战略与国际研究中心-Analysis-of-Defense-Products-Contract-Trends,-1990_65页_2mb

Summary of "Analysis of Defense Products Contract Trends, 1990-2014"

Core Content

This report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provides a comprehensive analysis of trends in U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) products contracting from 1990 to 2014. It examines historical competition rates, changes in the industrial base, the impact of sequestration, and other contract characteristics such as pricing mechanisms, contract vehicles, and contract size. The study aims to broaden the understanding of defense acquisitions beyond the focus on Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs), which have traditionally dominated the literature.

Main Authors and Contributors

• Project Directors:

  • Andrew Hunter: Director, Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group, Senior Fellow at CSIS
  • Gregory Sanders: Fellow, Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group, CSIS

• Authors:

  • Jesse Ellman: Research Associate, Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group
  • Jacob Bell: Research Intern, Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group

• Acknowledgments:
  Jacob Bell, Gabriel Coll, Samantha Cohen, Ryan Crotty, Guy Nzeribe, Madison Riley, and John Vick contributed to the research.

Key Product Categories

CSIS has categorized DoD products into 10 main areas:

• Aircraft
• Clothing & Subsistence
• Electronics & Communications
• Engines & Power Plants
• Fuels
• Ground Vehicles
• Launchers & Munitions
• Missiles & Space
• Ships
• "Other Products"

Historical Trends

• From the early 1990s, products and services have accounted for roughly equal shares of DoD contract obligations, each around 40%.
• MDAPs (Major Defense Acquisition Programs) have historically received more attention in the literature, despite representing less than half of all defense product contract obligations.
• The post-Cold War drawdown (1990s) significantly impacted the defense industrial base, but the effects are not clearly visible in the current drawdown and sequestration data due to time lags in acquisition processes.

Impact of Sequestration

• Sequestration, which began in 2013, has had a measurable effect on contract obligations, particularly in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and DLA.
• The study shows that the overall contract obligations have been affected, with varying impacts across different product categories.
• The impact of sequestration on MDAPs and non-MDAPs is analyzed, showing that while MDAPs are more visible, the broader trend is less clear due to the lack of detailed data on non-MDAPs.

Contract Characteristics

The report analyzes several contract characteristics:

• Contract Pricing Mechanism: Different pricing models are assessed for each product category.
• Contract Vehicle: The type of contract (e.g., sole-source, competitive) is examined for its effect on competition and cost.
• Contract Size: Trends in contract size are analyzed to understand the scale of procurement across different product areas.

Methodology and Data Sources

• CSIS integrated FY1990–1999 data using archival DD350 data, due to the lack of pre-2000 data in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS).
• FY2000–2014 data is sourced from FPDS.gov through USASpending.gov.
• Some limitations include:
  • Inconsistent coding schema and granularity between DD350 and FPDS.
  • Missing data in FY1990–1994, with FPDS data being about $20 billion less per year than DD350 data.
  • Inaccuracies in classification of contracts, especially in 1994 where Army contracts were misclassified.
  • Lack of Statutory Exemption to Fair Opportunity field in DD350 data, affecting analysis of competition levels.

Literature Review

The report reviews the existing literature on defense acquisitions, highlighting a gap in understanding non-MDAP programs. It notes that while MDAPs are the focus of most studies, non-MDAPs such as subsistence, fuels, and electronic systems are also critical to DoD operations and require attention for resource efficiency.

Notable Findings

• The Last Drawdown (post-Cold War) had a clear impact on the industrial base, but the current drawdown has not yet shown similar structural changes.
• The GAO report on MDAPs indicates that cost growth and schedule delays remain significant issues, even with recent reforms.
• "Better Buying Power 2.0" and "Better Buying Power 3.0" are initiatives aimed at improving acquisition efficiency and technological superiority.
• There is limited literature on Launchers & Munitions, but some studies suggest the need for strategic adjustments in the industrial base to meet future demands.
• Ships and Ground Vehicles face unique challenges due to their complexity and size, and require tailored acquisition strategies.

Conclusion

The report concludes that while MDAPs have been the focus of most defense acquisition literature, non-MDAPs are equally important and warrant more attention. It emphasizes the need for broadened analysis and data improvements to better understand the full spectrum of defense acquisitions and their industrial implications.

References

• GAO reports on MDAPs and specific programs such as F-22, F-35, and LCS.
• RAND Corporation reports on aircraft and ship acquisitions.
• Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports on various acquisition programs.
• CSIS and other think tank analyses on acquisition reform and industrial base trends.

About the Project Directors and Authors

• Andrew Hunter and Gregory Sanders are leading the project, with Jesse Ellman and Jacob Bell as the primary authors. The study is part of CSIS's ongoing efforts to analyze the defense industrial base and provide strategic insights to policymakers.

Figures

• The report includes various figures that illustrate:
  • Effective competition rates across product categories.
  • Share of contract obligations by vendor size.
  • Contract pricing mechanisms and vehicles.
  • Trends in contract size and industrial base changes.