Lawmakers Question R&E Oversight; Pump MDA Funding

WASHINGTON: Despite deep concerns within Congress about Pentagon management of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), the fiscal 2020 defense spending bill released yesterday will swell DoD’s $9.43 billion budget request to $10.4 billion.

The increase comes even as the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the defense spending bill both indicate serious congressional concern about the R&E’s oversight of the missile defense mavens — and in general about R&E’s lack of transparency.

“In general, the amount of oversight into R&E hasn’t been — satisfactory isn’t the right word, but something along those lines,” a House committee aide told me yesterday. “R&E is new … and there are not a lot of boundaries,” the aide added. “So, as we’ve gotten into a couple of years of R&E existing, and seeing how it’s been executing — especially with MDA, which is one of biggest organizations beneath them … we’ve started to see where things are working and maybe not working.”

Further, the aide noted, “there has been concern about people and things moving fluidly across the R&E portfolio.” This includes the transfer of people from MDA to other jobs within R&E, leading to NDAA language that requires Congress to be notified of all such personnel shifts.

Neither a spokesperson for Griffin or the MDA would comment, citing pending legislation.

Indeed, in a clear signal of congressional intent, the NDAA mandates an independent study of whether MDA should be moved from R&E to the direct oversight of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, Ellen Lord. DoD is instructed to contract a federally funded research and development center (or FFRDC, like the Aerospace Corp.) to assess  “alternative ways to organize the Agency under other officials of the Department of Defense, including the Under Secretary for Acquisition.”

The study also is to review the potential risks and benefits of transitioning MDA from its current special status free from most Pentagon spending rules “to the standard acquisition process pursuant to Department
of Defense Instruction 5000.”

“If you look at MDA’s budget and their programs, they really look more like an acquisition kind of organization,” the House committee staffer said.

In particular, both defense policymakers and defense appropriators have moved to force R&E’s hand in development of a Next Generation Interceptor to replace the Redesigned Kill Vehicle abruptly cancelled by Griffin in August.

Boeing was the prime contractor for the RKV program, worth $5.8 billion, although Raytheon actually was building the Kill Vehicle itself. The problem-riddled effort was aimed at improving the current Exo-Atmospheric Kill Vehicle, or EKV. Both are ground-based interceptors designed to defend the US mainland against long-range ballistic missile attacks.

The NDAA states that the acquisition strategy for the Next Generation Interceptor should be approved not only by Griffin, but also by Lord and include “input by stakeholders across the Department of Defense prior to proceeding with development efforts and awarding a contract.” The language has teeth.

The bill withholds 50 percent of the funding for the program until DoD issues a detailed report that to Congress that includes a threat assessment by the Intelligence Community; updated requirements; technical, programmatic, and cost analyses conducted on courses of action and alternatives to meet capability requirements”; options “considered to address reliability efforts of the current fleet, understanding known deficiencies, and the impact of not addressing such efforts and deficiencies until the delivery of the next generation improved homeland defense interceptors”; and a sustainment plan.

The appropriations bill, provided to Breaking D, follows suit, stating that MDA is to give congressional defense committees a detailed overview of its near-, mid- and far-term strategy for developing and procuring the Next Generation Interceptor effort in tandem with the 2021 budget request. “Further, the Secretary of Defense is directed to select an appropriate entity outside the Department of Defense to conduct an independent review and assessment of the current and planned United States homeland defense architecture against near-, mid-, and far-term threats.”

Congressional appropriators further provided “a $728 million realignment within MDA FY2019 and FY2020 funds following the termination of the Redesigned Kill Vehicle program, to include $310.0 million for a competitive follow-on Next Generation Interceptor program and $155.0 million for risk reduction.”

“The RKV was a certain program with a certain goal,” the House committee staffer said. “And now the new Next Generation Interceptor is completely different. And the amount of communication that we’ve had on the Hill with regard to that … has really not been satisfactory, I would say, to our members.”

As Paul reported on Sept. 6, the Pentagon issued a classified request for proposals to industry for the Next Generation Interceptor, but the Hill staffer said that even in classified briefings few details about the program have been revealed.

“This is our opportunity to get more oversight into what their plans are for this, which could potentially be another 10-plus year, close to $10 billion program.”

While congressional aides were leery of characterizing the legislation on MDA as aimed at Griffin personally, it is clear that while MDA may be a critical area where lawmakers have a lack of trust in R&E management, it is not the only one.

The NDAA also reverses Griffin’s decision to terminate the the independent, but little know, known JASON group of top-level experts that for some 60 years has security-related science and technology matters for the DoD, the Energy Department and the Intelligence Community.

It moves oversight of JASON to Lord’s office, and instructs her to renew some kind of DoD financial arrangement — a grant, a contract, a cooperative agreement or via Other Transaction Authority — for seeking JASON advice, previously provided via a contract with MITRE Corporation. More importantly, according to House committee staff, it gives the group statutory status — meaning that DoD has to get congressional approval to kill it.

The move was spearheaded by Rep. Jim Cooper, who chairs the HASC Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Part of the frustration with Griffin’s decision was the fact that JASON also does studies for Congress, according to staff. For example, in 2018 the Senate Armed Services Committee tasked the group to assess how DoD and US allies could improve their electronic warfare capabilities. 

The NDAA also slashed $10 million from DoD’s request for the Space Development Agency, overseen by R&E, cutting the operations and maintenance ask for standing the office up to $34 million. It also killed Griffin’s plan for SDA to undertake two studies, budgeted at $15 million each, on development of a space-based missile discrimination capability and a space-based interceptor. As first reported by colleague Sandra Erwin, appropriators reduced SDA’s operations budget even further: to $30.5 million.

The House committee aides explained that while Congress has been pushing a reluctant MDA to launch a program for a network of space-based sensors to track hypersonic missiles, they were loathe to give the program to SDA. “MDA is an established agency,” one aide said, “SDA barely exists.”

And to bring the point home, the 2020 defense spending bill adds $108 million for “Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor (formerly SpaceSensor Layer).”

And finally, as we reported earlier today, the NDAA rejected Griffin’s push to demote the Strategic Capabilities Office to the Defense Advanced Research Project’s Agency (DARPA), instead elevating it to the purview of Deputy Defense Secretary David Norquist.

Bottom line: a much reduced scope of action for Griffin and R&E; and more responsibilities for Lord.