There is a battle between innovation and convenience, creativity versus compliance, expanding consciousness or constricting it. A front-line in improving federal acquisition is being fought over Other Transactions (OTs); flexible agreements intended to liberate program teams and inject creativity and sophistication into federal business to better DELIVER the fruits of taxpayer funded R&D investments. Other Transactions are remedial statutes. They exist because the current methods suck! The point is to offer flexibility to explore, devise, and create better methods – gaining experience. OTs provide an alternative to the traditional acquisition system for R&D, the chronic failings of which are well documented, known and have compounded overtime. The ‘system’ has taken precedence over accomplishing goals and achieving mission. The system is a drag and cannot be relied on to deliver good solutions in a timely manner. Yet, thinking and actions remain inside-the-box, like a voluntary mental imprisonment. Insiders are bound to well-worn indoctrinated precepts. They are inside looking out; a bubble they are faintly aware of but cannot see.
Other Transactions are about liberation! Their flexibility permits liberation of thought… and few things are more liberating than that. They provide legal authority for government teams, ideally smart people, to prioritize mission and goal achievement for publicly funded R&D; over compliance to a negative regulatory regime that is both constipated and sick. The lack of focus on mission has allowed nasty gremlins into the system – negatively affecting outcomes. OTs offer opportunity for the government to strip back all the bureaucratic BS, get back-to-basics and put goals first! Much like R&D itself, the purpose of OTs is to explore, problem-solve, and expand knowledge, not sit around waiting for a senior bureaucrats to elicit edicts.
The defense industry has NOT acknowledged the opportunities Other Transactions offer; in fact, just the opposite, they have contorted OT statutes to fashion themselves the ultimate ‘easy button’, a hack. No new thought required! The “so-called” OT consortia model masquerades as something it is not, and has inherent conflicts of interests. DoD is using OT prototype authorities NOT to award prototype projects/performers, as intended, but to outsource to a support service contractor. DoD awards a large contract ($$$) to a support entity who handles administrative tasks and doles out smaller awards to a cadre of competitors, it calls members, piecemeal. The performers DO NOT receive OTs, the support services contractor does. It is simply a pass-thru providing basic services in exchange for a cut. DoD already does business like that, it’s 100% business-as-usual. Whatever you do, please don’t call it innovative! It’s the opposite of that, an ‘easy button’ hack in every sense. That’s why bureaucrats and insiders are so gung-ho about it, it’s an easier way to get required tasks done that the system demands. What they do not admit, parking thought at ‘easy’ and shortsightedness has consequences, as real opportunities for creativity and innovation are squandered. The negative processes and missed opportunities compound overtime, which we are witnessing.
Greater intelligence and capability within the workforce, both individually and collectively, is not being activated. Mike Griffin former USD R/E characterized the ‘system’ as one of “waste”. It wastes a lot more than just money. The acquisition workforce is not being sufficiently equipped or incentivized to do anything differently. Leadership is not cultivating nor equipping teams to explore and exploit the flexibility they have been given. Instead, they just keep running from the same ol’ playbook. Leadership has ignored Congressional mandates to equip the workforce to succeed in different ‘operational’ environments; instead, they have mainstreamed using prototype authorities for outsourcing and to mentally check out.
It’s easier than most think, take the first step: admit the system is hindrance and has become unmanageable. Admit that the system should not supersede mission and goals. Reorient and prioritize mission, promote win/win scenarios, and assemble good teams capable of managing programs with reasonable sophistication (adding value to the processes). This requires different thinking; stepping outside of the bubble, that remains THE sticking point.
Other Transactions offer tremendous opportunities and potential right now, but these can only be realized by exploring and gaining experience. People need to try and do things. Waiting for a new set of rules to be ordained from ‘on high’ or thoughtlessly copying something is just more of the same. Instead, challenge yourselves to remove mental bonds, liberate your thinking, expand your consciousness. The flexibility OTs allow is, just that, FLEXIBILITY, that means it is up to the users to create or devise innovative and better methods. Get your minds out of ‘limitation’ or ‘mental imprisonment’ and focus on accomplishing the mission the best you can. The highest form of consciousness is to create. Your work in R&D and in delivering new capabilities is to CREATE! Lift your gaze and see the wider world of potential that already surrounds you. Be open to greater possibilities, especially the ones that you can act on right now.
written by Christian Dunn
For those who are ready to level up. You can make a giant leap forward by taking our 3 hour virtual class.
Darren Shaffer
I whole heartedly agree that OTAs exist because the “current methods suck”. Even though they are not conducive to R&D, I’ve used FAR based methods to do what others in the acquisition workforce said could or should not be done. I have been successful is I ask for and listen those who say could or should not be done, I build the business or policy case that address their concerns. So what are the concerns of the acquisition workforce with OTAs? I’ve started asking that question Not yet enough answers to postulate a conclusion.