The Department of Defense (DOD) currently relies on goods and services obtained from the private sector (GAO, 2005). The goods and services that are being contracted by the department of defense have doubled since the year 2000. Moreover, the current volume is still expected to rise. The total amount that was spent by DOD was close to USD$300 billion before the beginning of 2006. This is definitely a significant amount of finances being handled. Therefore, it demands a transparent and efficient mode of handling all the monetary transactions (GAO, 2005). This implies that a system has to be put in place. Such a system will ensure that all the purchases made by DOD are secured from reliable sources and in the most effective manner. The national defense Act that was enacted in 2006 requires all the DOD’s transactions to be reviewed with the aim of identifying any form of fraud, abuse, and wastage in the contracts. This Act was also keen in analyzing the efforts that DOD has put in place to addresses vulnerability of its contracts (GAO, 2005).
The vulnerabilities in the DOD are found in five key areas namely acquisition personnel, senior management, pricing department, contracting techniques and approaches as well as in quality control department (Defense Science Board, 2005). These concerns compelled GAO to point out contract management as one of the high risk areas. Recent evaluations of the DOD identified several weaknesses in these five areas. The most pronounced weakness was the top level management. They lacked commitment in ensuring that contracting practices were conducted in the right manner. The main concern of DOD is the need to enhance the speed of contracting and also adopting viable contracting techniques (Defense Science Board, 2005). Contract pricing is also vulnerable due to increased demand by DOD. Moreover, there are other practices that have lacked adequate scrutiny and therefore, affect the quality of the products and services that are acquired. In each case where vulnerability affects contract acquisition, DOD risks overspending on the process of contracting goods and services (Defense Science Board, 2005).
Several measures have been initiated by the DOD to counter rising cases of vulnerability. In 2004, the DOD instigated a Defense Science Board (DSB) review to counter favoritism in contract issuance. In 2005, the DSB declared that all it would be scrutinizing all the contracting procedures. The DSB also came up with twenty other recommendations that addressed its concerns (Department of Defense, 2006). The office of secretary of defense has also put up more emphasis in ensuring that ethical practices are observed by the DOD (United States Government Accountability Office, 2006). This office revitalized ethics training for the defense personnel. In 2004, the Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L) department of the defense requested all the military departments to re-assess their contract acquisition procedures (Department of Defense, 2006). At the end of the re-assessment, AT&L made six recommendations that were targeting contract acquisition. It aimed at boosting the integrity of the DOD contracting procedures (Department of Defense, 2006).
The DOD and the military services have put up measures in place in order to minimize wastage, fraud, and abuses in contracting procedures. The military has established the Procurement Fraud Working Group (a DOD unit) that is targeting grassroots analysis of the contracting procedures so that contracting frauds are eliminated (GAO, 2006). This unit has developed an online community access system to enhance quick access to information by the DOD and the general public. The DOD has come up with quite a number of policies that target improving the oversight procedures on its departments. The military has also set up new offices for auditors and investigators so that they can address vulnerabilities. The military equally initiated training programs aimed at creating awareness (GAO, 2006). However, it is still quite early to conclude whether these initiatives will be successful in eliminating the vulnerabilities in contracting procedures.
References
Defense Science Board. (2005). Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Management Oversight in Acquisition Organizations, Washington DC: Sage.
Department of Defense (2006). Office of the Inspector General, Audit Report: Report on the DoD Acquisition Workforce Count, Report Number D-2006-073. Arlington, Virginia: DOD.
GAO (2005). High-Risk Series: An Update. Washington, DC: GAO.
GAO (2006). Defense Acquisitions: Business Case and Business Arrangements Key for Future Comb at System’s Success. Washing ton, DC: GAO-06-478T.
United States Government Accountability Office. (2006). Contract management: DOD Vulnerabilities to Contracting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse. Washington, DC: GAO.