Jump to content

Army General: Screw this procurement nightmare.


Guest Vern Edwards

Recommended Posts

On 3/24/2016 at 5:11 PM, Vern Edwards said:

policyguy:

So, now that you've vented, what do you think? As an acquisition professional, what would you say to the general? Would you defend the current system or would you say, "I'll fix the problem if you'll give me authority, a free hand, and the go-ahead"? If he gave you the authority, a free hand, and the go-ahead, what would you do?

 

I would advise the general to do two things.  First I would recommend he review the Report of the “Commission on Army Acquisition and Program Management in Expeditionary Operations”:  http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/contingency/reports/docs/gansler_commission_report_final_report_20071031.pdf. It appears that many of these issues highlighted in the report, although for expeditionary contract related acquisitions,seem to me they are still found regardless of what is being acquired.  I believe the general would benefit from reading this report and see what can be taken from this report and applied to this situation.

The second recommendation I would give is for him to hold accountable the Army acquisition officials that should be helping him, which if I'm not mistaken, is the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Procurement:

http://www.army.mil/article/95781/Deputy_Assistant_Secretary_for_Procurement__Mr__Harry_P__Hallock/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

As a contracting practitioner on the receiving end of the general's complaint, I would not advise him to read any commission reports or visit any links. That would be insulting and would invite a well-deserved rebuke, if not worse. He has a bachelors from Princeton and a masters from Columbia. Look at his bio. He can decide for himself what to read or get a list from his chief of staff. Instead, I would say, "I understand the task. I can fix what bothers you, or at least some of it. Tell me how much authority I have, and I'll make it better to that extent. If you give me complete authority, I'll take complete responsibility, and I won't break the law or embarrass you. Order me to report status directly to you, once a week, in 30 words or less. If I fail in the end, you won't have to fire me."

He would have to put up or shut up. It he put up, it would make me or break me. I would take it for granted that he would hold me responsible. How do you think he got four stars?

I was trained by the U.S. Army, 1964 - 1967. I won't whine or defend myself, or explain my performance through commission reports and websites.

I think I know what you'll say.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, Vern,

I think it is wise to omit this sentiment from your response to the general:

Quote

A .22 can stop a man if you hit him in the right place under the right circumstances. But that's the rub, isn't it. For most soldiers the handgun works like a pacifier.

:D

How does you response or procurement strategy differ if the general was referring to the primary weapon, rather than the back-up pistol?  Asking as a firearms-ignorant person, is it sufficient to purchase a good commercial weapon in this circumstance? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

apso:

I'm not sure that I understand your question. By "primary weapon," do you mean a rifle? Are you asking me if I would accept a commercial rifle, such as the infantry use? If so, the answer is no, if for no other reason than the fact that no commercial rifle is capable of automatic fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A think there is a good discussion deciding if the current primary infantry rifle is commercial or not. I don't think the weapon being select-fire (single, three round burst, or fully automatic) makes it non-commercial. Plenty of private citizens and non-governmental organizations (security companies, gun ranges - in Arizona and Las Vegas you can rent a full auto) own select-fire rifles and machine guns (fully automatic only). I wonder if the current FN USA or Colt Defense contracts for M4s are commercial, and if not why not. The military style gun market is large and many buyers want exactly what the SEALs or DELTA are using and will pay an unjustified amount of cash for it.

From a procurement perspective, I think the debate would be largely about mil-spec standards, but many buyers purchase mil-spec rifles and prefer them over the commercial standard. Some figure if it's good enough for the military it's good enough for them, many just want to play soldier on the weekend, while others can articulate why they have a technical preference.

Maybe I'm just interested because I like building rifles...

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/09/tim-harmsen/respect-the-mil-spec-but-keep-it-real/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quit the NRA once, in the 1990's, I think. The American Rifleman magazine published an article with full scale illustrations of the TWO parts that would turn a semi-automatic Colt AR-15 into a selectable full-automatic rifle (essentially an M-16). I think that the dimensions were also provided but it was a long time ago.  I believe that a gun smith could have used the drawings to fabricate the parts. The article said that it would be illegal to install the two parts but gave full description and instructions on how to perform the conversion!  So, don't be so sure that certain commercial versions of rifles are that different from the mil spec/military versions from the same manufacturer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...