Sign In
  • Question

    Acquisition reform and policy changes seem to be a never-ending story. As we know the acquisition system can be a powerful tool to ensure that systems and services provided to the Defense Department are at fair and reasonable prices and comply with cost, schedule and technical performance. The department spends approximately $700 billion per year for our nation’s defense. $400 billion of that is spent on contracts issued to entities and companies outside of the DoD. To make the acquisition system work, a constant dialogue between government and industry is needed to better understand the factors that drive industry business decisions. Government and industry agree that there is a major disconnect in the defense acquisition process between requirements, programs and budgets. The inability to correct these enduring problems has led to the judgment that there is a lack of accountability in the system in general and has reflected negatively on aerospace and defense contractors. What are the pros and cons of these changes? Do you agree or disagree with this way of doing business by the DoD? What is the general sediment from the defense contractors? How will the new policies affect the Government’s relationship with industry? Will the DoD’s profit policies provide adequate profit to defense contractors?


    Better Buying Power (BBP) is based on the principle that continuous improvement is the best approach to improving the performance of the defense acquisition enterprise.  The evolution from BBP 1.0 to BBP 2.0 was based on the premise that emphasis would shift as initiatives were put in place, experience was accumulated, data was collected and analyzed, and conditions changed.  BBP 3.0 continues that approach with a shift in emphasis toward achieving dominant capabilities through innovation and technical excellence. 

    Open full Question Details
Bot Image