Comments on: Defense Reforms Cost $90M A Pop http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/11/06/defense-buying-reforms-to-cost-90m/ Online Defense and Acquisition Journal Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:32:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Richard Millerhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/11/06/defense-buying-reforms-to-cost-90m/comment-page-1/#comment-16428 Richard Miller Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:38:54 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11138#comment-16428 Contracting, Contracts and Quality assurance have been made so complicated by the geniuses that I'm surprised anything gets built anymore. It does get debated and second guessed to death. Contracting, Contracts and Quality assurance have been made so complicated by the geniuses that I’m surprised anything gets built anymore. It does get debated and second guessed to death.

]]> By: eddie stinsonhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/11/06/defense-buying-reforms-to-cost-90m/comment-page-1/#comment-16207 eddie stinson Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:22:06 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11138#comment-16207 With the Pentagon dead set against the bill, I don't understand how folks think the 90 million is on the low side. My first inclination is the figure would be 150 million if they thought they could pull it off. With the Pentagon dead set against the bill, I don’t understand how folks think the 90 million is on the low side. My first inclination is the figure would be 150 million if they thought they could pull it off.

]]> By: pennst98http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/11/06/defense-buying-reforms-to-cost-90m/comment-page-1/#comment-16144 pennst98 Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:26:25 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11138#comment-16144 What isn't said in that report is what the $90M in extra costs up front could save in costly re-engineering, maintenance, or from eliminating fraud/waste/abuse. Then again what else is new, this is the standard DC beltway "net negative" calculation method. Instead of taking all the cost/benefit of a given technology and weighing it against the cost/benefit of an alternative technology, they just take the benefit of doing nothing vs. the cost of changing. Doing this masks any potential savings or net benefit from an alternative course of action, while making the status quo look like the clear choice. What isn’t said in that report is what the $90M in extra costs up front could save in costly re-engineering, maintenance, or from eliminating fraud/waste/abuse. Then again what else is new, this is the standard DC beltway “net negative” calculation method. Instead of taking all the cost/benefit of a given technology and weighing it against the cost/benefit of an alternative technology, they just take the benefit of doing nothing vs. the cost of changing. Doing this masks any potential savings or net benefit from an alternative course of action, while making the status quo look like the clear choice.

]]> By: Chiefhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/11/06/defense-buying-reforms-to-cost-90m/comment-page-1/#comment-16091 Chief Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:33:38 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11138#comment-16091 Give them a break ED - there working on healthcare estimates. Give them a break ED — there working on healthcare estimates.

]]> By: Ed Kinberghttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/11/06/defense-buying-reforms-to-cost-90m/comment-page-1/#comment-16082 Ed Kinberg Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:47:31 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=11138#comment-16082 I'm guessting that just on the government side of the equation. Given the traditional accuracy of Agency estimates, I would also guess that the estimate is way off on the low side. The neat thing about congressional sponsored acquisition reform, is that it is written by elected "servants" that have no idea of the real world cost and time impact of what they are doing. When it turns out out the cost comes out very high, both in time and money, they will hold industry responsible for its inefficient methods even though Congress is the main cause of inefficiency in defense procurement programs. On top of the regulatory quagmire Congress continues to build up, the Agency's create a technical quagmire by constantly changing the goals and objectives of major defense programs. When you don't have a stable concept and you have constantly changing regulations, it's virtually impossible to have meaningful cost containment I’m guessting that just on the government side of the equation. Given the traditional accuracy of Agency estimates, I would also guess that the estimate is way off on the low side.

The neat thing about congressional sponsored acquisition reform, is that it is written by elected “servants” that have no idea of the real world cost and time impact of what they are doing. When it turns out out the cost comes out very high, both in time and money, they will hold industry responsible for its inefficient methods even though Congress is the main cause of inefficiency in defense procurement programs.

On top of the regulatory quagmire Congress continues to build up, the Agency’s create a technical quagmire by constantly changing the goals and objectives of major defense programs. When you don’t have a stable concept and you have constantly changing regulations, it’s virtually impossible to have meaningful cost containment

]]>