficult task
00:32:567.24 (s)so that's why i think uh in in uh in summarizing my testimony is that there's there's a set of criteria
00:33:047.88 (s)that in some questions you should challenges hypothesis with an any uh uh determined uh improvement idea that
00:33:121.46 (s)it might be partially
00:33:151.44 (s)and the first one would be
00:33:174.42 (s)well reduce complexity going back to the animals idea of simplicity here
00:33:222.56 (s)if it increases the complexity of the system
00:33:254.58 (s)and it adds the rule book without something coming out is going to be challenged
00:33:304.26 (s)and other layers of oversight management don't necessarily improve the process
00:33:365.80 (s)second will it be more as well that's ability to the programs at all levels
00:33:438.78 (s)the big ones we all understand that the smaller ones out there that people are operating at the same time it was april book and have the same channels
00:33:5418.52 (s)so the stability idea where you can get a decision and operate under and only have a problem when you can perform because of the technology is too challenging or or run into an obstacle and not system coming back and saying you're not spending your money fast enough so we have to take half of way for next year
00:34:146.12 (s)and the third one and i think the final point i make is that we too often substitute cost
00:34:212.80 (s)where the real issue here and that issue is time
00:34:257.36 (s)the time value of of the the things that we do is is is ignored in a lot of cases and decision making
00:34:354.14 (s)schedule seem to be more of an afterthought and he uh
00:34:403.70 (s)desire rather than in a sense of urgency in the process
00:34:4414.40 (s)and get and time and i'm talking about time to make decisions to do budget's as well as to write specifications and do the drawings those types of things that make these systems work and perform a service
00:35:0011.72 (s)uh the time value of this capability to the war fighters specially more time is incredibly important and it's similar to the time value of money on so
00:35:125.30 (s)a dollar today is worth more than dollar tomorrow at least that's what i've been spot
00:35:181.28 (s)economics books
00:35:207.46 (s)in the same way with the time value systems service done today they're cheaper better
00:35:280.86 (s)and if we wait
00:35:319.20 (s)uh some technology requires more time but we ought to focus more on the time required to make the decisions and implement them
00:35:404.06 (s)and uh hold people accountable for that and we will reduce costs
00:35:462.76 (s)and finally the idea that
00:35:502.46 (s)i don't think processes and fix this problem
00:35:544.96 (s)well we had process and improvements we tend to really add things not take things one
00:36:004.48 (s)um and other that's that approach uh
00:36:057.78 (s)i think we'll just an increased complexity so i would be i would advise a lot of caution in adding things without
00:36:135.16 (s)asking the question what are you going to take a way to make the processing more integrated
00:36:201.34 (s)at the end of the day
00:36:226.98 (s)it's the people doing the job making more right decisions the wrong decisions that are going to produce out
00:36:3010.10 (s)and it really does it might really come down to the fact that we could take administrative system is this we can make them in human terms but it's going to come down
00:36:411.24 (s)doing the job every day
00:36:443.24 (s)and we got the right we got to support them
00:36:472.26 (s)and make them for yeah
00:36:516.98 (s)thank you general thank the panelists for excellent presentations will begin with a question time um
00:36:592.84 (s)i think it's fair to say that we've heard a consensus
00:37:031.42 (s)um that
00:37:058.40 (s)lack of coordination that we see in the requirements in procurement budget process is a result of too much too many rules and
00:37:1422.18 (s)too many attempts to fix the problem which graces sort of archaeological dig where there is one solution piled on top of another five on top of another pile on top of another that worse is the problem and d. these had to use the general's uh criteria comply they add complexity reduced ability and extend time therefore adding to cost and
00:37:371.16 (s)adding complexity
00:37:392.40 (s)which starts the whole downward spiral or
00:37:422.16 (s)i think i also here a consensus
00:37:4510.90 (s)that uh and expansion multiply your budgeting and therefore multiply your contracting authority would be one way to address this problem because if you do a multiply your contract
00:37:5621.26 (s)sort of by definition assuming you got a uh a clean it up requirements process it goes more toward that eighty percent solution if if you don't know how i contracting almost by definition the procurement and budgeting steps are integrated because of the way you think about a multiply your budget or car contract let me play devil's advocate for a moment
00:38:180.58 (s)um
00:38:1921.40 (s)it's saying that you know uh systems that produce dramatic cost overruns we're not going to buy more that because we're going to do uh you know three or four years for the budget instead of one and by three or four years worth mistakes instead of one doesn't that take away be oversight function of the legislative branch in a way that would be deleterious
00:38:4414.60 (s)so i guess mr chairman i was so you're not sure like i put everything into a multi year but right now we do very few programs tonight and not just production i would actually look at development programs because when you go to that multi year you basically freezer requirements
00:38:597.40 (s)you know with the dollars are not only this year but in out years which you never know because every program other the most years funded yearly
00:39:0720.74 (s)so you actually never know you're out your finding the contractor doesn't of the out your funny nearby gets applied it to in the services in the building in the congress right so right now i mean you still have to be selected but this but what would be the criteria for that selection which which uh projects and systems with all of the multiply your basket which would
00:39:2925.46 (s)oh precisely ones are critical national importance i would always looked put in that basket because i believe those i don't want this to be facetiously have you ever heard someone from your intensify something's not a critical i i i don't mean to be winter but no one right um a judgment applies and i'm not sure forged for that judgment right i know comment would be the for you in the past has been
00:39:553.84 (s)a program that reasonably stable and if you can predict
00:39:5930.36 (s)basically ten or fifteen percent cost savings and i would say that any program you can predict that if you actually one too because the baseline solves to some extent so um i'm not sure it's it's a reasonable baseline anyway and i would just suggest when you look at the multi years don't look at it in terms of savings look at in terms of stability achieved so that you don't get the cost productivity may well predictability you know the budget's will be in the out years
00:40:3024.46 (s)contractors can invest in improvements because they know there's business in the out years i'm there's incentives in the system to perform better opposed to a year by year type process the following to that either either of the any of the panelists um if we if the taxpayers are going to make a multiply your budget in contract commitment should there then be more rigid standards from the contractors to
00:40:555.06 (s)have fewer overruns i was if we're getting three or four years worth of stability in contract
00:41:011.18 (s)uh should
00:41:0331.92 (s)change orders and cost overruns the contract be much much more rare as a quid pro quo well they're they're fixed price contracts may multi years are fixed price contract so we negotiate a fixed price contract in there for every change has to go through a formal change process a you need to get controlling changes and contractors with you a run that's that's not them i'm aware that of course this is the six price very often turns out to be a fictional aspiration rather than legal reality she shouldn't be much more difficult to get
00:41:353.66 (s)i had a that fixed price contract if we do a multi or
00:41:407.08 (s)um should there be a much much heavier burden on the vendor to come in and say they got to go beyond the target was originally in
00:41:481.80 (s)it it can right i guess
00:41:510.78 (s)um
00:41:536.14 (s)i thought i'd like to make sure i understand exactly what we're talking about in terms of mostly because uh
00:41:5914.60 (s)i think what secretary england at least what i heard was that is in reducing the concept of stability and maybe for programs a we haven't done more players before right and your question is how do you pick these and and what are you would you get out
00:42:1510.20 (s)and i guess one of the things that we have a problem with in our system today is defining programs and and when they are program okay
00:42:263.04 (s)and at least a lot of this understanding
00:42:295.52 (s)multiply years are most effective and have been designed over the years for cost savings
00:42:353.90 (s)uh for programs that in the production
00:42:403.64 (s)you're actually putting hardware out whether its rifles
00:42:442.32 (s)or if twenty two would you start sooner
00:42:479.02 (s)in the process and then if we if we and those those have been very effective if i go back and look at them and see seventeen you know that right
00:42:565.08 (s)but let's postulate moving multi years sooner in the development context
00:43:028.60 (s)if we had uh major programs that had uh move toward technologies were pushing
00:43:115.12 (s)and what or technology and not a new technology and i'll give you an example
00:43:181.92 (s)we doubled build airplanes for a hundred years
00:43:210.46 (s)okay
00:43:2212.30 (s)i would say that's not maturing technology now parts of those airplanes are really uh cutting edge but overall airplanes or mentoring technology
00:43:355.88 (s)so if if we had to postulate that the development program and i hesitate to bring it up
00:43:422.48 (s)but for a here with tanker
00:43:452.60 (s)could be a multi year development program
00:43:483.68 (s)if the parameters for that we're set properly
00:43:5325.22 (s)on the other hand in something like uh missile defense where the technology is disruptive new and challenging it would be very hard for me is a program ed it comes you say me a multi year uh you don't deliver this sound a lot harder the last couple weeks and then right uh on but in those situations level of budgets
00:44:193.18 (s)where you you have the insight and the oversight
00:44:2311.20 (s)uh to see what's going on where you don't have to have one of the the difficulties we have our system today is that the system demands manages all three of those areas that today you
00:44:3420.24 (s)part of the program you happen cost as that down on page paper even if you're going to deliver twenty years and fifteen or k. i appreciate that handled you want something i'm going to get up so mister want one point i just want to interject it only has to staff take a look at this data i'm sure the g. a. l. or someone has this i'm i'm curious as to the um
00:44:550.56 (s)um
00:44:5823.42 (s)percentage of the cost overruns identified by the g. l. which i nor controversy illnesses sector but if you if you start from that starting point the percentage of those cost overruns that flowed from multiply year versus non multi year contract be interesting to see if there is any significant difference hammer if i could add it uh just a couple of points to what uh a secretary england and the general issue should brought up uh number one
00:45:239.32 (s)dealing in multi years four programs that have mature technologies stable requirements and the rest are incredibly important
00:45:322.82 (s)uh an example of these would be
00:45:364.50 (s)aircraft programs for example when i was a resource uh director for the navy
00:45:411.44 (s)back in two thousand
00:45:4411.60 (s)we win after multi years to perp you're the hornet we wanted to stabilize production we had if you will an aircraft that was fairly mature in its production
00:45:5622.62 (s)and we can stabilize in move time we do these things with destroy errors we do him with submarines areas where we have again single requirements we're not making massive changes and we can just see the benefits of the risk reduction methods that we used to go into them requirements for programs
00:46:191.08 (s)that uh
00:46:2123.00 (s)joe finished talked about for example on missile defense where you're dealing in very highly leveraged high risk high payoff technologies but you just don't know if they're going to be successful or not it's incredibly difficult to go after a multi year and i'm the type of person who would not suggest you to do that but if the system is ruthless we is
00:46:4514.34 (s)if you will low risk technologies and the rest in your ruthless listen not allowing requirements to change willy nilly in you produce these things you can do upgrades part of in the future life of that
00:46:5923.62 (s)uh platform for example or vehicle or whatever your building generally so that you can put upgrades in later in the later and we've got just a bit the of programs like this that have been incredibly successful and have been multi year buys however a multi year by itself is not going to be successful if you don't have the other integrated components with yeah did you agree that that
00:47:242.48 (s)integration is easier to multiply your contact so
00:47:270.50 (s)uhhuh
00:47:2821.78 (s)it probably is again if you have stability in simplicity in those three components that you to program is to kaufman is recognized benjamin uh just a question about uh changing requirements in terms of being a cost driver where do though are those uh primarily because of the fact that in your view
00:47:5123.02 (s)that is to say uh and mature technology that is being developed o. or is it uh from the military side of the house that maybe there is it busy changing environment uh technically in in terms of uh threat scenarios like on a given weapon systems and so um there are changes requirements there i mean where do you think the
00:48:141.82 (s)the changes primarily come from
00:48:170.48 (s)uhhuh
00:48:189.12 (s)there are a variety of ways to look at the requirements let me give you an example of this and i'm going to use a real life example the uh i again i'll just pick the super hornet i haven't
00:48:307.98 (s)the navy can just come out of a very very bad experience with the eight twelve aircraft being cancelled
00:48:397.72 (s)it was very unsuccessful it was a high risk of ensuring are a whole variety of things and all of the reasons why a program fails
00:48:487.82 (s)many within uh naval aviation navy communities wanted to build a team we're cutting urge aircraft
00:48:5730.34 (s)but what happened is is the navy get together and brought forward of fighter bomber if you will based on some pretty proven technologies with out over the top requirements in other words we didn't double or triple the range we didn't try to do things that we were just so cutting edge they would be very high risk and difficult to do and so therefore you produced a good solid aircraft if you will based on solid requirements if you try to explain yourself
00:49:283.44 (s)in very high risk ways and in different technologies
00:49:3232.72 (s)you were not going to be able to produce uh eight program uh aircraft ship or whatever you're doing uh in an effective way because you're working any site technology high risk areas that you simply can't predict that that's the reason why you want to go way after if you will more mature technologies for these long term programs you do need to do programs that pushed beyond hope like missile defense and others but they are very different than the types that we're talking about it could potentially give you a multi years horse if you will stability
00:50:068.50 (s)but i'd like to add that and and take it down a little because i think my experiences where we get into trouble with requirements
00:50:154.76 (s)is not at the delivered delivered level at the end was talking about
00:50:218.14 (s)there are sometimes we're we're pushes the tables or something like that uh as a key performance parameters really uh
00:50:296.30 (s)it's probably very few of those and record the remarkably stable because people have taking it over approach
00:50:364.42 (s)where i see we get in trouble is that when when we start translating
00:50:4111.20 (s)those uh top level uh ideas requirements into actual specifications our culture is and it's very much encouraged
00:50:539.36 (s)that the people who are managing the program go to the people who will use this equipment or idea and say we could do it
00:51:029.04 (s)this way or to do it that way which would you prefer or more likely they start looking at what we're doing is they would rather do it this way
00:51:1210.64 (s)and that's where you get the liberation of changes where something seemingly easy to do in the first week of the design turns into a disaster as you try to build
00:51:2418.30 (s)and and not uh i i i can't give you a lot of examples of this because it gets in the issue here to make it explain will but the process is geared to work with the future user and that interaction at the lower levels in the make problem a lot harder although it's necessary at the same time
00:51:426.54 (s)i mean i'm not saying we should do that but that's where we get so let me just add to this uh because i think it's very important
00:51:503.64 (s)i had a section originally in my but i got into the very
00:51:543.40 (s)uh technical minutia level but let me just quickly tell you
00:51:586.56 (s)requirements are key performance parameters that the j. rock approves of controls a today
00:52:058.46 (s)as general case said typically if we do a program right they don't change much in generally we're in pretty good shape with them unless we week free the rest
00:52:1513.54 (s)the requirements that he's talking about our work the next level down in the level below them call key system attributes in other things below this and what happens with these requirements is e. j. rock for example
00:52:297.26 (s)assigns responsibility to the air force them or some other agency or surface to control those
00:52:3713.80 (s)and i said in my testimony that requirements people have to be ruthless uncontrolling is the reason why you have to be ruthless uncontrolling them is is because everybody comes up with great ideas and this is work change orders come for
00:52:524.66 (s)now they don't always come from that sometimes there's a technical reason why you really have to do with to make it work
00:52:5717.18 (s)but you try to avoid all of these other change orders based and i've got a really good idea and i want to insert this because i know little work better or we've been building this for a while and i really think i have a better way to do it this is what we found in studies and you can get these from the joint staff
00:53:158.48 (s)that the vast majority of requirements level cost increases actually team from this level of requirements change
00:53:249.34 (s)and they were done if you will be much lower level data the basis and there is a data and and i know the joint staff j. can provide to
00:53:343.06 (s)um another perspective though um
00:53:384.22 (s)change requirements not all bad i mean we tend to do it is it is actually
00:53:4310.60 (s)i might view is we don't change him enough a lot of respect been but on the other side this is industry and built a lot of sixteens and then one times and every other kind of system imaginable
00:53:5628.52 (s)you know what i level t. should talk in your level talk about requirements up here but when you get down to the contractor level there's volumes in pages in and creak creak d. t. l. about this and over time they actually do have to change because you just means to reality of design and production things you wanted to change the fact of the matter is great reluctance to changing it is once the contract is led treasures pressure on the system not to make these changes so
00:54:2524.82 (s)i mean this is a more complex than just beside the range i mean in the in the reality i would say the system is pretty rigid critique is going forward in that reputed the actually cost us money as people struggled them the requirements that are not really germane to the old to me utility so it's not obvious always the case but but that is still a dimension
00:54:508.42 (s)it's not all data change quo requirements such a program procedure i was say you have to have the flexibility do that or else you will have cost group
00:54:593.04 (s)this is how this is how you do block upgrades
00:55:0327.58 (s)this is how you do the types of things for all those programs i cited in the testimony if you do them in a sensible manner you're going to get a really good product it over the life cycle produces strangers is about people by the way look up you have all these for at the end of the day is somebody who understands understands the technologies of business i mean these are people who exercise good judgment at various steps along the way and you cannot replace a good judgment with
00:55:311.40 (s)systems that you
00:55:338.34 (s)i have no doubt about that this is i used to tell the secretary i i take ten john young's over all the changes to the acquisition system
00:55:4212.18 (s)the extraordinary capable person is invaluable in the system and that's true throughout the acquisition process scoffing at thank you mr cooper's recognize thank the chairman
00:55:555.66 (s)uh general case she mentioned that even a lifetime of experience in dealing with acquisition
00:56:011.94 (s)okay so you run across rules
00:56:042.06 (s)you know about agno parents sense
00:56:071.98 (s)would you be willing to go through these role books
00:56:094.66 (s)the red magic marker sections pages volume's
00:56:162.06 (s)well uh if it's done
00:56:203.76 (s)there was a congressional come in there was a study group and early nineties that
00:56:2518.88 (s)recommended under to changes i think somewhere made but i'm i'm hoping many were uh that that's a question i'd love to have that uh but but uh what what's interesting about the rule books uh is that it to me anyway is that
00:56:440.90 (s)uh
00:56:463.58 (s)the more they change the more they stay the same there is uh
00:56:508.16 (s)you got you've got be five two thousand series regulations uhuh arrivals for the
00:56:592.66 (s)and then you got the federal acquisition right place
00:57:034.64 (s)and i i will tell you start reading
00:57:086.84 (s)and look at the closet or whatever contracts and how they operate it's it's really difficult
00:57:161.80 (s)i understand why we do something
00:57:192.72 (s)uh eliminate them uh
00:57:222.36 (s)but i like that shown but
00:57:265.74 (s)i'm worried about the tower of able effect when we create a system that so complex that somebody can understand it
00:57:335.80 (s)it was just joking private the hearing that how many people actually read the weapons acquisition build we just passed
00:57:3911.14 (s)about it tried right this is i tend to for both think it is almost the out and you us you know a day trying to figure out the system nobody has a closer
00:57:511.82 (s)a lot of tried simplification
00:57:546.34 (s)um get back to basics if it's people driven than of the training one would love to have ten john young's
00:58:017.56 (s)yeah have we even gone through the uh task of identifying yeah i think of them as like that marvelous job format
00:58:095.04 (s)or the marvelous general contractor somebody who really knows what's going on how to get stuff done
00:58:154.10 (s)we identified folks with those skills we want to uh
00:58:204.12 (s)you know reward perpetuating grow more of something like that
00:58:265.12 (s)and then i see like so com able to attempt itself and lots of acquisition regulations
00:58:323.58 (s)get the job done pretty well maybe not with super complex weapons systems but
00:58:368.10 (s)we should this be tried at least on experimental basis with some of the services some of the project is site and and we don't need any of this stuff
00:58:449.48 (s)well uh i i i i think that idea is very interesting because that's that's basically what happens to the missile defense agency that special priorities
00:58:556.30 (s)properly pride chosen a team of people and i do emphasize and not just one in the vision
00:59:027.18 (s)given the proper authorities would be better decisions more rapidly under normal circumstances
00:59:103.92 (s)the system is so big that it would be hard to do that or or
00:59:155.04 (s)because of the higher thirty thousand people process and
00:59:219.30 (s)that might expect some things in terms of of that could create huge problems with more people making in the process make decisions be in
00:59:319.16 (s)but uh choosing the organizational entities projects programs along with a small priority right would have great benefit it read them
00:59:411.22 (s)some of the issue
00:59:438.20 (s)mr cooper if if i can that though the department has at least we can use commercial acquisition rules et cetera by things but
00:59:5111.32 (s)but you have to be really brave to do that because you get criticize when you do that that is you don't have the same amount of oversight you don't get the same amount of data doing a high degree of assurance so
01:00:036.54 (s)i mean these are all trade all sure risk right i mean the system this a layer exist because it gives comfort
01:00:119.84 (s)right that no one's going to do anything wrong in right i mean there's a certain degree accomplishment later on in when you move aside to do a commercial acquisition
01:00:217.36 (s)you no longer have that same degree of comfort so i will tell you people in the part of my experiences uh
01:00:2919.38 (s)people shy away from using those authorities because you yourself to severe severe criticism in fact programs could stop sometimes here in the congress because they don't have a quote sufficient levels of oversight reporting so this is a complex environment we operate in with many stakeholders
01:00:4911.18 (s)and many different objectives that people are trying to achieve and they don't always come together in some coherent way but mr secretary our services all about bravery
01:01:019.98 (s)isn't sacrifice on the battlefield about life and death and then we have both in the puzzle palace are afraid about stepping across a bureaucratic align
01:01:116.32 (s)in order to get the job done because they might be criticize if you're hero in combat you get promoted
01:01:1819.62 (s)uh if your hero in this arena then you get the mode it or you don't change of promotions just the office changing incentive structure that you can be arrive talk about identifying like you did that ten john young who are these people how can we reward them instead of unfair criticism how can they be honored
01:01:391.64 (s)well crisis or something like that
01:01:433.54 (s)fair enough but we all have to do it together is not just the pentagon
01:01:4718.54 (s)that's i we're having hearing six dollar sign exiled admiral mister copper up a room let me add something that uh i i've observed zero for a number of years there is eighty l. p. because a level regulations your rent your all of asking the right question how can we make this simpler
01:02:080.64 (s)uh
01:02:096.04 (s)and that's the reason why you have a guy like general case she'll say you know that's pretty attractive if i had time to do it
01:02:160.50 (s)uhhuh
01:02:171.56 (s)i would just say to you with that
01:02:206.98 (s)i've learned over the years since goldwater nichols there's a lot of the stuff that came out of goldwater nichols racing
01:02:277.84 (s)but one of the things that came out of this is is that with all of the joint requirements and by the way which i believe in deeply
01:02:369.50 (s)with regard to the joint requirements for operational excellence one of the things that has occurred is that there is less likelihood
01:02:4619.32 (s)of senior line officers if you will across all of the services who have vast operational experience the existing indie acquisition community in other words moving back and forth in this long term problem has created
01:03:078.62 (s)uh a level of misunderstanding if you will and technical expertise we we keep telling you that people make the difference here
01:03:1612.54 (s)experience people make the difference but if you can have somebody who's got good operational credentials and can has to and put them in e. acquisition community and have them move back and forth
01:03:2932.76 (s)it is very difficult for example in some cases for them to truly understand some of these requirements level pieces that are so important many of those really effective programs i cited before were built under a system where people came up against any significant amount of time in a variety of these different communities in their experiences really benefits this is a question is how do you can go into the acquisition side i take has to use if you will in exchange them
01:04:0218.80 (s)between these different communities that's one of the things that some of us to spend some time trying to figure out how to do this if i could focus is a little bit uh mister chairman i i don't believe we're going to end up redoing acquisition system i mean this is just go a long time i mean it was seen immediate objective what i recommend or of the
01:04:221.92 (s)do you think you know you can
01:04:2412.38 (s)testing get through the congress that would have a marked improvement mean how can you improve is how do you know you're going to improve and i actually make it works right this complex if you always have that problem right
01:04:372.84 (s)so what are the few things you can do it um
01:04:4118.64 (s)and so i just try to address a few practical things if people reserve because now every sender is that count for something change is you don't have the money to accommodate whatever you the money for and that cost you ten dollars for every dollar you don't have to front end cost you ten dollars the so
01:05:0014.56 (s)make it feasible for people have should make every programming easier i mean the threshold or way too low for the level of expenditure in the complexity we haven't that's for the simplicity i mean there are some things you can do to make the system
01:05:163.60 (s)uh simpler easier operate within without trying to
01:05:2014.68 (s)to redo this whole system and i would focus on three or four things that you can get concurrence from department in the congress and i keep doing this incremental because you know the problem you're going to have this if you try to make too big a change
01:05:3610.10 (s)i keep telling people it's easy to destroy values and it's extraordinarily hard to build value so we didn't get here it just randomly all of this was put in place for reason
01:05:489.38 (s)and if we started this may not we better understand the reasons to make sure we're just email in the right part of this because some parts of you don't just system right so uh
01:05:579.66 (s)i mean i would do this one incremental bases every year i would work this and every year other get people to address and i would keep making incremental changes and then
01:06:082.54 (s)and and i was just my objective that way so
01:06:114.12 (s)get a recommendation is to get the specific a few things
01:06:169.66 (s)everybody agrees i want to move forward rather than look at this whole thing because as you can tell from his testimony me you can just stay in next in this detail
01:06:264.40 (s)and never get to of one or two few things that you can really do to improve the system
01:06:311.28 (s)very good that's right
01:06:334.40 (s)thank you mr cooper seem at times far are thank the chairman mister ellsworth
01:06:3830.52 (s)like the sharon thank you for holding this very informative here thank you gentlemen i become a little concern we know there's a at least a hundred and twenty prior studies go back civil war on well we assembled a group as filing figure this thing out um but that that is our challenge i guess most of my questions are answered i i would ask one thing maybe for the discussion of how much plays into i would we might take this wrong that i uh i don't want to give our troops everything they need to do their job
01:07:108.48 (s)how much of that plays into this i can are back in my days of law enforcement we've got tape flashlights barrel are shot yeah and uh
01:07:195.66 (s)it would be nice to have a built in flash light in our shotguns but we didn't have that um
01:07:260.70 (s)how much of it
01:07:2714.92 (s)is the cause of this when someone the field someone says they would be nice to have the switch on this side don't um instead of the index finger or if if this work my left hand side of my writer this see little more cushion or
01:07:431.00 (s)how much is that
01:07:4511.32 (s)we want to do everything we can for our troops on the acquisitions uh that come out and i think it goes right back to those change orders and and and improvements i know i don't
01:07:571.70 (s)uh have a problem with that
01:08:001.88 (s)but does that add to the problem of
01:08:020.58 (s)kind of
01:08:034.76 (s)we need to give everything we can whatever you suggested that is that even a
01:08:102.52 (s)i i think like the most likewise transfer about
01:08:131.68 (s)adding two improving but
01:08:150.58 (s)um
01:08:1632.44 (s)there's a playing there's a there's wants and needs and and it's a good lesson between what we want what we need sometimes noise joys don't get what you want but we definitely give you actually be i'm not sure the question is is there well so the idea be holders with the values of that's sort of the challenge always worried i mean there's always many more things you can do in the department of defense then you ever have money for around how much a bunch of go so if there will always be need to that needs because you're for military person policy you want the very best equipment religious equipment to switch on the right side
01:08:5020.84 (s)and frankly they should expect that from the nation that's it george still limitations on our boundary stuff to work with the n. and so that's the tradeoff that you keep making and that's it in perfect world that you judgments by people between military the civilians the congress hsu has oversight role everybody places judgments on this
01:09:111.52 (s)frankly d. the of day
01:09:141.84 (s)it sort of works pretty well
01:09:162.00 (s)you know everybody has an input
01:09:199.14 (s)uh and it tends to balance out right between the military just a billion leadership the administration and congress i mean all this pushing and shoving
01:09:2911.58 (s)i mean it it looks bad frankly but i'm not sure doesn't come out with the best results you can get given all these competing interests um you know they they come to bear on the so
01:09:4110.64 (s)it's an ugly process but i'm not sure it's ever going to be a pretty process because that's the nature what we do and these are all judgments in addition the black and white this is
01:09:5322.66 (s)in in almost every single case judgment calls by well meaning people because there's people disagree about the to and that vendor that has to move s. wait for the right the laughter left or right you know they have to read school machines that as the price you know is that you make that termination worth it versus armory up um be all the guys in the or you know catching shrapnel
01:10:164.78 (s)let's do that let's do a quick let's add panels whatever we have to do yeah i can see that
01:10:224.24 (s)the difference there but i i i agree i think it's it's interoperable but that's
01:10:268.60 (s)it's kind of what we have to deal with world it is so we're we better so we're we're and that's where we do let me give you perspective from somebody uh
01:10:354.12 (s)warning uniform and then don't use a lot of this stuff for a hell of a lot of my life
01:10:4028.22 (s)we have very very thoughtful and good people in his gordon said you're always going to have people making recommendations for changes it's just you the we we train them we tell them that we want to do our best and they expect the best from what they yeah so the question then is how can you incorporate bring these things to bear in a timely in useful manner so that they can use them to do whatever ever accomplish the mission that they have at hand
01:11:103.10 (s)there's been a lot of discussion for example about
01:11:134.84 (s)peacetime procurement system what you do one more time and the rest of it well
01:11:1920.42 (s)it makes a difference when you have the urgency of combat out there you were going to modify would you do want to peacetime basis what's important to in wartime may not be as important during peacetime unfortunately or vice versa and so you modify process season you modify the way you deliver capability
01:11:4044.02 (s)there's a whole variety these joint rapid acquisition programs to do the things that make sense to deliver capabilities and modify capabilities and it's all was going to happen but we trainer people that culture is you you you want better in your going to work for better and hopefully we can provide them with the tools to keep them safe and allow them to effectively make their mission that's pretty general but my comment is is we always have to have during wartime he willingness to also they will and maybe not get it right because if we are in a zero defect environment trying to protect these people an alarm accomplished their mission and we've got a problem so how do you balance those and get that capability out there i i would and uh there's no trust
01:12:241.78 (s)that uh we have
01:12:2721.48 (s)i've been on both sides are operating fine airplanes and all right in helping thing and that trusts of this of the soldiers sailors airmen in field that they're going to get the best from our country is something that's unspoken but part of our culture and i'll just give you an example from i don't want problem ever forget
01:12:493.22 (s)well as in power trained animal combat instructor
01:12:536.20 (s)it was teaching me that day and i have been very clever that morning i went out and bought a flashlight because like quite
01:13:000.80 (s)small one
01:13:021.26 (s)i thought was kind of neat
01:13:034.06 (s)because we are going to practice uh dark carpet and stuff
01:13:091.88 (s)and we are on the airplane and
01:13:112.66 (s)i discarded right they much like that
01:13:142.48 (s)the traditional issue type of
01:13:181.22 (s)and what do you do
01:13:220.98 (s)so said you trust that
01:13:241.14 (s)at thirty thousand feet
01:13:261.30 (s)works great on the ground
01:13:281.70 (s)i'll take my g. i. issue with
01:13:310.70 (s)and
01:13:325.56 (s)that made an impression on me does if we're going to put people in harm's way
01:13:395.22 (s)uh yes we got resource issues we had we make those tradeoffs every day
01:13:453.38 (s)but that trust we're going to give them the best you know give them
01:13:490.94 (s)is not either
01:13:511.38 (s)thank you
01:13:533.74 (s)thank you to remember seventy have i'd like to engage in this time
01:13:582.30 (s)oh yes
01:14:013.72 (s)um factoring on impressed me with this browsing defense the status quo
01:14:052.14 (s)i don't want to be hopeless ideal
01:14:0814.32 (s)but uh also don't want to give up on making the system better either and uh surely there is some compromise between the two and i realize they're funny bob pulls but surely with your long tenure both in private industry the secretary
01:14:233.44 (s)other specific recommendations you can give us better deeper than
01:14:271.38 (s)more uh
01:14:291.76 (s)office and call this last on
01:14:319.50 (s)no well around an extra fifty seven billion dollars here or whatever the amount of you to get the job done smooths wrinkles
01:14:4110.86 (s)of this is the most massive the rocker see probably in human history it's at least audible of all government agencies perhaps it has the toughest job
01:14:534.80 (s)but we are you know the most important military force in the world
01:14:592.94 (s)and it's so important for every troop and for every
01:15:034.54 (s)this system that we get this really right so to me after long experience
01:15:081.36 (s)of waiting for
01:15:107.78 (s)more and over uh advice so what i recommend that you group or i mean i don't recommend this status throw everything can always be improved
01:15:195.90 (s)nation is of or we are buying equipment we are meeting were fighters needs i only recommend
01:15:268.40 (s)but you do this incrementally because you don't want to do something is also want to make it harder harmful so very complex systems like tend to go
01:15:3511.72 (s)you know much the more deliberate and so i would take i would decide what are those things that you can identify and i would work with the department on this current administration
01:15:479.74 (s)i see what are those those things that we can make changes to that would immediately improve your operation and i believe there are some things you can do
01:15:5812.58 (s)that would be embraced by everyone would actually have any meaningful effect on this i mean is small things like reserve small things like re programming are very very large
01:16:1121.86 (s)of the multi year this is very important i think if you can simply an s. t. s. provides a whole personnel system that you porn it's hard to get people in the acquisition irina practically civilians we make it very onerous so if you can attack some of these issues that are identified issues within the department you will move the ball forward
01:16:333.26 (s)and you can do that quickly and you can do that in effect
01:16:377.24 (s)what you're doing in in the coming budget as suppose over long budget so i'm just suggesting take a delivered approach on this
01:16:458.50 (s)accomplish which you cannot compilation don't don't get mired down in this whole system because this whole system has been built up with a over at least fifty years
01:16:5410.16 (s)george will have a famous column one time and what you quoted on the filtering of the hilton hotels it when asked i think a graduation speech what his advice would be to future generations
01:17:051.84 (s)he some up succinctly and he said
01:17:084.36 (s)please but the shower curtain inside stuff
01:17:139.60 (s)no this is the first raised carousel bizarre note i did have one um
01:17:246.72 (s)i'm in my in here is uh i did have one quick question five disaster fan and with this c. s. i. s. there were four
01:17:3112.76 (s)and they made a recommendation which i'm reading from a just briefly want to ask the three what you think the recommendation as and frankly can supplement your answering like c. s. i. s. recommends that we modified title ten
01:17:456.18 (s)require that all uh j. rock memory and assigned by the chairman device of the joint chiefs
01:17:523.26 (s)the the j. and j. r. o. c. m. s.
01:17:563.32 (s)be provided the deputy secretary defense for his review
01:18:007.66 (s)the deputy secretary could be an issue in e. j. c. o. r. nancy approved and binding guidance to deal o. the components
01:18:093.80 (s)um what do you think that that's what we should do by statute or not
01:18:157.22 (s)so what's i'm not quite sure the title ten what you do get cycle channel forty two the vice chairman yeah well no it would
01:18:226.22 (s)i didn't understand it changes related to the deputy secretary where the vice chair and the chair
01:18:2916.52 (s)would pass the draft number ran up to the deputy secretary he would then we're she would then have the authority to give them binding we're not given binding effect modified so what i would do would be institutionalize the role for the deputy secretary that um mine's the services
01:18:4610.18 (s)my first reaction would be i mean that is responsive h. t. m. l. the deputy we just literally goes to the a. t. n. l. responsible person because they have although
01:18:5714.86 (s)everyday work the acquisition irina right and they have the authority track position in my view be in i've right i at that point i would've gone john younger came creating got your you because you're dealing with that every single day not that at the end that it does this
01:19:133.80 (s)you know sort of a on an as needed that required pieces not
01:19:184.72 (s)i wouldn't put the deputy in that role frank out with the t. t. n. l. not
01:19:2322.42 (s)who haven't thought about okay guys yeah and i it i would like to think that if he could couldn't supplement supplementary is for the record if you have time but dot and what do you think uh i i would tell you that i think that deputies the wrong person in that case but i do think that the undersecretary for acquisition technology and logistics use the right person to be doing this now
01:19:4612.72 (s)recognizing you could make this a legislative piece clearly that would be a big deal because uh you are including the civilian in this military requirements discussion but it's one way to help integrate
01:19:590.80 (s)if you will
01:20:004.78 (s)be a good the right system now what i would suggest to you is that
01:20:065.64 (s)i didn't make in the code here but i invited eighteen l. to every section of the requirements
01:20:135.00 (s)j. rasta pieces that i did for two years and in fact eighteen l. attended everything
01:20:1946.44 (s)can creep personally as the under secretary did not but he always steady senior representative there and in fact they did a lot of preparation across the face question is the difference between attendance enough authority correct and so what you have to think about is is if you're going to make the vice chairman for example the coach here of the defense acquisition board then i'm going to be reasonable to make the undersecretary the co chairman of the j. rock and i don't think that's bad if you go back to the packard commission one of the things that talked about was say uh i think it was called uh j. e. r. m. b. it was a joint requirements material border something that comprised mainly of military but also brought some civilian expertise sunny acquisition site into a i personally don't think it's a bad idea at all generally
01:21:063.24 (s)just try to connect talked about it to c. s. i. s.
01:21:1128.08 (s)i i think it it if i'm not mistaken in read it the right is that this is a reflection of the the fact that the only time those three processes come together in the department is that the deputy secretary that's right yeah and and because it because of budget decision uh is really present their uh primarily because that's the one that usually is the outlier in these decisions so making it statutory uh
01:21:395.86 (s)might be a good idea but it can also be very problematic because fundamentally that the secretary and
01:21:466.24 (s)and i i hesitate to speak for food secretary it here because i never was one of those but uh
01:21:5217.02 (s)but it is a huge job to do these types of things and but the process these are designed today to come together at that well yeah i mean i i ask the question not i i read segments of the report wonder what he thought i mean it traction the idea
01:22:104.48 (s)is it the general says is that the then you were these processes come together
01:22:156.70 (s)uh and investing the person is it that many with some forces already have some fraction on the other hand
01:22:232.18 (s)um it does seem to the
01:22:262.42 (s)caution all three of you given this from
01:22:283.04 (s)significant experience which having you process
01:22:327.74 (s)exacerbate the problem may not solve it and so i you know on further reflection i'd like to think about what you think
01:22:415.48 (s)testing some person would that kind of authority coming off the j. rock process makes sense
01:22:475.74 (s)if so who we have first thing i i can tell you most military personnel probably would not like that
01:22:5433.14 (s)because they want that arguing for doing well i'm trying to tell you you have to integrate this but i with all due respect to my deputy secretary for a shipmates here i think the person who really is vested in where all three of these come through despite also what run it's said to you right is the secretary of defense because you have service secretaries and service chiefs in there and that's where the ultimate authority for all three of these are supposed to come together in when you move it to a different level
01:23:2711.52 (s)you change the overall dynamic you're in a way sometimes it is not good so deemphasize the correct so so far reflection on how to do this is very and that's why i say that my question was
01:23:3958.90 (s)whether a person should be vested with this authority is so who your answer maybe it should be sacked death and it is probably now the second that is not certainly going to go to every meeting sure as hell don't have time for that but the point is is how do you get that done so the he gets advice properly terminator smut last comment on this of the your original comment about people and personalities fathers depends on who's in these positions any given time frankly because it varies dramatically in terms of background and experience and capabilities so when you say you should probably prohibit us from mandating a certain person for yeah i'm from i would say is what worked out well with the edgy about johnny said john young of the perfect person to do that so for all practical purposes you sort of achieve that when they work together in the office is because one they wanted to get to requirement trying to ripple three capable the work that together same reason i brought it in on the dog
01:24:409.38 (s)so personality goes along with cheyer area i mean one of the recurring themes in our work we will wrap up with this is that it is we think self evident that
01:24:518.08 (s)towel of the individuals in these positions in nature of those individuals is central to any results but we can't do login procedure
01:25:004.42 (s)is create a series of incentive and disincentive that hopefully in san
01:25:053.36 (s)more desirable behavior disincentive less desirable be
01:25:096.02 (s)and what we're trying to fumble through is figure that out in in this instance i i do think enclosing is that
01:25:162.48 (s)if the hypothesis this morning was that
01:25:219.92 (s)the gap between now you and caught a value and uh cost pay is is in part attributable to a lack of coordination
01:25:310.92 (s)among the
01:25:336.08 (s)requirement in procurement budget process i think the answers is you're curious if there is a significant problem
01:25:402.68 (s)what we're trying to do is figure out a way to create
01:25:436.58 (s)the right set of incentives that cause integration the right set of disincentive that would military against
01:25:501.24 (s)this integration
01:25:527.04 (s)but do so um hopefully by going this the cooper's question like taking things out of rule looks rather than putting in
01:25:596.76 (s)and by creating fewer levels of oversight more transparency not more levels of oversight less transparent
01:26:065.44 (s)that's all order but i think that's summarizes what we're about you be to use me
01:26:1314.98 (s)a very significant contribution that effort this morning we appreciate that entirely consistent with your lifelong contributions to our country in this in other areas for which we are very grateful three d. we thank you very much your patient hearings thank you