May 20, 201114 yr All future military contracts should be set at a fixed price on negotiation. Any budget overruns fall squarely on the head of the contracted company. It'll never happen, but it seems sensible.
May 23, 201114 yr All future military contracts should be set at a fixed price on negotiation. Any budget overruns fall squarely on the head of the contracted company. It'll never happen, but it seems sensible. Are you prepared to say that all the admirals, generals, DOD commissions, etc. are not allowed to make changes to design, ranges, speeds, equipment list and parts suppliers? Because almost all major contracts are plagued by these. Also congress gets into the act to change what's in a military program. The Bradley Fighting Vehicle was a prime example of this. It was modified so much that it bore very little resemblance to the armored personnel carrier that it was supposed to be. The JSF is in danger of the same issue of they keep adding stuff onto it. Every time it gets a few pounds heavier it gets that much slower and shorter-ranged.
May 23, 201114 yr Author All future military contracts should be set at a fixed price on negotiation. Any budget overruns fall squarely on the head of the contracted company. It'll never happen, but it seems sensible. Are you prepared to say that all the admirals, generals, DOD commissions, etc. are not allowed to make changes to design, ranges, speeds, equipment list and parts suppliers? Because almost all major contracts are plagued by these. Also congress gets into the act to change what's in a military program. The Bradley Fighting Vehicle was a prime example of this. It was modified so much that it bore very little resemblance to the armored personnel carrier that it was supposed to be. The JSF is in danger of the same issue of they keep adding stuff onto it. Every time it gets a few pounds heavier it gets that much slower and shorter-ranged. No, I wouldn't be prepared to say that. However, the initial RFP should be robust enough to avoid major changes.
May 31, 201114 yr No, I wouldn't be prepared to say that. However, the initial RFP should be robust enough to avoid major changes. Some RFPs are robust. Others have some room improvement. The defense contractor is over a barrel sometimes to incorporate changes when a command-level program sponsor puts in a wish list.
May 31, 201114 yr An example of just how extended (and inevitably costly) these acquisition programs have become was raised by US Marine Corps Commandant James Amos recently at a Brookings Institution event called On Challenging Beachheads: Afghanistan, Washington and Beyond. He reminded us that the SR-71 Blackbird program went from blueprint to operational flight in just 18 months. Now I am sure that statement is probably glossing over some of the details of the A-12/SR-71 program (I haven't fact checked), but it certainly brings home the relationship between the acquisition cycle and rising cost. Meanwhile, the development of the F-35 JSF is starting to push 14, 15 years?
June 8, 201114 yr All future military contracts should be set at a fixed price on negotiation. Any budget overruns fall squarely on the head of the contracted company. It'll never happen, but it seems sensible. It is only sensible when the contractor has control of the variables... Which they don't. There isn't much that they do have fine control over. So they price it accordingly... Well, actually, knowing that the requirements are absurd in the first place and failure is seldom punished harshly, they underbid and do the cost overrun route. Can't blame 'em, I'd not do business at that level with the USG if I could get away with it.
Create an account or sign in to comment