The Contracting Education Academy

Contracting Academy Logo
You are here: Home / Archives for risk

By

We’ve admired the federal acquisition problem for too long

Agencies must inculcate cultures of experimentation and learning if the U.S. is to prevail economically and militarily.

On a recent trip to Tampa, I asked a consultant on my team supporting U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) Acquisition Technology & Logistics what accounts for the Command’s acquisition success. “It’s a mindset thing,” she replied.

Later that day, as I continued my visit to SOCOM’s contracting activity, I happened upon the essentials of that mindset. They were captured in an inscription painted on the wall in a heavily traveled hallway. It said:

“We never stop …
We never stop learning …
We never stop iterating …
We never stop experimenting …”

That mindset at SOCOM drives a culture born and sustained from the intensity of the mission and the close relationships, in proximity and bond of purpose, between special operators and the acquirers who support them. The tooth and the tail meld. The mindset is shared by all members of the team. It is expected of everyone. It pushes teams to find the best solutions at the speed of relevance.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.govexec.com/management/2019/07/viewpoint-weve-admired-federal-acquisition-problem-too-long/158719/

By

Why the Navy is giving agencies, industry a much-needed wake-up call on supply chain risks

On page 6 of the Navy’s recent report about its cyber readiness, there is a jaw-dropping confession: “The systems the U.S. relies upon to mobilize, deploy and sustain forces have been extensively targeted by potential adversaries, and compromised to such extent that their reliability is questionable.”

Bill Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, wants that single sentence in the 80-page report to sink in for a second.

“The Navy’s report on their resilience and reliability is that watershed moment not only for the Department of Defense but for all agencies in the federal government, and I would even proffer in the private sector, to have an honest, internal look at their systems, their data, their capabilities and their protection mechanisms and where they have vulnerabilities and how the threats are manifested in their organizations,” Evanina said after speaking at the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA) event on supply chain management in Arlington, Virginia, on April 1. “I think all agencies should take a hard look and say, ‘What can we do that is similar to this to look at our own processes and protection models?’”

The Navy report serves as a call to arms around the challenges every agency faces from systems under attack to attempts to steal information from its industrial base.

“The DON’s dependency upon the defense industrial base (DIB) presents another large and lucrative source of exploitation for those looking to diminish U.S. military advantage. Key DIB companies, primes, and their suppliers, have been breached and their IP stolen and exploited,” the report states. “These critical supply chains have been compromised in ways and to an extent yet to be fully understood.”

Keep reading article at: https://federalnewsnetwork.com/acquisition/2019/04/navy-giving-agencies-industry-much-needed-wake-up-call-on-supply-chain-risks/

By

Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Cybersecurity holds hearing to discuss responsibilities of the industrial base

On March 26, 2019, the Senate Armed Services’ Subcommittee on Cybersecurity held a hearing to receive testimony assessing how the Department of Defense’s (DoD) cybersecurity policies and regulations have affected the Defense Industrial Base (DIB).

To gain a better understanding of the DIB’s cybersecurity concerns, the Subcommittee invited William LaPlante, Senior Vice President and General Manager of MITRE’s National Security Sector; John Luddy, Vice President For National Security Policy at the Aerospace Industries Association; Christopher Peters, Chief Executive Officer of the Lucrum Group; and Michael MacKay, the Chief Technology Officer of Progeny Systems Corporation.

In their opening remarks, the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD), and Ranking Member, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), acknowledged industry concerns about the DoD’s lack of clarity and disparate implementation of cybersecurity regulations, such as guidance relating to DFARS 252.204-7012 (DFARS Cyber Rule or Rule) and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171.

Senator Rounds stated that he “expects [DoD] to come up with measured policies to make improvements in [cybersecurity]” and he “hope[s] DoD takes seriously the concerns of the DIB.”  He further noted that DoD “cannot simply apply increasingly stringent cybersecurity requirements on its contractors” and that “doing so without subsidy or assistance is unlikely to particularly improve cybersecurity [for] the DIB” and would likely drive the most innovative small businesses out of the supply chain.  Senator Rounds called for putting a program in place to ensure the best possible protections for contractors regardless of size and referred to the “Achilles heel” of this issue as the desire to use a large number of small contractors while still needing to protect sensitive government information.  Later in the hearing, Senator Manchin expressed great concern over the cyber incidents experienced by DoD contractors and urged the witnesses to “tell [the Subcommittee] what you need . . . [the Subcommittee] is here to fix it and you’re here to tell us what’s broken.”

Keep reading this article at: https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2019/03/senate-armed-services-subcommittee-on-cybersecurity-holds-hearing-to-discuss-the-responsibilities-of-the-defense-industrial-base/

By

The National Defense Strategy: A compelling call for defense innovation

The National Defense Strategy tells the U.S. military – the Department of Defense – what kind of adversaries they should plan to face and how they should plan to use the armed forces.

The National Defense Strategy is the military’s “here’s what we’re going to do” to implement the executive branch’s National Security Strategy. The full version of the National Defense Strategy is classified; but the 10-page unclassified summary of this strategic guidance document for the U.S. Defense Department is worth a read.

Since 9/11 the U.S. military has focused on defeating non-nation states (ISIL, al-Qaeda, et al.) The new National Defense Strategy states that America needs to prepare for competition between major powers, calling out China and Russia explicitly as adversaries, (with China appearing to be the first.) Mattis said, “Our competitive advantage has eroded in every domain of warfare.”

While the National Defense Strategy recognizes the importance of new technologies, e.g.  autonomous systems and artificial intelligence, the search is no longer for the holy grail of a technology offset strategy. Instead the focus is on global and rapid maneuver capabilities of smaller, dispersed units to “increase agility, speed, and resiliency … and deployment … in order to stand ready to fight and win the next conflict.” The goal is to make the military more “lethal, agile, and resilient.”

The man with a lot of fingerprints on this document is Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan. Shanahan came from Boeing, and his views on innovation make interesting reading.

People in government rarely make the case for taking more risk. Yet Shanahan said after the strategy was released, “Innovation is messy.” He added, “we’re going to have to get comfortable with people making mistakes.”

Keep reading this article at: https://warontherocks.com/2018/02/national-defense-strategy-compelling-call-defense-innovation/

By

Other transactions: Do the rewards outweigh the risks?

In recent years, the federal government has made a large shift in how it expends taxpayer dollars on federal contracts.  Numerous laws have mandated new or expanded use of rapid procurement processes or other transaction agreements (OTA), which are now a preferred procurement vehicle.

OTAs, while not contracts governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), are legally binding contracts that were once considered tools of last resort because they put taxpayers and the government at risk.

The theory behind OTAs is that nontraditional vendors would be lured into the government contracting marketplace by streamlined procurement processes. The hope is that nontraditional contractors that were unable or unwilling to enter into traditional procurement contracts would come to the table and bring with them innovative solutions that traditional contractors were not offering. The reality, however, is that these speedy buying procedures are being leveraged by large traditional contractors that are looking to boost their bottom line by avoiding normal contract administration, oversight, and accountability protections.

“Other transactions” is a term commonly used to refer to the authority to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements. Agencies have authority to award such agreements in limited circumstances — research, prototype, and now defense follow-on production projects.  Unlike a normal government contract, OTA is promoted as a more flexible agreement that can speed up the buying process and be better tailored based on changes in technology and the government’s needs.

Keep reading this article at: https://www.pogo.org/report/2019/03/other-transactions-do-the-rewards-outweigh-the-risks/

Contracting Academy Logo
75 Fifth Street, NW, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30308
info@ContractingAcademy.gatech.edu
Phone: 404-894-6109
Fax: 404-410-6885

RSS Twitter