Efficiency in Government Acquisition

Efficiency Issues in Government Acquisition

Presented to Adina Peyton

MGT 502

University of Alabama in Huntsville

By

James Barnett

Huntsville, Alabama

March 22, 2017

Efficiency Issues in Government Acquisition

The United States military has some of the most complex acquisition parameters in the world, which lends itself to becoming inefficient and therefore, costly. There are systems in place in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) that are put designed to eliminate and attempt to curtail excessive spending, but there are loopholes, and the FAR does not cover a large gray area of what could be considered allowable spending. This study attempts to bring to light some issues that plague the efficiency model of the U.S. government’s acquisition regulations.

Studies have shown that cost reduction can occur throughout an entire process. Four of the professors at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) did a study on supply chains and how they can be used to make the Army more efficient. “Although the military’s materiel commands are not profit-seeking entities, they are keenly aware of their finances. Even in times of war there are resource constraints and choices have to be made – choices involving life and death. In times of peace the financial squeeze is intensified because of political pressure to redirect public spending to other priorities. Thus, the military seeks efficiency in its operations even as it rebuilds its personnel and equipment and trains for the next engagement. Readiness is the objective, cost is a constraint” (Wilhite et al 2013).

Excessive spending can be due to several reasons, but a simple one is communication. A recent interview with a current procurement analyst on Redstone Arsenal revealed that in circa 2003, the Army was tasked with developing a tug to use in maneuvering helicopters in Iraq. There were government employees going on “temporary duty,” or TDY, to a manufacturing facility in Fort Lauderdale periodically to see what they have commercially available. The employees came back and spoke with the general about what they have found. The tug could go through ditches and climb over hills. The general responded, “You aren’t taking my helicopters through any ditches.” The entire process of finding the manufacturer, taking trips to Fort Lauderdale, and any per diem they used, was a complete waste of money, and in the end, the government used John Deere tugs purchased from a local dealership. This excess spending could be curtailed with more information shared between the traveling employees and their superiors. If they had mentioned what type of tug was being considered, they could move that up the food chain to people that could easily shut it down.

The added efficiency of the regulations that have developed over time, and have evolved in the FAR since 1984, is a matter of contention. The regulations in the FAR have been included to cut excessive spending and make guidelines for government employees to be aware of how to address specific issues. Any changes to this are due to time spent determining what should be changed, and this causes a ripple effect through the people that use the regulations. They must keep up with these changes. William Lucyshyn, a research director at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, proselytizes that the regulations are too inconsistent with too much overreach. “This ever-growing accumulation of laws, regulations, reporting requirements and mandated procedures often adds little value, but slows the process and increases costs (Lucyshyn 2016).” The contention enters when one considers why the requirements are in place. There are myriad ways people have tried to bilk the government out of funds, and those have been considered when updating the rules included in the FAR. Taking away the regulations opens the door for more loopholes, more waste, and a new set of regulations to curtail what was once established. This is akin to eliminating the EPA. Some people stand to make money off the lack of regulation, but the regulations will be back when there is corruption for the sake of making a profit.

A new set of rules and structure is being discussed in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2017, which would be a change from a single executive over Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L) to “an undersecretary for acquisition and sustainment and an undersecretary for research and engineering” (Cook 2017). This will allow a closer look into the sustainability in acquisitions, but that comes at the expense of learning new guidelines and costs associated with new operations.

Steve Goodrich, CEO of the Center for Organizational Excellence and vice chair of the Government Transformation Initiative, theorizes that the government agencies should be run like a business in the private sector. His list includes prioritizing management and operations in the White House and Congress, incentivizing agency leaders with more autonomy, holding managers and executives accountable consistently, assess programs after they have been implemented to be sure they are being done correctly and that they have some type of success, and they just need a “plan the work and work the plan” type of mentality (Goodrich 2014). Basically the list comes down to accountability. If there is no real reason to do anything efficiently, there will be little-to-no efficiency.