It’s a delicate balance, and in this day and age of increased accountability, it’s more important now than ever. The Goldilocks’ Principle requires us to find the balance between what is too soft, too hard and just right. Rodriguez is also a senior adviser at the Atlantic Council.I worry that students who are labeled as special education get our lower expectations because we don’t think they can do more than they are doing, when we should really be helping them do more than they believe they can do.
Olivia Letts is an associate at One Defense, where Stephen Rodriguez is managing partner. When it comes to working through the kinks of OTAs, the DoD must walk a very fine line - one that it can certainly do.
The DoD must avoid bringing about “FAR creep,” whereby the incorporation of more regulations could scare away innovative new entrants to the defense market. This is why improving OTAs will need to abide by the Goldilocks principle of getting it just right. OTAs offer an attractive lack of bureaucratic red tape, but this does not mean contractors and DoD buyers can throw responsible handling of IP, bidding practices and prototyping efforts to the wayside.
The involvement of institutions in OTA consortia is vital for bridging the theoretical sciences and the actual technologies that could transform the U.S. On top of that, the current definition of nontraditional contractors does not emphasize the importance of academia. As a 2020 paper by the Chertoff Group has pointed out, the definition of a nontraditional contractor is such that too many entities fall within that category, including those that already work exclusively with the DoD. While reduced participation by nontraditional contractors might be seen by many as a main issue with OTAs, it detracts from perhaps a bigger issue, which is the very broad definition of “nontraditional contractor” as defined by Congress. military’s technological advantage, then we could end up paradoxically hurting ourselves by allowing cutting-edge, OTA-developed products to be sold to malicious actors. If the whole purpose of using more OTAs is to improve the U.S. The broad liberties enjoyed by contractors to retain their IP rights in the OTA process poses potential national security risks. Getting intellectual property policy right is another challenge that must be solved in order for OTAs to support the goal of protecting U.S. Such analyses must go further to reflect how nontraditional contractors contribute to the provision of new subsystem technologies. Yes, speed is good, but the DoD should follow the recommendations of the IBM Center for the Business of Government report about OTAs the percentage of participation by nontraditional contractors should not just be measured in dollars. The DoD should also take care to establish attainable metrics for success other than speed to contract or the amount of consortium management fees paid. This office could validate their need for an OTA versus a standard FAR contract, align supporting acquisition sponsorships and agreements officers, and provide standardized metrics not only to the armed services but also the undersecretary for research and engineering, who is responsible for all technologies deployed to the battlefield. While the Government Accountability Office handles legal matters, there is a gap in the market for a coordinating office that constructively works with government agencies seeking their own OTAs. Such issues are addressable if the DoD establishes an enterprisewide coordinating office for OTA utilization, designed to promote accountability and best practices. It is common for program managers to discover better design options or conceptual flaws during the research phase that could necessitate changes to the program budget or agreement - a far more painful process under FAR. OTA arrangements between private companies and federal entities more closely resemble private sector business deals than traditional government contracts. Moreover, due to their flexible framework, it can be difficult to monitor OTA funding against government priorities. As a result, we cannot be sure how effective they have been when it comes to making the most out of American taxpayer dollars. military incorporate vanguard technologies. The DoD also lacks a set of tangible metrics to gauge how OTAs help the U.S. Although OTAs have existed for over half a century, concrete statistics about the degree to which they have improved defense innovation are lacking. One valid criticism of OTAs is that there is simply not enough data on them.
0 kommentar(er)
