The Secretary’s goal of reducing unnecessary, duplicative or overly expensive contracts or contractors has merit. No one could reasonably argue that there isn’t bloat across the department, including in its contracts. Nor could one reasonably argue that some contracts have not outlived their usefulness or are simply not delivering the expected value. And the focus on “outcome or performance-based” procurements makes eminent sense, although, as has been the case for 30+ years, we too often fail to realize that doing so is not actually about contracting, but rather about significant engagement across the spectrum of acquisition functions.
None of that is new. Indeed, the Hegseth memos are in many ways a combination of strategies we have seen from DOGE and, ironically, witnessed more than a decade ago from the Obama Administration. Like the DOGE’s approach to contracts and contractors, Hegseth’s memos are sweeping in nature and rely on a number of assumptions, at least some of which lack context or data. Ironically, the directives for secretariat-level reviews and insourcing initiatives largely amount to expanded versions of policies implemented in the Obama DoD.
So, the rea ..
Support the originator by clicking the read the rest link below.
