Home » Policy » OSD Rewriting Space Acquisition Rules

OSD Rewriting Space Acquisition Rules

By Colin Clark Monday, March 2nd, 2009 8:35 pm
Posted in Policy, Space

A comprehensive rewrite of OSD’s space acquisition rules is under way, sort of a parallel effort to the recent rewrite of the standard 5000 series that guides major weapons procurement.

Space acquisition, so synonymous with cost and schedule overrurns that it’s now difficult to find a space program that has not sparked a Nunn-McCurdy breach, has been the subject of at least half-a-dozen serious efforts at reform over the last five years and none seem to have really taken hold.

Several space acquisition experts I spoke with say they welcome the effort but wonder just how much effect it will have in improving actual program implementation. They point to the tinkering and rebuilding of the 5000 series that has gone on since the Clinton administration and acquisition costs have done nothing but soared.

Part of the problem is that much space acquisition is split between the Defense Department and the intelligence community. Deciding whose procurement rules apply can be difficult although a memo signed by former DNI McConnell and DefSec Gates two years ago appeared to give the DNI control over any program that used more than 50 percent of intelligence community money. Under the old regime, if a program contained even $1 of DoD money it was run by the Pentagon.

Conventional Pentagon acquisition programs got their own reforms approved in December. Those new rules require each program to go through a major review to ensure it is based on approved requirements and a rigorous assessment of alternatives and institutionalize one of outgoing ATL head John Young’s favorite ideas, requiring development of system or key subsystems. Since John Young began the rewrite of the new space rules it isn’t unreasonable to expect some of these features to be included in the new rules.

A Pentagon official believes the new rules may help stabilize the tottering ship of space acquisition. A congressional aide, told of the effort, was skeptical but hopeful. “They’ve tried to do this before and it doesn’t seem to have improved things much. But anything that might help improve things can’t be ignored,” the aide said.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

	RFL March 3rd, 2009 at 6:51 am More acquisition reform; the goal should be to buy more equipment and more effectively; acquisition is about buying kit, not about a constant review process which ensures that one never buys anything; if one bought one;s own electronics this way we all would still be using Commodore 64 computers
	Radarnav March 3rd, 2009 at 4:45 pm Lack of experienced acquisition managers and the lack of discipline in requirements management are the two key areas to focus on — not regulations
	DensityDuck March 3rd, 2009 at 5:22 pm Let’s not forget pointlessly excessive conservatism on the part of The Aerospace Corporation. TSAT is being required to retain nickel-hydride batteries as a fall-back from “excessively risky” lithium-ion, even though the vehicle will not launch until 2021. Presumably we will be able to work out the issues with lithium-ion some time in the next TEN FREAKIN’ YEARS.
	Ron Garant March 5th, 2009 at 12:05 pm Once we let the industry merge into the one and only supplier for defense goods we gave them the key to the Treaury. The only thing that will bring sanity to the process is competition and that is too hard for our current risk averse acquisition community to undertake.