Business Services Industry

Planning and budgeting DoD's weapons systems

Defense AT&L, Sept-Oct, 2009 by Nancy Spruill

How does DoD create a system to track its total net worth of equipment? What is the real cost of a heavily used F/A-18 versus a sparingly used one? How does DoD standardize acquisition data across the enterprise and ensure that information is shared with those who need it? These are just a few of the types of questions Dr. Nancy Spruill is answering in her position as director of acquisition resources and analysis in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (OUSD[AT&L]). In June, she took the time to discuss several acquisition improvement initiatives with Defense AT&L: the recent changes implemented for the business, cost estimating, and financial management career field; developing better cost-growth tracking methodologies; and other topics.

Can you give an overview of your responsibilities as director of acquisition resources and analysis in the OUSD(AT&L)?

As director for acquisition resources and analysis, I report directly to the under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, Dr. Ashton B. Carter. I've held this position since February 2000.

The three most important jobs I do for the USD(AT&L) are: one, I am the executive secretary for the Defense Acquisition Board; two, I manage all aspects of the under secretary's interaction in the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBE) system; and three, I manage many of the important aspects of the OUSD(AT&L)'s interaction with Congress--such as rollout of the president's budget--in the investment areas, including funding of the major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs), funding for spending in science and technology, funding for logistics support, and funding for installations support and construction.

You manage the acquisition workforce's participation in the PPBE system. Can you discuss how you are working across the acquisition workforce to ensure all operations are aligned with the PPBE system?

I see effective interaction between the PPBE system and the defense acquisition management process as essential. Unfortunately, the PPBE system is a calendar-driven process, while the defense acquisition management process is focused on events, phases, and milestones. This disconnect creates significant challenges. Nevertheless, I constantly strive to ensure the acquisition workforce is meeting the PPBE system requirements without impeding the advancement of our acquisition programs. Often, this requires significant hands-on effort and a willingness by all parties to give a little for the betterment of the Department of Defense. I try very hard to make sure the PPBE system supports the acquisition process by fully funding MDAPs and the associated operating and support needs. Programs can't be executed effectively unless the program manager gets the resources he or she needs to do the job.

Can you talk about the recent changes in the business, cost estimating, and financial management (BCEFM) career field and what spurred the need to restructure?

The new business career field has two distinct tracks to recognize differences that have existed since the beginning of the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 1990. Cost estimating and financial management really do involve different but related disciplines. When we did a review of the training pipeline, we discovered that the cost estimating folks were getting training on only about half of the key things they needed to learn. It was very clear that a one-size-fits-all approach to training was not good enough--and we needed to change that. I also felt strongly that we needed to enhance the professionalism of the community and acknowledge that we need our people to have a lot more seasoning and experience to achieve the various levels of certification. That's why we increased the experience needed for certification with all three levels.

Another issue we were trying to tackle was the identification of key leadership positions for the lead cost estimator in major program offices. There's a statutory requirement to identify those positions, and we needed a way to cleanly identify them as cost estimating positions rather than using a more general BCEFM label.

Can you discuss the training changes that professionals in the newly created business career field can expect? What do those changes mean for people who are already certified?

Training for the financial management track within the career field should not see major changes. The implementation guidance I signed on April 1 doesn't impose an additional training requirement for people currently certified in the financial management part of the career field. [The guidance is available at <https://acc.dau.mil/GetAttachment.aspx?id=277653&pname=file&aid=42718&lang=en-US>.]

There is a training impact to those in the cost estimating part of the community. That was purposeful and intended to address shortcomings to current training and the need to provide more cost-focused training to professionals in the cost estimating discipline. We need people who know more about what they're doing and to have considerable specialized experience in this domain. The implementation guidance gives people a couple of years to satisfy the new requirements, so I think we're giving them enough time to get caught up. Also, there is the fulfillment process that allows people to request, through their supervisory channels, equivalency for a course if they have sufficient justification for not taking the formal training from the Defense Acquisition University.