A recent October 19, 2005 article, written by Frank Tiboni and published in FCW.com, entitled "DOD Acquisition Under Fire," reports that numerous leaders in the military have called for change and innovation to fix a growing problem. The problem to which they referred is the fact that "the government's acquisition structure is too slow to equip the warfighters in the war on terrorism." According to the article, Army Lt. Gen. John Curran, Director of the Futures Center at the Army Training and Doctrine Command, said at the Milcom 2005 Conference, "We are all seeking an acquisition standard that gets a capability to the warfighter as soon as possible." Commanding General of the Army Research Development Engineering Command, Army Maj. Gen. Roger Nadeau agreed, "Traditional acquisition isn't working."

Another FCW.com article written by Florence Olsen and published October 17, 2005 reports that "the Defense Acquisition University is preparing to offer new courses and training opportunities for civilian and military acquisition officials, an effort that now costs the Defense Department between $15 million to $25 million a year." According to article's author, DOD plans to schedule a meeting soon to "brief companies on its interest in courseware and learning management system configuration services."

Eileen's Thoughts on the Situation:

DOD is not happy with its own red tape. It takes too long to develop mission critical products and services for the service men and women in the field. We, as contractors, need to help them cut through the red tape by offering our products and services through GSA. In the alternative, if we offer products or services related to guns and ammo, we must be working through the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). There are no alternatives at this point other than to develop an IDIQ contracting situation which allows them to invite organizations to compete for the IDIQ and, if won, we get to compete against the two other IDIQ contract "winners" for individual task orders.

If we are small businesses with other "best values" (such as we are a women-owned, veteran-owned, 8(a)Disadvantaged-owned, Disabled Veteran-Owned, or a HUBZone small business), it makes it a little easier for the contracting officers to label the contract as a "best value" determination rather than a lowest bid contract. Also, if you are any of the small businesses described above, we might be able to work through the primes who already have contracts with the military and work with their Small Business Liaison or Diversity Manager (both of whom are responsible for the prime's small business subcontracting plan and goals).

No matter what, we can assist the military by paying attention to the news and listening to their pains. Consider visiting with potential end users and buyers on base to see if you can assist them by solving their time and delivery challenges in the field. Maybe you can show them how they can use your GSA contract and your "best values" to solve their problems quickly and to cut through the red tape.

This is not rocket science (although some of you may be offering rocket science to the military). My suggestions are based on uncovering the military's needs and coming up with a solution. The contracting vehicle doesn't have to be that difficult if you already have a GSA or DLA schedule. Some of the military operations also have their own Multiple Award Schedule (such as the Navy's SeaportE schedule). Whatever the vehicle, you simply need to let the military know that you can assist them with solving their logistical and development issues while making it easier for the contracting officers to contract directly with you.