Army | The Contracting Education Academy

October 30, 2019 By cs

Army’s acquisition boss on artificial intelligence and the evolving procurement process

As the U.S. Army begins to replace its existing fleet with fresh platforms that will form a force capable of countering adversaries across multiple domains and theaters, the acquisition side of the house will face tough choices.

**Army acquisitions chief Bruce Jette, center, receives a briefing on product improvements for cannon systems. (Photo credit: John Snyder, U.S. Army)**

Defense News posed a variety of questions to Bruce Jette — Army acquisition chief — ahead of the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference to see what he’s thinking about when it comes to the evolution of the service’s procurement approach, including its relationship with Army Futures Command, which is tasked with modernizing the service.

A year ago you were developing a framework for how you, as the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, would interface with Army Futures Command. How has the framework evolved?

The framework for interfacing with Army Futures Command has evolved as we’ve identified unique, shared or overlapping responsibilities among stakeholders as well as sole responsibilities for each stakeholder.

The major muscle movements are: AFC has lead responsibility in the space between concepts creation and requirements definition, bringing “unity of command” to modernization organizations previously scattered across the Army. Unique to AFC is the responsibility to create concepts for how the Army will fight, and creation of the initial materiel requirement. AFC transitions to a critical supporting role after the concept and requirement refinement milestones, and is essential in collaborative efforts during acquisition activities leading to production. There are overlapping roles of capabilities to requirements throughout the development and procurement processes.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.c4isrnet.com/show-reporter/ausa/2019/10/14/us-armys-acquisition-boss-on-artificial-intelligence-and-the-evolving-procurement-process/

October 24, 2019 By cs

Just 1 bidder is vying for 2 Pentagon programs worth $130 billion

The defense acquisition chief is looking into the Army’s disqualification of a second bidder to replace Bradley armored vehicles.

It’s a pretty widely accepted business principle that competition is good for business. But for two separate programs potentially worth a combined $130 billion, the Pentagon has just one possible bidder.

That’s prompted the U.S. Defense Department’s top weapons buyer to look into the U.S. Army’s $45 billion effort to replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Service officials recently disqualified one potential competitor, leaving just one company to bid.

“I’m just getting more involved in that one right now,” Ellen Lord, defense undersecretary for acquisition and sustainment, said at a Friday press briefing.

DoD leaders have spent the past few years delegating the oversight of most major acquisition projects to the individual military services, a move intended to remove bureaucratic hurdles, speed up development and get weapons to troops faster. This marks the first time that Lord, who has held her job since August 2017, has publicly said she would step in to review one of those programs.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.defenseone.com/business/2019/10/just-one-bidder-vying-two-pentagon-programs-worth-130-billion/160718/

September 25, 2019 By cs

Are meetings with industry actually accelerating military acquisitions?

Military leaders say they are determined to find faster ways to buy cutting-edge technologies.

“We can’t afford to spend seven years thinking about a requirement,” Army Undersecretary Ryan D. McCarthy said during a 2018 visit to Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

“If it is going to take that long, you are probably not going to get it. So, we need to get these capabilities sooner.”

To that end, the Department of Defense has increased the number of engagements with industry, launched alternative contracting vehicles, and taken other steps to streamline innovation more effectively. Industry officials are often clamoring for that interaction, but some say the Pentagon’s efforts are beginning to bear fruit.

One area where those changes are most visible has been in the Army’s modernization of its battlefield network. David Huisenga, president and chief executive at Klas Telecom Government, said he has noticed a marked difference in the quality and quantity of engagements between industry and the Department of Defense.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.c4isrnet.com/industry/2019/09/19/are-meetings-with-industry-actually-accelerating-military-acquisitions/

March 19, 2019 By AMK

Army bets big on service contracts to fix aging IT

The Army’s information technology is too old, and modernization is too slow.

So the service needs a “fundamentally different” strategy that relies heavily on the private sector, Lt. Gen. Bruce Crawford said the Army has to start relying on contractors to own and operate IT on the Army’s behalf — what he calls “enterprise IT as a service” — and start moving on-base IT to Defense Department clouds.

“Around 70 percent overall of that [IT] infrastructure — in the case of voice, it’s probably as high as 90 percent — is at or near end of life,” Crawford told the Association of the US Army. “[It] would take beyond the year 2030 — if we stayed on the current path — to modernize. We ran into one brick wall after another [asking], ‘how do we get speed,’” Crawford continued. So, about six months ago, he and Lt. Gen. Steve Fogarty, head of Army Cyber Command, realized “we needed to do something fundamentally different.”

This effort’s urgent because the aging IT on Army bases can’t protect data from high-end hackers, provide the bandwidth for new augmented-reality training systems or support combat units waging high-intensity warfare against great powers (i.e., Russia and China), Crawford said. “This reform and modernization initiative,” he said, “is less about saving money than it is about increasing operational effectiveness throughout the force.”

Keep reading this article at: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/army-bets-big-on-service-contracts-to-fix-aging-it/

February 21, 2019 By AMK

Agencies may evaluate contractor responsibility under FSS orders

Contractor responsibility is to be considered before every federal contract award, but what about task orders issued under an Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract? Are contractors still subject to responsibility inquiries when competing for orders?

According to GAO, the answer is, “yes.”

Dehler Manufacturing Company, Inc., B-416819 et al. (Comp. Gen. Dec. 19, 2018), involved a procurement by the Army to provide furnishings for barracks at Fort Jackson in South Carolina. The Solicitation, which contemplated the award of a task order, required prospective contractors to hold FSS contacts that included furnishings. Award was to be made on a low-price technically-acceptable basis. Proposals were to be evaluated on a number of factors, including past performance.

Dehler timely submitted a response to the solicitation. During the Army’s evaluation of past performance, it obtained information from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). Of the five PPIRS reports the Army obtained for Dehler, four categorized Dehler’s performance as either “Marginal” or “Unsatisfactory.” Consequently, the Army concluded Dehler’s past performance was unacceptable and eliminated it from consideration.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/gaobidprotests/agencies-may-evaluate-contractor-responsibility-under-fss-orders-says-gao/

As the U.S. Army begins to replace its existing fleet with fresh platforms that will form a force capable of countering adversaries across multiple domains and theaters, the acquisition side of the house will face tough choices.

The defense acquisition chief is looking into the Army’s disqualification of a second bidder to replace Bradley armored vehicles.

Military leaders say they are determined to find faster ways to buy cutting-edge technologies.

The Army’s information technology is too old, and modernization is too slow.

Contractor responsibility is to be considered before every federal contract award, but what about task orders issued under an Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract? Are contractors still subject to responsibility inquiries when competing for orders?

Search this Website