Defense Acquisition Improvement Program

Defense Acquisition Improvement Program
Name	Defense Acquisition Improvement Program
Established	1980s
Jurisdiction	United States Department of Defense
Parent agency	United States Department of Defense
Headquarters	Arlington County, Virginia

Defense Acquisition Improvement Program

The Defense Acquisition Improvement Program was an initiative within the United States Department of Defense designed to reform procurement, contracting, and program management for major weapons systems. It sought to reconcile competing priorities among the Department of the Army, Department of the Navy, and Department of the Air Force while responding to directives from the United States Congress, executive guidance from the Executive Office of the President of the United States, and audit findings by the Government Accountability Office. The program built on lessons from high-profile acquisitions involving contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon Technologies.

Background

The program emerged amid a succession of acquisition crises in the late 20th century that involved programs like the F-22 Raptor and the Zumwalt-class destroyer, as well as procurement controversies tied to the Military-Industrial Complex debates and post-Vietnam reform efforts. Congressional oversight through committees such as the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee increased scrutiny after investigations by the Subcommittee on National Security, Emergent Threats and International Relations and reports from the DoD Inspector General. Influential policy documents from the Office of Management and Budget and the Packard Commission provided precedents for streamlining acquisition, emphasizing cost control, schedule discipline, and accountability.

Objectives and Scope

The program's principal objectives included improving acquisition cycle times for Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs), enhancing requirements definition across services, and aligning lifecycle cost estimates with strategic planning processes like the Future Years Defense Program. It aimed to integrate stakeholders such as the Defense Acquisition University, program executive offices within each service, and industry prime contractors including Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics. Scope covered research and development phases influenced by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency activities, through low-rate initial production and sustainment overseen by Defense Logistics Agency elements.

Key Reforms and Initiatives

Initiatives targeted the full acquisition lifecycle. Reforms introduced or reinforced best practices from systems engineering frameworks used in programs like Aegis Combat System and embedded affordability targets reminiscent of recommendations for the Joint Strike Fighter competition. The program promoted milestone-based decision points (Milestone A/B/C) consistent with Defense Acquisition University curricula, use of earned value management demonstrated in Hybrid Electric Vehicle contracts, and expanded use of fixed-price contracting where feasible, a technique used in several Navy shipbuilding procurements. Other measures included strengthening test and evaluation processes coordinated with the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation and improving competition through mechanisms informed by Federal Acquisition Regulation interpretations applied in major solicitations.

Implementation and Organizational Structure

Implementation relied on an interoperability of offices within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, service acquisition executives, and congressional liaison offices. The program created integrated program teams drawing personnel from program executive offices associated with platforms like the V-22 Osprey and command, control efforts such as the Global Information Grid. Training and workforce development were channeled through the Defense Acquisition University and career pathways aligned with defense acquisition workforce certification. Contracting policy changes were promulgated in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, and compliance monitoring incorporated reporting requirements to committees including the House Appropriations Committee.

Impact and Outcomes

The program produced measurable outcomes in certain areas: reduced schedule slippage for selected MDAPs, improved cost-estimating confidence in analyses of alternatives like those used for the Wideband Global SATCOM program, and strengthened program office competencies evident in case studies of systems such as Patriot (missile) upgrades. It fostered more rigorous requirements trade-off processes resembling reforms that later affected the Joint Strike Fighter program and encouraged broader adoption of lifecycle sustainment planning akin to practices at the Defense Logistics Agency. Some initiatives yielded improved contractor performance metrics and improved auditability for appropriations tracked by the Government Accountability Office.

Criticisms and Challenges

Critics argued the program sometimes failed to overcome entrenched incentives favoring requirements growth, schedule optimism, and political influence from congressional districts tied to prime contractors like Huntington Ingalls Industries. Oversight bodies such as the DoD Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office documented persistent problems with cost overruns in programs including some shipbuilding and aircraft efforts. Implementation challenges included cultural resistance within service acquisition corps, difficulties harmonizing acquisition reform with capability demands from combatant commands like United States Central Command, and legal constraints stemming from procurement statutes that limited rapid adoption of commercial practices. Observers noted that while procedural improvements were made, achieving sustained cultural change across organizations such as the Department of the Air Force and Department of the Navy remained uneven.

Category:United States Department of Defense