Accession Number:

ADA564353

Title:

Special Issue: Better Buying Power (Foreword)

Descriptive Note:

Journal article

Corporate Author:

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (ACQUISITION TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS) WASHINGTON DC

Personal Author(s):

• Kendall, Frank

Report Date:

2011-10-01

Pagination or Media Count:

4.0

Abstract:

Over the past 3 years, a confluence of continuing long wars, recognition of the need to recapitalizemodernize existing military equipment, and rising national debt as a result of the financial crisis, has created a perfect storm of competing requirements. DoD has been forced to cancel one unaffordable program after another to live within budget constraints. When taken as a whole, it is obvious that continuing business as usual in defense systems acquisition is not sustainable. In fact, upon our analysis, we noted that, as compared to the commercial world, where prices decline over time even as technology improves, our products are steadily increasing in cost, often by wide margins. DoDs productivity, its ability to deliver more without more, is going in the wrong direction when we can least afford it. As a corps of acquisition professionals, our buying strategies must adapt to this new reality and recognize that the costs of our weapon systems must assume a more prominent role in the decision process our nations future depends on it. These adjustments in our acquisition approach, tools, techniques, and attitudes are necessary if we are to continue to provide our fighting forces with the material and technical edge required for victory on our terms. It is in this spirit that Dr. Carter released our Better Buying Power BBP initiatives and directives in concert with the component acquisition executives CAEs. In the feedback that we have received, we have heard a number of repeated questions about a few of the initiatives and it has been clear that there are misperceptions about some of the guidance in some cases. The articles in this edition of Defense ATL magazine will help answer some of those questions. I would like to point out three interpretations of Dr. Carters guidance that are NOT correct.

Descriptors:

• *ADAPTATION
• *COST REDUCTION
• *DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
• *LIFE CYCLE COSTS
• *MILITARY BUDGETS
• *MILITARY PROCUREMENT
• COMPETITION
• CONTRACTED SERVICES
• DECISION MAKING
• LESSONS LEARNED
• PERFORMANCE(ENGINEERING)
• PRODUCTIVITY
• PROFITS
• REPRINTS
• WEAPON SYSTEMS

Subject Categories:

• Administration and Management
• Economics and Cost Analysis
• Logistics, Military Facilities and Supplies

Distribution Statement:

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE