7:12 pm, April 23, 2014

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 2

  • Good article
    We completely agree that declining budgets call for increased cooperation, accountability and centralization. The importance of reducing costs while continuing to support the warfighter is an absolute priority. Reducing duplication and promoting efficiency is key. An innovative way to approach this is to pay for outputs – measurable outcomes; rather than inputs – activities to get to a deliverable. This reduces the risk for the government, reduces costs – and improves results. Timothy Coffin, Vice President, iGATE Public Sector
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • SPAWAR - Accountability - Centralized authority does not equal centralized micro-management at the procurement level
    I have a few comments; SPAWAR is not a true acquisition Command in the full scale development sense. They are a Navy Working Capital funded agency. A small part of the organization is true R&D. They support operation and maintenance of systems that fall under the acquiring agencies, as far as planning programming budgeting and execution. 80% of the costs of major systems occur in the operations and maintenance of these systems, NWCF gives customers a "commercial like" vehicle to obtain this at a better price, in an efficient manner. Customers funding sent to SPAWAR to perform these functions is NOT under SPAWARs control, according to financial regulation 7000.14, DOD 5000, DOD Enterprise Architecture.. SPAWAR senior officials at SPAWAR HQ and above however, spend millions of dollars per year on centralized micro-management and governance of SPAWAR field activities procurement function, under the pretense of Information technology rules, laws, clinger Cohen act, etc.. It appears that they don't understand the laws they are "enforcing with greater stringency than required". If the laws and regulations don't apply then you can't enforce it with tighter micromanagement restrictions. Yet they do. They force reporting on all "IT assets" (in the supply definition) and not IT capital investments as defined by higher authority, laws, regulation. As a result of this micromanagement they missed the big picture. DOD reported this month that the NAVY did not report their major acquisition information systems (MAIS, as defined by higher authority). I guess that;s what happens when you mange IT widgets instead of IT systems that you actually have. If they didn't report them, they probably didn't manage them IAW the real acquisition cycle, missing important milestones to keep the system development in line. I hope they aren't going to be another navy ERP fiasco. According to GAO reports, the initial implementation had to be scrapped, NAVY lost $2B. Next go around they implemented pilots that aren't compatible to this day, there is no enterprise systems, see the FY 13 budget request, they want to build yet another system due to ERP issues, wouldn't it be better to fix what is deployed? A big organization with over 7000 people, who receive over $8 Billion per year in for their customers systems support, they operate manual systems, management by email, because leaders spend all of the money SPAWAR field activity makes on themselves and their management staff, what Brady mentions as the single authority for IT. Does the Navy really need a single authority to count IT widgets for customers funds do not fall under their control? What is the cost of this single authority? How many people are in this single authority? How many people do you need to NOT implement enterprise systems for your agencies? Why manage IT widgets in the name of efficiency and not find the major systems? In three years the SPAWAR HQ staff function has increased by 350%. Last years budget shows $35 Million in misc IT infrastructure costs, $40 Million for modernization and governance, and a tiny $13 Million back into their agency keeping computers running. The comment about managing enterprise license contracts that the Navy just implemented? This appears to by a cyclic organization, they take credit for the great ideas they were tasked to do by DOD in the 90s. They started an enterprise license contract in 2000 per higher level authority tasking, DOD has one, the ARMY has one and so on, why did we need another one? It is a big deal that they can now buy 15 different kinds of licenses? The Navy operated 500 systems according to the Navy. Is this contact going to achieve much "savings"? This whole picture is very bad. No one is looking out over the board game, I don't understand why they are doing this. None of us do. Leaders should step up and do the right thing. note: all of the information provided is public record.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }