BUDGET
Comments (3)
My experience on OTAs has been very negative. They are growing only because an industry has been created that profits from managing them not because of any benefit they have provided. They take longer that regular contracting, the terms are not favorable to industry and they reduce the funding available to perform the real work that needs to be done.
Doug Freitag at 1:30 PMOTAs are, as the article states, specifically "to leverage commercial technology for research and prototyping" - think web services or recreational parachutes - to bring those technologies to the military end-user. The fundamental flaw in the current use of OTAs is that the military views them as short-cuts around traditional acquisition programs and a way of stretching their dollars by imposing a 1/3 cost-share on traditional defense contractors, or both. Rather than rapidly bringing technologies that were developed for the commercial customer to the military customer, the military is trying to drive rapid innovation of military-specific technologies using these authorities. This is an abuse of the authority provided by Congress. It also risks spending a significant amount of limited development and acquisition funds on projects that will either not meet the military's unique requirements or that will not be sustainable. Many of the artifacts of a traditional acquisition program are ignored (e.g. training, logistics, sustainment) in the desire to "go fast".
Justin Wymore at 11:26 AM
Good report, but somewhat confusing. OTA's are not contracts, but rather agreements. The article seems to confuse the terms by switching titles back and forth
Craig Lebo at 10:46 AM