The off-the-shelf strategy to procure the Marines’ first increment of Amphibious Combat Vehicles (ACV) will save money compared to previous acquisition strategies, but the service will require at least a few modifications that could increase the time and cost of the program, the Pentagon’s acquisition chief told the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday.
Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, said at an acquisition reform hearing that the Marine Corps is on the right path to an affordable Assault Amphibious Vehicle replacement by choosing between four existing vehicles. But HASC ranking member Adam Smith (D-Wash.) asked about the potential for the program to veer off course, and Kendall acknowledged the risk.
“In a better universe…the Marine Corps could go out there and say, okay, we’ve tested them, I want that one. And we’re done, they buy however much of them they buy and we move forward,” Smith said. “That’s not going to happen because you’ve got to send out a [request for proposals], and inevitably in that RFP they’re going, we like that one but what if we put this on it?”
Kendall said the Marines have to go through the proper source selection process, but it would be quickened because all four competitors have mature designs and can deliver prototypes relatively soon, though they will need some modifications specific to the United States Marine Corps customer.
“For one thing, we’re going to have to put our own communications suites on these vehicles,” Kendall said. “That’s a necessity, we have to do that. Then there are questions about the armaments and so on, perhaps other modifications. I share your concerns though about going in the wrong direction of using requirements to stretch out and increase costs for very small margins.”
Later in the hearing, Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.) asked about the Pentagon’s Better Buying Power initiative, including its emphasis on using off-the-shelf products when it is prudent to do so, and whether it would help ease the financial burden the Pentagon will face in the next decade as many major systems need replacing.
“We have an affordability issue as we enter the 2020s in general,” Kendall said. “The Ohio-replacement [ballistic missile submarine] is a big part of that. It’s not the only piece of it. The strategic deterrent across the board–the bomber, the [intercontinental ballistic missile] and SSBN–are all going to be replaced in about the same timeframe …What we’ve been trying to do under Better Buying Power is discipline our programmers and service leadership really to look long-term at the lifecycle of their products they’re trying to buy to avoid starting things we can’t afford in the future. We’ve had reasonable success with that, but that doesn’t get us out of the problem of all those things we need to buy in the 2020-ish timeframe. I don’t know how we’re going to solve that problem.”