The United State Department of Defense deals with most military contracts.
Their aim is to deliver quality equipment and services to their armies, while ensuring that they remain good stewards of taxpayer's money.
In light of the attention being given to the Federal deficit and the fact that costs must be cut, procuring affordable and efficient defense programs has become more important.
Defense procurement has always cost the government a lot of money, with many programs running into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Sometimes these programs do not even generate the kinds of results that were expected, making them very expensive experiments that always have a chance of failing.
Now, with the economy being close to a second recession and with spending being reduced, it is time for the DoD to ensure that their programs are both viable and cost effective.
DoD procurement has to change, and change quickly.
They must ensure that all their defense programs can produce results quickly and efficiently.
It is not efficient to have a missile defense program that costs $2 billion dollars but may produce results fifteen or twenty years in the future, and is just as likely to fail.
The DPAP, the branch of the DoD that is responsible for contacting and procurement policies, aims to achieve acquisition excellence through good leadership and integrity.
This can only be achieved if the right contracts are selected, based on what positives they will bring to the military, as opposed to selecting the most expensive programs.
A lot of time, DoD procurement focuses on big money projects that steal the limelight and show the might of the United States military.
That is all well and good, but with the country needing to balance budgets, the right policy would be to only have DoD contracts that are necessary, legitimate, and will bring immediate benefit to the military.
Signing another weapons contract when the army already has plenty of weapons and missiles is a mistake.
It may be more important to focus on other areas where the military is lacking.
A major source of concern for the United States is the amount of money that was paid to contractors and sub contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Close to $20 billion of defense procurement contract money has been paid out over the years, and very little returns have been seen.
While it is easier to pay sub contractors who will do the job locally, these instances should prove to the government that it might be better to give these contracts to United States companies that can be trusted to do a good job, or at least not take the government's money if they know the job cannot be done.
The U.
S.
military is a steward of their taxpayers' money, as their mission statement suggests, and they must use this money with care.
Their aim is to deliver quality equipment and services to their armies, while ensuring that they remain good stewards of taxpayer's money.
In light of the attention being given to the Federal deficit and the fact that costs must be cut, procuring affordable and efficient defense programs has become more important.
Defense procurement has always cost the government a lot of money, with many programs running into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Sometimes these programs do not even generate the kinds of results that were expected, making them very expensive experiments that always have a chance of failing.
Now, with the economy being close to a second recession and with spending being reduced, it is time for the DoD to ensure that their programs are both viable and cost effective.
DoD procurement has to change, and change quickly.
They must ensure that all their defense programs can produce results quickly and efficiently.
It is not efficient to have a missile defense program that costs $2 billion dollars but may produce results fifteen or twenty years in the future, and is just as likely to fail.
The DPAP, the branch of the DoD that is responsible for contacting and procurement policies, aims to achieve acquisition excellence through good leadership and integrity.
This can only be achieved if the right contracts are selected, based on what positives they will bring to the military, as opposed to selecting the most expensive programs.
A lot of time, DoD procurement focuses on big money projects that steal the limelight and show the might of the United States military.
That is all well and good, but with the country needing to balance budgets, the right policy would be to only have DoD contracts that are necessary, legitimate, and will bring immediate benefit to the military.
Signing another weapons contract when the army already has plenty of weapons and missiles is a mistake.
It may be more important to focus on other areas where the military is lacking.
A major source of concern for the United States is the amount of money that was paid to contractors and sub contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Close to $20 billion of defense procurement contract money has been paid out over the years, and very little returns have been seen.
While it is easier to pay sub contractors who will do the job locally, these instances should prove to the government that it might be better to give these contracts to United States companies that can be trusted to do a good job, or at least not take the government's money if they know the job cannot be done.
The U.
S.
military is a steward of their taxpayers' money, as their mission statement suggests, and they must use this money with care.
SHARE
