The future of U.S. Navy shipbuilding may depend on savings realized elsewhere in the sea service, according to a panel at West 2012 in San Diego. With shipbuilding constituting only about 10 percent of the Navy budget, other cost savings may be necessary for the Navy to build the ships it needs to meet new strategic realities.

Ronald O’Rourke, a specialist in naval affairs with the Congressional Research Service, urged the Navy to cut costs in other areas while applying smart procurement lessons to shipbuilding. Traditional lessons include having requirements up front, managing risk by not trying to do too much, accepting 70-80 percent solutions and providing stability for industry. New lessons to be applied include using modified designs instead of new ones, including commercial designs, and increasing commonality in parts and systems.

Mike Petters, president and chief executive officer of Huntington Ingalls Industries, provided an industry perspective by noting that the more planners can get a shipbuilding program into a serial production run, the more likely the Navy can manage investments and risks as well as control the outcome. Requirements, funding and execution are all interrelated, he added.

Vice Adm. Richard W. Hunt, USN, commander, naval surface forces, U.S. Pacific Fleet, pointed out that the Navy must place active lifecycle management up front. This includes fuel, spares and weapons, among others. Adm. Hunt also warned against overdoing requirements.

“We can’t take a second position seat to any adversary out there, but we have to know what is enough,” he said. “We can’t go high level on every platform.”

The U.S. Defense Department will “do its part” to bring the U.S. fiscal house in order, said a member of the Joint Staff. Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, USN, director, the Joint Staff, said that the nation’s financial crisis is a “strategic vulnerability” for which the department must join the rest of the country in belt tightening.

“We need to do two things: spend less and bring in more revenue,” the admiral declared in the kickoff address at West 2012 in San Diego. He noted that after World War II ended, the huge national debt built up by that conflict was largely owned by the American people. Now, however, foreign nations own a substantial amount of existing debt.

Current defense planners are not just deconstructing the force to meet budget limits, he stated. Planners are focusing on building the future force as a part of this effort so that the military can continue to meet its responsibilities through the year 2020.

Looking at his own service, Adm. Gortney said that the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps “fare better than one might expect,” in the age of cuts. He emphasized that this is a function of the new strategic outlook, and he cited Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s recent statements that the Navy will keep its full complement of carrier groups.

However, if mandatory budget cuts kick in, the consequences for the entire department could be severe. “It’s going to be a very grim picture if that occurs—very grim,” the admiral said of the possibility of mandatory cuts. “I cannot predict what will happen after the elections. We will have to redo the strategy if that occurs,” he warned.

Ships and submarines being built by the U.S. Navy today will be in service 40 to 50 years from now, according to the commander of the U.S. Fleet Forces Command. Adm. John T. Harvey, USN, explained that the Navy cannot afford to re-procure its fleet, so it must ensure that its platforms last for several decades.

“The years of plenty are over,” Adm. Harvey said. “We can expect less resources in the future, more fiscal uncertainty.”

Speaking at Joint Warfighting Conference 2011 in Virginia Beach, the admiral warned that the sea service has been operating at too high a tempo to sustain forces that it cannot replace easily. Since 2006, Navy ships and submarines have been operating at a major combat operations demand. This is running up a price that must be paid, he declared.

“The piper will be paid in his time. We pay a severe penalty in delayed maintenance—it can cost up to 300 percent.” he added.

This month, Capt. Joseph A. Grace Jr., USN (Ret.) likens the state of government technology to that of an 8-track tape player in an iPod world, thanks to a bloated procurement process:

In the early 1970s, the music industry was transformed by the arrival of a practical solution to mobile music—the 8-track player. The world embraced this technology, which infected car stereos, home entertainment systems, portable players and lifestyles. While transformational, this technology soon was replaced by the cassette, followed by CDs and audio DVDs until Apple came out with the iPod—another game-changing technology. The market has created many forms of iPod docking stations for cars, clock radios, entertainment systems, airplane seats, pillows and every possible application. Uses include photos, FM radio, podcasts, videoconferencing and Wi-Fi. This technology is significantly smaller, faster, more comprehensive, more capable and inherently more user-friendly than its 8-track progenitor. The same lessons from this progression can be applied to command, control, communications, computers and intelligence (C4I) and government information technology.

Unfortunately, long budget and acquisition cycles, poor funding strategies and feed-the-beast mentality abound. Combine this with constantly changing leadership, burdensome safeguards, oversight, overhead, multiple audits, reviews and just overwhelming red tape, and it becomes almost impossible to deliver cutting-edge, agile technology development within government acquisition rules. Users exploit this technology every day in their outside lives but struggle to bring a similar capability into government—which still is stuck with the equivalent of 8-track technology.

Capt. Grace offers his own suggestions in this month’s Incoming column, “Time for Government to Dump Its 8-Tracks,” noting that while the 8-track player is “now DIACAP-certified, ruggedized, encrypted and able to be thrown out of the car window at 60 miles per hour unharmed,” it’s still obsolete. And the only way to correct that deficiency, he says, is to improve the acquisition process:

A good starting point would be to shorten the cycle for agile procurement; and remove overhead, processes, delay and the huge personnel costs supporting these processes. Shorter, less-costly sales cycles for the vendor community could reduce costs significantly. We need to stop funding older systems that in M.B.A.-speak represent a “sunk cost.” Good acquisition decisions take courage, intelligence and a full understanding of requirements, the technology at hand and underlying need.

So if that’s what *what* we need to do, how do we do it? What else is missing that holds government back, technology-wise?

If people want changes in the way the Defense Department procures and manages information technology (IT), then it may be time for them to put their money where their mouths are. The department is proposing sweeping reforms that will revolutionize every aspect of IT procurement and management. If successful, these reforms conceivably could address all of the IT acquisition complaints that have been echoing across the department.

All this effort needs is a buy-in from all of the players.

Elizabeth A. McGrath, Defense Department deputy chief management officer, and David Wennergren, Defense Department assistant deputy chief management officer, described to a luncheon audience how their office’s proposed new approach to IT procurement would be a “radical change” across the board. Calling it an IT consolidation road map, the two officials said the changed approach would place an emphasis on transparency both to improve performance management as well as build trust.

McGrath explained, “We are looking to break down the existing process for IT procurement to have more modular, faster delivery of these capabilities.” She added that currently, “we’re not hitting the capabilities in the first five years.”

These vast changes proposed by the office will require all participants to do their part, or the effort will fall short. “It’s a matter of choice,” McGrath declared. “If we decide we won’t, then we are detracting from the department’s goals.

“I’m not painting a picture of doom and gloom,” she continued. “The opportunities are sitting right there in front of us.”

Yesterday’s blog coverage was just too short to include the depth of advice the experts at the Small Business Intelligence Forum shared, so here are a few more ideas:

• Savvy SIGNAL Scape reader Ross Andrews, ARC Program Manager, Contractor – BVTI, beat this reporter to the punch on a very important item that should be on every small company’s list if it wants to do business with the intelligence community: register with the Acquisition Resource Center. See his full comment at http://bit.ly/bXmzFM.

• The road to doing business with the DIA can begin at the agency itself, where Sherry Baldwin, director of the agency’s Office of Small Business Programs, has a list of individuals to contact at large prime contracting firms. The office is located at Bolling Air Force Base, Virginia, and Baldwin can reached at Sea0132@dia.mil.

• Each government agency has a goal for working with small businesses that they must strive to meet. Many are close to meeting that goal, but many are not. Seek out those that need to work with more small businesses.

• Know the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes.

• The NSA doesn’t advertise its needs under its agency name, and it works with a very small community of companies, but once you’re in, you’re in. Network face-to-face on a regular basis with personnel from other companies and don’t be afraid to market your wares.

• Most members of the IC are interested in a few hot items that include fast and smart query analytics; real-time detection behaviors, security access capabilities; innovative antennas; and new battery technologies.

• Be aware of and attend Industry Days.

• “NGA is very committed to working with small business. You can take that to the bank.” —Sandra Broadnax, small business executive, NGA

• Don’t rely exclusively on the IC for keeping your business afloat. Diversify.

• Stay cautious and grow judiciously.

• Know yourself; know your customers; know the users.

• Seek out the individuals at IC agencies who are involved with acquisition and accounting so that they KNOW who YOU are.

• Listen to an agency’s vision, mission and challenges. Develop a white paper to solve those challenges. Once the agency agrees that your solution may have merit, go to the prime contractor working with the agency and tell it how you can solve the specific IC organization’s problem.

Do you have other suggestions about how to increase business with IC agencies? Don’t be shy…share them here!

It’s sometimes difficult to figure out what’s the bigger secret – intelligence or the acquisition processes of the organizations that gather it. CIA, NSA, DIA plus 13 more agencies are collectively known as the intelligence community (IC), but that’s where most of the similarity ends when it comes to these information hunters and gathers when it comes to purchasing goods, services or “carbon units.” One fact is absolutely true and as open source as is possible: small businesses have advocates in IC agencies that fight tooth and nail in their interest.

Some of these experts presented valuable secrets as well as common sense about how to capture the IC’s business at the AFCEA International Small Business Intelligence Forum. All of the big hitters representing either an IC agencies, a small business and even a large companies agreed that by following certain guidelines, working for work from one of the IC organizations isn’t any more difficult than business development with other government agencies or even other companies.

Their advice in a nutshell? Be prepared, work diligently, meet deadlines, be aware of IC business opportunities and be true to your word. Yes, this all may seem simple, but the IC’s experience with small and large companies alike has been that when just a minority of companies don’t follow these rules, it is even more difficult to promote the idea of turning to small companies for solutions when even just one program manager has a bad experience. Word spreads.

THE SPECIFICS
• This is a $75 billion market. Go after it.
• The ODNI has very little of its own money to spend. The bucks are in the individual agencies.
• How do you navigate the beast? Follow the money. Government agencies want to spend the funds they’ve been granted because if they don’t, next year’s allotment is likely to be less.
• Today, Congress is involved in intelligence funding decisions. Stay informed about what’s going on in the intelligence committees on The Hill.
• Each agency has its own sense of identity and makes purchases based on it. Find out about an agency’s mission, vision and culture.
• “Everyone’s problem is the same: They have a ton of information, but they can’t use it to make a better decision” because they need new ways to sift through it.
• Oversight on the part of the government agencies is a problem and they know it. Often large companies bring small businesses onboard to win a contract but never actually use their services or products. This is an issue that is under increased scrutiny.
• If a small business has the experience described above, report it to the agency’s Small Business Advocate. The company’s or individual’s name won’t be revealed, but the tip will be follow up on and could result in an instant change.
• Get to know the Small Business Advocate at agencies. For example, e-mail Pam Porter at the NSA at smallbusiness@nsa.gov.
• Do business with other companies that are already doing business with the IC.
• “Be ready. Don’t try to impress us; just make sure you can do the work.”—Sandra Broadnax, small business executive, NGA
Have you tried and tried some of these approaches and still not been able to crack the IC acquisition egg? Talk about it here, and look forward to Part 2 of this coverage on tomorrow’s SIGNAL Scape.

Accreditation and certification of software is a vital but time-consuming process. On Tuesday afternoon, panelists at the AFCEA SOLUTIONS symposium discussed the challenge and ongoing attempts to streamline the process.

Brig. Gen. Peter F. Hoene, USAF, DISA’s program executive officer for the Global Command and Control System-Joint (GCCS-J), stated that there was a need to speed accreditation and certification because the current procedure takes too much time. He noted that some units had even resorted to writing their own software, completely aware of the risks involved in using uncertified programs, because they needed the operational capability.

To meet these needs, he noted that the Defense Department is taking steps to do this. He noted that it typically takes 200 days to move a software package throughout the system. DISA has developed a set of spiral initiatives designed to cut the process in half. The general explained that this allowed the GCCS-J to move from one new software release per year to four per year.

Speaking from a small business perspective, Jason Pyeron, chief executive officer and chief information officer of PD, Inc. International, said that the current accreditation and certification process takes years to complete for major projects. Espousing a bottom-up approach, he advocated allowing scientists and engineers to develop the tools they need to do their work, but isolating them in computers with no network access. This separation allows work to continue, but protects networks until the software is properly vetted.

Gen. Hoene noted that DISA has developed a trusted network environment, which allows users to log and tag data. He added that information assurance requirements must be built into government contracts. This allows firms to build in their security and avoids surprises and delays in the process.

Emerging trends impacting information sharing was the subject of the morning panel at AFCEA’s Solutions symposium. Experts pondered the implications and challenges for sharing data between military and civilian organizations within the U.S. government.

Panelists discussed a range to related topics such as bandwidth issues and connectivity. It was noted that the military is ahead of the civilian government in operating in low bandwidth areas. In the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, civilian government first responders had considerable difficulty establishing communications, explained Pete O’Dell, founder of Swan Island Networks.

Sometimes technology creates new problems. The panelists discussed cognitive issues affecting networking and communications technologies. Edmon Begoli, a researcher at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory noted that software and systems designers must focus on the quality of information and the efficiency of information for users. He added that efficiency and security are vital, key values for users.

Effective policy implementation is another challenge faced by systems designers. Policy is important, explained Bill Marion, the ACC A-6 chief technology officer with Air Combat Command. But he added that while it is important, policies should be implemented lightly enough so as not to stifle innovation.

Bill Cryan, Chief of the Joint Forces Command’s Collaborative Information Environment Management Office, observed policy from the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s office is 3-5 years behind operational needs. He speculates that to truly implement rapid change, it would be necessary to allow the combatant commands the ability to rapidly put policies into place. This procedure would also weed out older and irrelevant policies. Cryan shares that there are roughly 10,000 Defense Department information sharing regulations and that many of then are inconsistent and at odds with each other.

The panelists concluded that institutional willpower, the ability to determine key priorities, is vital to implement information sharing efforts. Marion noted that although most organizations wanted to share information, it is important to create transparency in the federal space. But creating this transparency will require a market driven process that will lead government organizations to seek the right solutions without overly relying on policy implementation.

O’Dell said that information sharing, while very desirable, is hard. The challenge is sharing data securely in a multidimensional, changing environment. But this is a goal that must be met because the environment and the information sharing technology is constantly changing. He noted that in the near future, there will be billions of sensors that will be built into systems and installed in structures or spread across battlefields that will provide a huge flow of data that must be processed and analyzed.