Brookings suggests 5 crucial defense reforms to save the Pentagon

The 5 crucial defense reforms that will save the Pentagon | Brookings Institution
Congressman Mac Thornberry, the new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is unveiling this week a set of proposed reforms for the way the Department of Defense buys equipment and contracts for other services. This is a very welcome focus for a new committee chairman at this juncture in history. Combined with the reformist instincts of his fellow chairman, Senator John McCain of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as well as the background of Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and his top team, there is likely to be real progress in the months ahead. But to complement all these efforts, we also need a broader policy debate that engages Washington beyond just the defense community and that focuses more on the big picture. The changes being discussed now generally look good, but trend towards the more modest side of the possible and desirable reform agenda.

Here are several ideas that are worth considering as legislators, regulators and other interested parties haggle over change in coming months:

1. Use Federal Acquisition Regulations Title 12 more often, rather than falling back on Federal Acquisition Regulations Title 15. Buy more COTS
2. Streamline oversight when the Pentagon can rely on competition to discipline firms about price. Reduce DCMA oversight.
3. Follow the JIEDDO model for other technologies. create special, expedited acquisition procedures for lower-risk technologies that nonetheless are important to build quickly.
4. Break down information technology purchases into smaller batches. Bite sized open system procurement more digestible.
5. For technologies that have commercial analogues, but certain military-specific attributes up to a certain percentage of value, allow firms to keep their intellectual property rights rather than sharing all relevant data with the government.

Nothing about acquisition reform is easy. But if we combine the tedious technical detail that often afflicts these debates with some bigger-picture conceptual thinking, and examples not only of problems that exist today but specific programs that could work better under a different set of rules, we may be able to help broaden and strengthen the consensus for major reform. America will then have a better chance of keeping its impressive global lead in defense technology for many years and decades to come.