A House Oversight subcommittee examined military contracting waste after a GAO report warned that major weapons systems are moving too slowly, costing too much and may deliver less capability than planned.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A federal watchdog warned Tuesday that the Department of War’s weapons procurement system is exposing taxpayers to billions of dollars in waste while leaving some major military programs at risk of becoming outdated before they are ever fielded.
The findings were released as the House Oversight Committee’s Delivering on Government Efficiency Subcommittee held a roundtable titled “Getting Taxpayers a Better Bang for Their Buck from Military Contracts.” As the hearing began, the Government Accountability Office published a report outlining recommendations intended to “curb waste and save billions.”
WATCH:
The GAO said the Department of War plans to spend more than $2.4 trillion developing and acquiring its most expensive weapons systems, but warned that delays, cost growth and slow delivery schedules are putting those investments at risk.
gao-26-109135 by yourNEWS Media
“DOD plans to invest over $2.4 trillion to develop and acquire its costliest weapon systems,” the GAO report states. “However, because the department remains alarmingly slow in delivering capabilities, these investments are at high risk of becoming obsolete before they even reach the field.”
Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., who chairs the subcommittee, said during the roundtable that the procurement problems could directly affect U.S. troops by leaving them with systems that arrive late, cost more than expected and fail to deliver promised battlefield capability.
“By the time these weapons are in the hands of our warfighters, many will be at least partially obsolete,” Burchett said during his opening statement. “Most will cost much more than planned and will deliver less warfighting capabilities than anticipated.”
The Pentagon and the Department of War Office of Inspector General did not respond to requests for comment.
The report identified one of the most damaging patterns in military procurement as a system that encourages programs to “start fast” but “fail slow.” Under that model, large development contracts are awarded quickly, money is obligated rapidly and programs can remain active for years even as costs rise, schedules slip and newer technology overtakes the original design.
“The current process incentivizes ‘starting fast’—awarding massive development contracts quickly, often in the name of preserving the industrial base, and obligating funds rapidly to ensure the budget is not ‘lost’ to another program,” the GAO said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Success is all too often measured by activity (money spent), not by outcomes (capability delivered).”
Julia Gledhill, a research analyst for the National Security Reform Program at the Stimson Center, told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the procurement system has also produced examples of price gouging.
“I mean, we’ve had some egregious examples of price gouging over the last several years,” Gledhill said.
Gledhill said unrealistic acquisition plans have created problems for both the armed forces and the defense industry.
“Overly ambitious acquisition plans set both the military and the arms industry up for failure,” Gledhill said. “The military services develop acquisition plans with little regard for fiscal, industrial and workforce limitations. Military contractors then receive awards for programs they cannot deliver within budget or on schedule, in some cases, for decades.”
The GAO report said delayed and overextended programs can also affect current systems that remain in use while replacements or upgrades fall behind schedule.
Shelby Oakley, GAO’s director of contracting and national security acquisitions, pointed to the B-52 bomber program as an example of how supply chain problems, parts shortages and manufacturing constraints can reduce aircraft availability.
“Project supply chains remain one of the most significant drivers of cost increases in schedule overruns,” Oakley said during the hearing. “In the B-52 program, diminishing manufacturing sources and spare parts shortages reduced aircraft availability and forced cannibalization [the removal of parts from existing aircraft].”
The roundtable also touched on the proposed 2027 National Defense Authorization Act, which includes nearly $2 billion for Iraq, Syria’s formerly al-Qaida-linked regime and NATO, including $670 million for Israel and Israeli companies.
The authorization has not yet cleared Congress in its current form and still faces legislative hurdles.
Burchett told the Daily Caller News Foundation that some Israelis had spoken with lawmakers about reducing or eliminating the funding.
“Israel has asked to, actually, some Israelis have actually talked to us about diminishing that or doing away with that,” Burchett said. “I would support that if that is something they would be interested in.”
Rep. Melanie Stansbury, D-N.M., also criticized the current NDAA proposal, saying she believed it contained excessive spending.
“I think that the NDAA is bloated with the largest amount of spending we’ve ever seen in the history of the United States, and is paying for things that the public does not agree with,” Stansbury told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “And so, I am not in support of the current NDAA as it is currently configured.”
The GAO’s findings add to ongoing congressional scrutiny of military contracting practices, with lawmakers from both parties questioning whether the current procurement process delivers modern capabilities quickly enough and at an acceptable cost to taxpayers.
Original article
Comments