DoD USD "all hands": Under Secretary Aldridge asks, "what's on your mind?" - AT&L

Program Manager, Sept-Oct, 2002

Editor's Note: In the first DoD AT&L "All Hands" held in many years, Under: Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge Jr., invited all members of the DoD AT&L workforce to the Pentagon on July 1 for a "State of: the Union"-type presentation followed: by Q&A.

In a year filled with terror and uncertainty that forced the acquisition work-force--and the nation--to rethink defense policies, strategies, programs, and weapons needed to support global: threats, Aldridge set aside time to simply say "Thank you." He reminded the: workforce of just how much they had accomplished since 9/11, tying his remarks to the five goals he first put forth for the DoD acquisition workforce in: May 2001.

Good afternoon. Today is July 1, about one year and a month or so since I arrived in the building. What a roller coaster, from trying to get the fiscal year 2002 budget amendment over to the Hill; then, of course, about four months after I got here we were at war. As a result, we had to do the 2002 emergency supplemental. That was while we were simultaneously doing the fiscal year 2003 budget and defending what was in the fiscal year 2002 budget. And just a few months ago, we started the fiscal year 2004 budget. It's just been a continuous cycle of things that are ongoing.

We've only been here just over a year, and I marvel at all the things we have done--which is a pretty impressive list when you start writing them all down-- the process of the QDR [Quadrennial Defense Review], all the hours and hours of meetings we had with the Secretary and the Service Secretaries, the Chiefs, and members of the OSD staff. Every once in a while the CINCs [Commanders in Chief] were brought in. The end result was changing the whole approach to defense planning, from threat-based strategies to capabilities-based strategies.

The idea of the 4-2-1 scenario means basically you defend four regions of the world. You may have to fight in two of them, and you may have to win decisively, and that means "going to the capital" in one of those. The President is to decide which one of those he wants to proceed with. When you think about the whole new capabilities-based strategy, and the fact that the President restructured the missile and defense program (now without the ABM Treaty), this is a completely different direction.

We started a whole series of acquisition initiatives that you all remember. We have actually started off with making some major decisions on some programs. We started with some of the bigger programs. In fact, we instituted the largest acquisition program in the history of the Department of Defense. We started a BRAC [Base Realignment and Closure], which is going to restructure the infrastructure for the Department. Anyway, when you start going through all those things we've done, it's been a fairly impressive list of things.

I think we all could, no should look back upon this activity with a certain amount of pride. We have done all these things, while at the same time having to wage a war on terrorism and having to do the budget cycle. I look back at the first time I met with you in May of 2001, where I put together the five goals that I thought we ought to accomplish. I look back at those five goals and I know for a certainty we have made significant progress on all of them.

Credibility of the Acquisition Process

The first goal, improve the effectiveness and the credibility of the acquisition process. I was very impressed the other day when Congressman Jerry Lewis, who's a Chairman of the HAC [House Appropriations Committee], in a hearing (and in a personal discussion I had with him) expressed that he likes what we re doing. He is a very strong critic of the activities of the Department of Defense when he sees things that deserve criticism.

When you see him noticing that we're doing things right, our credibility is starting to build--and that's a good sign. He likes that we talk frequently about properly pricing programs. He likes it when I tell him that a program is not executable, but we're going to fix it. I think the idea of bringing some stability to the programs--which we are now doing in our acquisition and logistics process--is something that I think we're slowly building on, and in the process, improving our effectiveness and credibility.

I think there's really two key parts to this issue of program stability. One part is the spiral development--the evolutionary spiral development. We have a definition of that now, which is not easy to explain. We are now properly pricing programs, so that when we put together a program for ourselves and the ensuing Congressional review, it's a program I believe we are capable of delivering on a schedule that's real, with a risk that's real, and a cost that's real. When we start off with a fundamentally sound program, we're better off over the long term. I believe we've done a lot in the acquisition and logistics excellence arena. In the area of legislation, we've been working to improve the Federal Acquisition Regulations. Mike Wynne [Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics)] has taken on the challenge of getting that real thick document down to about five pages. That is a challenge, but I think it's doable and we can make it work.