WASHINGTON — A top federal watchdog revealed that it discovered massive waste in the Department of War’s procurement processes during a congressional hearing on Tuesday.
The House Oversight Committee’s Delivering on Government Efficiency Subcommittee held a roundtable titled “Getting Taxpayers a Better Bang for Their Buck from Military Contracts.” The Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report as the meeting commenced that aims to “curb waste and save billions.”
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) said that the bloat in the Department of War’s procurement is so bad that some systems may be obsolete before they ever enter service.
“DOD plans to invest over $2.4 trillion to develop and acquire its costliest weapon systems,” the GAO report states. “However, because the department remains alarmingly slow in delivering capabilities, these investments are at high risk of becoming obsolete before they even reach the field.”
Republican Tennessee Rep. Tim Burchett, the chair of the subcommittee, said that this procurement issue is so bad that it will affect the capabilities of U.S. troops.
“By the time these weapons are in the hands of our warfighters, many will be at least partially obsolete,” Burchett said during the opening statement of the roundtable. “Most will cost much more than planned and will deliver less warfighting capabilities than anticipated.”
The Pentagon and the Department of War Office of Inspector General did not reply to a request for comment.
‘Price Gouging’
Julia Gledhill, research analyst for the National Security Reform Program at the Stimson Center, told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the issues with military procurement even include price gouging.
“I mean, we’ve had some egregious examples of price gouging over the last several years,” Gledhill told the DCNF.
The most damaging waste to the U.S. military procurement system occurs when projects are designed to “fail slow,” according to the GAO report. These projects continuously consume capital while they remain on the drawing board, even as technology that surpasses them becomes available.
“The current process incentivizes ‘starting fast’—awarding massive development contracts quickly, often in the name of preserving the industrial base, and obligating funds rapidly to ensure the budget is not ‘lost’ to another program,” the GAO said in a statement to the DCNF. “Success is all too often measured by activity (money spent), not by outcomes (capability delivered).”
Gledhill said that this process is not only detrimental to the industrial base but also to the military.
“Overly ambitious acquisition plans set both the military and the arms industry up for failure,” Gledhill said. “The military services develop acquisition plans with little regard for fiscal, industrial and workforce limitations. Military contractors then receive awards for programs they cannot deliver within budget or on schedule, in some cases, for decades.”
These issues can cause issues with the operation of current systems, such as the B-52 bomber, as delays continuously stack up.
“Project supply chains remain one of the most significant drivers of cost increases in schedule overruns,” Shelby Oakley, the director of contracting and national security acquisitions at the GAO, said during the hearing. “In the B-52 program, diminishing manufacturing sources and spare parts shortages reduced aircraft availability and forced cannibalization [the removal of parts from existing aircraft].”
‘I Would Support That’
Burchett also commented on the proposed 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which contained nearly $2 billion for Iraq, Syria’s formerly al-Qaida-linked regime and NATO, including $670 million for Israel and Israeli companies.
It’s unclear whether the authorization will pass in its current form, as it still needs to overcome legislative hurdles.
“Israel has asked to, actually, some Israelis have actually talked to us about diminishing that or doing away with that,” Burchett told the DCNF. “I would support that if that is something they would be interested in.”
Democratic New Mexico Rep. Melanie Stansbury also commented on the proposed spending in the NDAA, calling it “bloated.”
“I think that the NDAA is bloated with the largest amount of spending we’ve ever seen in the history of the United States, and is paying for things that the public does not agree with,” Stansbury told the DCNF. “And so, I am not in support of the current NDAA as it is currently configured.”
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
