{"id":68602,"date":"2024-05-08T18:28:16","date_gmt":"2024-05-08T18:28:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/uncategorized\/2024\/05\/08\/congress-should-approve-pentagons-latest-multiyear-procurement-pitch\/"},"modified":"2026-08-18T20:56:16","modified_gmt":"2026-08-18T20:56:16","slug":"congress-should-approve-pentagons-latest-multiyear-procurement-pitch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/opinion\/2024\/05\/08\/congress-should-approve-pentagons-latest-multiyear-procurement-pitch\/","title":{"rendered":"Congress should approve Pentagon\u2019s latest multiyear procurement pitch"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Pentagon recently sent Congress some draft bill language to consider this year that reads like an advertisement for taking a Costco-like approach to buying hardware. In its proposal, Pentagon leaders tout the power of long-term consistent demand and the benefits of purchasing enough so as to achieve economies of scale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s clear that buying military equipment in bulk is a win for the customer (those in uniform), a win for industry and its workers, and a win for Congress and the taxpayer to maximize return on public investment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is remarkable is that given these kinds of welcome results, why aren\u2019t block buy and multiyear purchases used much more often by the Defense Department?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the Congressional Research Service, annual defense appropriations acts \u201csince [fiscal] 1990 typically have approved the use of [multiyear procurement] for zero to a few\u201d programs each year. Indeed until recently, this privilege was mostly reserved for ships and select aircraft.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just last year, the Pentagon asked for multiyear purchasing authority<\/a> for eight munitions, of which Congress granted six. This year\u2019s budget has still more requests \u2014 along with reform of this particular authority to establish now a purchasing contract with a company for many years to come.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Specifically, the Pentagon is requesting Congress increase the dollar and cancellation thresholds for multiyear contracts from $500 million to $1 billion, and from $100,000 to $250,000 respectively. The argument is that it will allow for quicker contract awards given the current environment takes about three years from \u201cask\u201d to \u201ccontract\u201d \u2014 far too long, as the U.S. military is increasingly falling behind<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the language talks of raising the ceiling for cancellation as necessary for alignment with bigger allowable contracts, the Pentagon notes simply that \u201cno multiyear contract in history has ever been cancelled.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposal asks Congress to broaden the multiyear authority to include any subcontractor, vendor or supplier, as well as to lower the 30-day waiting period to 10 days between multiyear certification and contract award to \u201creduce risk to production and delivery schedules while still providing time for appropriate congressional notification.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As if on cue, the Defense Department goes on to seek approval for the Navy to enter into a two-year block buy contract for 37 CH-53K<\/a> King Stallion heavy-lift helicopters and to enter into a multiyear contract for its T408 engines over five years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In its request to Congress for these Marine Corps capabilities, the proposal notes that these purchasing strategies will provide:<\/p>\n\n\n\n