Acquisition Reform

Pentagon officials consider acquisition reform an imperative, and they view eliminating unnecessary reliance on military specifications and standards as critical to this effort. However, the Defense Department (DOD) has been trying to reduce its reliance on military specifications and standards for more than 20 years with only modest success. DOD has developed a new reform program, which the military services and DOD agencies were directed in June 1994 to implement. This report presents the results of GAO's self-initiated review of this key aspect of acquisition reform. GAO discusses whether the current program (1) goes further than earlier attempts to advance military specifications and standards reform and (2) gives adequate attention to key issues and concerns.

GAO noted that: (1) DOD's current milspec reform program builds on previous studies; (2) although many of the recommendations are essentially the same as those in earlier reports, the current program goes further than previous efforts because it includes more details for implementation; (3) while the implementation strategy is still being refined, officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense stated that the June 1994 implementation plan is the first step in a long-range, iterative process; (4) major buying commands and centers are to present plans by November 1994 that should provide further implementation details; (5) the current milspec reform effort focuses on changing the acquisition culture and contains several actions intended to accomplish this change, including: (a) ensuring long-term, top-management support; (b) providing training to the affected workforce; (c) securing adequate funding and personnel resources; and (d) establishing incentives for desired behavior; (6) these actions have been used successfully by some commercial companies to promote cultural change; (7) to achieve the major cultural change desired, DOD will need acceptance and support of the milspec reform program throughout the military acquisition community, including both DOD's and contractors' offices; (8) achieving this acceptance and support could become more difficult without: (a) improved data on the benefits of implementing the recommended actions; (b) better focus on areas with the greatest opportunities for benefits; and (c) adequate indicators, referred to by DOD as metrics, to measure progress toward intended goals; and (9) DOD officials have acknowledged difficulties in these areas and indicated that actions would be taken to address these shortcomings as program implementation continues.