1. Army Acquisition: Challenges and Opportunities
General Officer/Senior Executive Service Course
Army Force Management School
LTG Bill Phillips
Principal Military Deputy to the
Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)
and Director, Acquisition Career Management
4 December 2012

2. Agenda ASA(ALT) Mission and Organization Army Contracting
Acquisition Overview
Goals:
Understanding the Importance of Contracting
Understanding the Value of Acquisition
Understanding Acquisition as a Critical Warfighting Enabler …

3. Intense Firefight at Paktika Province, Afghanistan
U.S. Soldiers from 4th Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Cbt operations in the Paktika Province, Afghanistan, 20 May, 2011

4. ASA(ALT)
Vision: A highly innovative organization of dedicated professionals transforming the Army with integrated Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology capabilities to provide Soldiers a decisive advantage and win our nation’s wars!
Mission:  Provide our Soldiers a decisive advantage in any mission by developing, acquiring, fielding, and sustaining the world’s best equipment and services and leveraging technologies and capabilities to meet current and future Army needs.
The advantage is achieved by combining and leveraging the Design, Develop, Deliver, Dominate – principles.

5. First Look, First Strike Advantage
Soldier Protection
Stryker Double-V Hull
Mine-resistant Ambush-Protected All- Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV) Underbody Improvement Kit
Body Armor
Caiman Explosively Formed Penetrators Enhancements
Squad Lethality – machine guns, mortars, sensors, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), uniforms
Pelvic Protection
Bottom View
Stryker Double-V Hull
M-ATV Underbody Improvement Kit
Body Armor
Caiman MRAP Vehicle
Pelvic Protection
First Look, First Strike Advantage

6. Providing Soldiers a Decisive Advantage
First Lieutenant (1LT) Jason Miller
Two rounds from an AK-47 impacted the front of his helmet
A third round traced around the inside and exited the nape protector
Initially knocked down, he quickly regained his composure and dispatched both enemy combatants.
1LT Miller’s ACH
------Original Message------
From: Peter N. BG Fuller
To: Peter W. GEN Chiarelli
To: John M Hon CIV USA SECARMY McHugh
To: George W. Jr. GEN Casey
To: Joseph W Hon CIV USA SECARMY Westphal
Cc: Malcolm O’Neill
Cc: LTG William N. Phillips
Subject: RE: 1LT Jason T. Miller (UNCLASSIFIED)
Sent: Jul 20, :47 AM
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Brick Miller's son, Jason was involved in a scrap yesterday while leading his Platoon against Taliban in support of ANP and ANA forces. He asked his Dad to thank the folks who procure the gear that saved his life. While engaged in a firefight, Jason saw two individuals dressed in military fatigues walking through the area. Thinking they might be ANP, he attempted to hail/intercept them, whereupon they turned and fired on him with their AK47s. Two rounds struck the front of his ACH and deflected away from his head, while a third traced around the inside of his helmet and penetrated out through his Nape Protector. He was somersaulted backwards, but was quickly back in the fight which resulted in two KIA Taliban. After the fight, it became apparent that he was injured, possibly from the fall or the whiplash of the impacting rounds. Brick spoke with him by phone while he was awaiting evacuation from Bagram to Landstuhl for evaluation/treatment.
This helmet saved 1LT Jason Miller ‘s life while he was on patrol in Logar Province, Afghanistan on July 19, 2010.

7. ASA(ALT) Organizational Structure

8. Program Executive Office Locations

9. Army Contracting

10. Acquisition will impact you
“Palantir”
Intro: Issues arose concerning units in OEF desiring Palantir v/s DCGS-A.
Current: Recently the Army discovered 3rd ID had received training services and equipment without a proper contract in place. Working with 3ID to complete the required business procedures in an expedited manner to insure a contract was in place.
The News:
Army Times “3ID’s acquisition of intel software probed”
The Washington Times “In anit-IED software case, Army’s buying rules trump troops’ safety”
Defense News “Army orders Intelligence servers shut down, threatens Palantir, continues 3ID probe”
Defense Systems “Army investigates improper acquisition of intel software by Infantry unit bound for
Afghanistan”
FY12–actions and obligations have inched up on latest reports to 412k actions/$107.5B
With the slight increase in Dollars, the average per day has inched up to $295M
Actions:
Mr. Kim Denver (DASA-P) sent a memo to Army Contracting Command (ACC) requesting ACC serve notice to Palantir to stop approaching deploying units (dated 12 September 2012)
HON Heidi Shyu (ASA ALT) sent a memo to Commander, US Army Forces Command requesting ratification and training (dated 14 September 2012)
ASA ALT assigned Program Executive Officer, Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors (PEO IEW&S) as the Army Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) for Link Analysis Tools and Services
Numerous sessions with senior Leaders
Way Ahead:
3rd ID Headquarters has deployed to a location where Palantir equipment and services are already in use and corrective actions do not affect the use of this capability in theater.
Existing rapid acquisition processes and procedures remain in place to respond to urgent operational needs.
Bottomline: Pay attention to proper Contracting Procedures

11. Acquisition Will Impact You
“Examples”
The GOOD
EAGLE Contract: Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise: A $23.5B five year contract that supports DOLs, Army Prepositioned Stocks, Theater Provided Equipment, Direct Theater Support, Left Behind Equipment, New Equipment Training, New Equipment Fielding, RESET.
The BAD
KBR: KBR Connected to Alleged Fraud, Pentagon Auditor Says Washington Post article, May 5, 2009: KBR, the Army's largest contractor in Iraq and Afghanistan, is linked to "the vast majority" of suspected combat-zone fraud cases that have been referred to investigators, as well as a majority of the $13 billion in "questioned" or "unsupported" costs, the Pentagon's top auditor said yesterday.
The UGLY
Jorge Scientific: ABC news, Brian Ross, video from Nov 2011 to Feb 2012 depicts some Jorge Scientific civilian contractors living at a house in Kabul and were engaged in illicit drinking and there was at least one case where an employee threw live small arms ammo into a fire pit.
Mi-17: DODIG report, to determine whether DoD personnel performed proper
Oversight, management, and pricing of two task orders for the overhaul of Mi-17 helicopters.
Picatinny Cat: April 11th, An errant projectile struck a family cat…..federal lawsuit

12. What Are We Spending?
The contracting environment is tough, workload is increasing, requiring adequate resources to execute:
FY11 – 470K actions / $124.3B
FY12 – 412K actions / $107.5B
In FY12 Army Contracting, on average, purchased $293M per day
In FY12 the Army executed 21.41% of Federal contracting and % of Defense contracting
In FY12 the Army spent $3.8B on Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) IV.

13. U.S. Army Financial Ranking
2011 Fortune 500: Top Firms
(Source: CNNMoney.com)
Rank
Company
Revenues ($ billions) 1
Wal-Mart Stores
421.8 2
Exxon Mobil
354.6 3
Chevron
196.3 4
ConocoPhillips
184.9 5
Fannie Mae
153.8 6
General Electric
151.6 7
Berkshire Hathaway
136.1 8
General Motors
135.5 9
Bank of America
134.1 10
Ford Motor Co.
128.9 11
Hewlett-Packard
126 12
AT&T
124.6 13
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co
115.4
$139B (FY11 Army Base Budget)
ASA(FM&C)
Army Contract Distribution
61% Services
39% Supplies
As of 7 JAN 2011
All open contracts regardless of funds source

14. Where America is Spending
Annually, America spends, on average, more on a pizza party than we do on the Army.
Annual U.S. Beer Sales = $96B
Annual U.S. Pizza Sales = $35B
Annual U.S. Soda Sales = $19B
$150B
Army Base Budget in 2012 = $135.4B
Sources: Beer Statistics: brewersassociation.org (Business Tools)
Pizza Statistics:
Soda Statistics: Time Business

15. Contractors on the Battlefield
Peak 2:1
Contractors per Soldier
American Revolution 1:6
Civil War 1:5
World War I 1:20
World War II 1:7
Korea 1:2.5
Vietnam 1:6
Gulf War 1:60
Balkans 1:1
Iraq :1
Afghanistan 1.1:1
Simple Services > Longer Deployment / Nation Building > Complex Services
Complexity of Service
Complexity of Conflict
Shorter duration of conflict in DS/DS required less contractor support. Numbers do not include HNS from Saudi Arabia.
Force caps in Kosovo/Bosnia resulted in higher contractor to Soldier ratios.
As conflicts become more complex, Commanders have been requiring more robust services in support of forces.
Medical
Laundry
Food Service
Shower Service
Sanitation
Transportation
Maintenance
Construction
Intelligence
Security
OND: 23,886 contractors*
OEF: 113,491 contractors
Source: DASD(PS) Contractor Support in USCENTCOM AOR
* These numbers are as of December 9, 2011 and do not reflect the continued contractor drawdown in anticipation of the end of military operations in Iraq.

16. Contracting Friction Points! Procurement Involves Multiple Stakeholders
FP 1
FP 2
FP 3
Requirements
Generation
Contract
Award
Contract
Admin
Contract
Closeout
Friction Pt 1:
Incomplete SOW/PWS
Limited time
Lack of automation
cASM
Friction Pt 2:
Appointment of CORs
Maintaining CORs
Effective oversight
COR EXORD
Friction Pt 3:
Invoice certification
Property accountability
RCC & RM Partnerships
Unauthorized Commitments; Anti-Deficiency Act violations;
ineffective mission support; operational impacts

17. Actions Commanders Can Take
Be familiar with the acquisition / contracting process!
Understand “fully” what contracts and contractors are under your responsibility and authority!
Integrate operational contract support planning into logistics and operations planning
Plan requirements carefully; avoid gold-plating
Consider other support options first (organic assets, supply system, DLA)
Develop a good relationship with the Contracting Commander!
Protect taxpayer funds—eliminate inefficiencies
Quality CORs = quality contractor performance
Hold contractors accountable
Avoid any appearance of impropriety
Ensure property is placed on the books
Work closely with your Contracting Activity

18. Operational Contract Support Publications Information for the Warfighter
Deployed COR
GTA
DODI
Operational Contract
Support and
Contingency
Program
Management
JP 4-10
Operational
Contract
Support
17 Oct 08
ATTP
4-10
Operational Contract Support: Tactics, Techniques & Procedures
Contracting Basics
for Leaders
GTA
POLICY
DOCTRINE
Contracting Support
Brigade
10 Feb 2010
FM 4-92
Publication pending
AR 715-9
Approved
Awaiting G-4 approval AR
CERP
GTA
DPAP COR HANDBOOK APR 10
CALL # APR 09
CALL # APR 08
CALL # JUL 09
CALL # SEP 09
FOO
GTA
GO OCS “Flashcard”
CALL # SEP 08
OCS Community of Practice (AKO): 18

19. Acquisition
Overview

20. The Power of the Acquisition CorpsCM 3% FI 2% AG MI AD 5% FA
11% IN
12% SF 1% AV
13% EN SC 9% MP 4% AR 6% LG
17%
“The Army Acquisition Corps will enhance and sustain the acquisition skills of a select group of officers with a solid foundation of operational experience…” GEN Vuono, CSA 11 Jan 1990

21. NCO Education – Active Component
HIGHEST EDUCATION LEVEL ACHIEVED
SGM
MSG
SFC
SSG
SGT
TOTAL
Associate’s Degree 4 9 7 20
Bachelor’s Degree 25 34 13 81
Master’s Degree 5 3 15
Doctorate Degree
TOTAL Number of NCOs 50
127
164
360
TOTAL with Advanced Degrees 14 32 46 24
116
PERCENT with Advanced Degrees
93%
64%
36%
15% 0%
32%
As of 31 Jan 12
Source: CAPPMIS
Gender Demographics: 219 Males, 114 Females & 27 Unknown
We Need Your Help to Identify the Best and Brightest!

22. FA51 Army Acquisition Corps - Officers
Developing a Professional Acquisition Corps:
Legacy Officer Career Timeline
Strength of the Corps!
Acquisition career guidance
directed multi-functionality
Ranges from 6-12 Yrs CM 2% FI 1% AG MI AD 4% FA
11% IN
12% SF AV
13% EN 5% SC 9% MP 3% AR LG
19%
Basic Branch Accession Window Acquisition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Years of Service
Average accession at 10th YOS
Career Timeline Impact
Acquisition career guidance emphasizes technical proficiency prior to broadening
Reduced to 4-9 Yrs
Basic Branch Accession Window Acquisition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Years of Service
Average accession at 7th YOS
Recent Officer VTIP metrics:
Reduced time in service from 10 to 6.9 years.
OERs: All reflect potential for promotion to O4.
Reduced transition from 2.2 yrs to 1.3 yrs after accession.
COL
LTC
MAJ
CPT
TOTAL
153
425
647
248
1742
Recent Broadening and “Re-Greening” Initiatives:
Robust ACS and TWI partnerships: New for Cisco, Coca-Cola, Google, Intel, and Microsoft!
Transitioned 3 UT-Austin SSC Fellowships to MIT, Georgetown, and Carnegie Mellon.
Piloting an Aerospace and Defense Executive MBA program with the University of Tennessee.
Strong SSC Fellows Mentorship Program.
Completely revised Chapter 42, DA PAM
AAC attendance at CGSoC, Fort Leavenworth commencing 2014.
Senior COCOM Staff Membership: J4 Operational Contract Support

23. Changing the Acquisition Paradigm “Driving Positive Change”
Requirements
Resources
Acquisition
Sustainment
Inherently Linked!!!!
New Paradigm
Acquisition Stakeholders can’t be stove-piped
Must Collaborate & Synch through lifecycle
Institute Rigor and Analysis in Process
Challenge & Shape Requirements
Trade Performance for Cost & Schedule
Emphasize Affordability
Improve Oversight of Contractors
Requirements
Resources
Acquisition
and
Sustainment
Collaboration is Absolutely Necessary
Big “A” Acquisition Is: Requirements, S&T, Resources, Acquisition Strategy, Sustainment, & Demilitarization

24. Better Buying Power 2.0 https://dap.dau.mil/leadership/Pages/bbp.aspx
Achieve Affordable Programs
Mandate affordability as a requirement
Institute a system of investment planning to derive affordability caps
Enforce affordability caps
Control Costs Throughout the Product Lifecycle
Implement “should cost” based management
Eliminate redundancy within warfighter portfolios
Institute a system to measure the cost performance of programs and institutions and to assess the effectiveness of acquisition policies
Build stronger partnerships with the requirements community to
control costs
Increase the incorporation of defense exportability features in initial designs
Incentivize Productivity & Innovation in Industry and Government
Align profitability more tightly with Department goals
Employ appropriate contract types
Increase use of Fixed Price Incentive contracts in Low Rate Initial Production
Better define value in “best value” competitions
When LPTA is used, define Technically Acceptable to ensure needed quality
Institute a superior supplier incentive program
Increase effective use of Performance-Based Logistics
Reduce backlog of DCAA Audits without compromising effectiveness
Expand programs to leverage industry’s IR&D
Eliminate Unproductive Processes and Bureaucracy
Reduce frequency of OSD level reviews
Re-emphasize AE, PEO and PM responsibility and accountability
Eliminate requirements imposed on industry where costs outweigh benefits
Reduce cycle times while ensuring sound investment decisions
Promote Effective Competition
Emphasize competition strategies and creating and maintaining competitive environments
Enforce open system architectures and effectively manage technical data rights
Increase small business roles and opportunities
Use the Technology Development phase for true risk reduction
Improve Tradecraft in Acquisition of Services
Assign senior managers for acquisition of services
Adopt uniform services market segmentation
Improve requirements definition/prevent requirements creep
Increase use of market research
Increase small business participation
Strengthen contract management outside the normal acquisition chain – installations, etc.
Expand use of requirements review boards and tripwires
Improve the Professionalism of the Total Acquisition Workforce
Establish higher standards for key leadership positions
Establish stronger professional qualification requirements for all acquisition specialties
Increase the recognition of excellence in acquisition management
Continue to increase the cost consciousness of the acquisition workforce – change the culture

25. Acquisition Increasing Complexity

26. A “Transforming” Challenge to the Army
Thinking Outside of the Box

27. Ground Combat Vehicle Requirements / Specifications Approach
First Request for Proposals
Second Request for Proposals
Cost: $9M-$10.5 M
900+ specifications in first Request for Proposals
Meet/exceed threshold for all specifications
No prioritization of requirements
Fully compliant system has high unit cost estimate
Cost: $18M
136
TIER 1
Tier 1 – Big 4 Must Haves: Force Protection, Capacity, Full Spectrum, Timing and Selected Safety, Statutory, and Regulatory Requirements
589
TIER 2
Tier 2 – Offeror may propose less than threshold requirement but may not defer the full requirement
Band A: Mobility and Lethality specifications
Band B: (Vehicle) Survivability specifications
Band C: All other specifications
Band D: Will be provided as Government Furnished Equipment
Prioritization Scheme 20
TIER 3
Tier 3 – Offeror may defer full requirement to a future increment

28. Joint Light Tactical Vehicle $240K
PAYLOAD TON MILES PER GALLON
Technical Features
HP Diesel Engine (6 Cyl or 8 Cyl)
6-Speed Automatic Transmission
Independent Four-Corner Suspension (passive or semi-active)
Adjustable Height Suspension
Air-activated Hydraulic Anti-lock Disc Brake System with controlled trailer braking and Traction Control
Starter & Alternator powertrain (15 kW On-Board Power Generation)
Silent Watch battery (2 hours of silent watch)
Curb Weight: lbs
GVW: 20,000 lbs
GVWR: 21,500 lbs
Safety Features
18”-24” ground clearance
Electronic Stability Control
Automatic Fire Extinguishing System [AFES] (engine & crew compartments)
Combat-locking Doors
Central Tire Inflation System (CTIS)
Multiple occupant egress paths
Exterior provisions to accept EFP and RPG kits
Interior Features
3,500 lbs Payload Capacity with 40 cu ft rear stowage space for mission payload
Accommodates 5th-95th percentile combat-equipped occupants
Extreme climate condition HVAC controls
Noise-reducing crew compartment
Spall protection
Wired for Easy/integrated C4I Installs
Exterior Features
Tubeless radial tires (365 mm – 395 mm width, with 20”-22.5” rims)
30-40 gal fuel tank
Pintle for towing JLTV trailer or legacy trailers (HMMWV / FMTV)
External NATO Slave Cable Receptacles
LED Headlights
Exterior lighting package (including Blackout Mode)
Fording to 30” to 10
6 MPG 13
7 MPG
Over
OMS/MP
Base Vehicle Cost:
$240K (AUMC)
Armor
$21K (Fleet Avg)
Base + Armor
$261K
Other Procurement Cost:
$81K
PROTECTION
Integral Small Arms Ballistic protection
Integral Transparent Armor (small arms ballistic protection)
Scalable B Kit: 1x UB; 2x UW; Artillery Overhead
Roof Crush protection to 100% GVW
We have discussed our ability to accept risk, smaller, more maintainable fleets and a declining budget. The JLTV is one of the Army’s major new acquisition efforts and cost is paramount. The senior leadership of both the Army and USMC met and capped the cost. They took into account the price and quantities of the vehicle buy Vis a Vis everything else their respective services were buying.. .hence our sticker price of $240K. Please note the fine print…it’s an AMUC or manufacturing price.
100 %
Assembled in
The USA
Added Capability Options:
Efficient Blast Dissipation - $35K
ISG (20kw/30-40kw)-$10-17K
Suspension-$5K
Drivers Display-$17K
Cmd Display-$17K
Additional B-Kit: EFP, RPG
A-Cab
Small Arms
B-Kit
Army - 1X
USMC - .5X

29. Network Integration Evaluation (NIE)
What is the NIE?
… a series of semi-annual evaluations designed to integrate and mature the Army’s tactical network by placing a large number of emerging systems with Soldiers in operational scenarios.
What will NIE allow us to do?
… develop a single battlefield network able to push information to our Soldiers and link them to command posts, vehicles on-the-move and higher headquarters.
Talking points:
While this is a process improvement, it is also part of the overall modernization strategy to improve the network
It’s a new way of doing business –
a fundamental change in how we deliver capabilities to our Soldiers

30. NIE = Critical Path to Execution
Transforming to an Agile Acquisition Process From Candidate to Fielding
Selected for inclusion in NIE
Potential Solution Selected for evaluation
Candidate Evaluated in Lab at APG
INPUTS
TRADOC Gaps Analysis
Sources Sought
RFI
Technical Evaluation
Technical Maturity
OUTPUTS
Product procured for Specific Capability Set
Product selected for inclusion in Capability Package
Directed Buy(?)
Rapid Acquisition
Directed Procurement
Candidate System evaluated in NIE
DTLOMPF Evaluation
Capabilities and Limitation review
Capabilities for Soldiers
Contracting
Competition for additional sets
NIE = Critical Path to Execution

31. Army Acquisition – Myths and Truths
The Army always buys the cheapest solution without regard to quality.
The Army seeks to award contracts that provide the best value and meet the needs of the Warfighter while still examining cost, schedule, performance, risk and other factors.
Army Acquisition is “broke” and can’t acquire anything, why invest?
Army Acquisition successes:
MRAP and MRAP-ATV
Helicopter Improvements
9 Body Armor Improvements
UAVs (Grey Eagle, Shadow, Raven)
Precision Munitions
Stryker Double-V Hull
C-IED (CREW Devices)
3 New Sniper Rifles
New Camouflage Uniforms
M4 Improvements
Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)
Protected medium and heavy truck fleets (Up-Armored)
Joint Battlefield Capability-Platform (JBC-P)
Light-weight Crew-served Weapons
Joint Capability Release (JCR)
Combat Vehicle Improvements
Counter Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar (CRAM)
Acquisition Rigor delivers a Best Value Solution addressing the entire Lifecycle from Womb to Tomb

32. for Supporting our Acquisition Warriors
THANK YOU!
for Supporting our Acquisition Warriors

33. Seeking Innovation – An Example

34. Army Acquisition: Challenges and Opportunities
General Officer/Senior Executive Service Course
Army Force Management School
LTG Bill Phillips
Principal Military Deputy to the
Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)
and Director, Acquisition Career Management
4 December 2012