Dr. Will Roper, left, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics, has a fireside chat for Pitch Bowl with Air Force Secretary Barbara Barrett in Arlington, Va., March 12, 2020.

Will Roper (left), Barbara Barrett (center)

WASHINGTON: Senate appropriators have put a stake through the heart of an ambitious Air Force effort to speed development of $1 billion in new capabilities, rejecting outright the service’s plea to give managers authority to move funds within broad new “portfolios” comprising multiple programs. The only exception is a consolidation for AFRL’s high-priority Vanguard projects.

The budget portfolio concept is at the center of the streamlined acquisition model for the infant Space Force drafted by Air Force Secretary Barbara Barrett, but yet to be officially proposed to Congress due to internal DoD squabbling. SAC’s move effectively means that the Space Force’s draft plan to overhaul space systems acquisition is in danger.

While House appropriators quashed the planned change in their 2021 spending bill, they also cited openness to being persuaded in future. The Senate Appropriations Committee, however, unconditionally slapped down the idea in its draft bill released Tuesday saying it would “provide unprecedented programmatic and fiscal flexibility, allowing the Air Force to move funds between programs without Congressional engagement or oversight.”

As anyone who’s followed the Hill for a year or 20 knows, appropriators rarely like anything they perceive might reduce their ability to control and oversee money.

The portfolio approach is the brain child of service acquisition czar Will Roper. It is modeled after the rapid prototyping authorities provided to the Strategic Capabilities Office (that Roper once headed) and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). (Congress is much more willing to let intelligence agencies keep large reserves and move money around because members just don’t watch those problems as closely and are inclined to allow more flexibility to get the best results.)

The proposed budget mechanism would put multiple line-item “03” applied research programs into one budgetary program element (PE) number, so that priorities could be juggled or monies shifted to ailing programs to help them cope with cost or schedule overruns. For example, the Air Force wanted to lump together five separate applied research programs on electronic warfare into one larger program.

“The fiscal year 2021 President’s budget request proposed a consolidation of the 2 existing Aerospace Systems Applied Research Budget Activity program elements into a single program element, a consolidation of 13 existing Advanced Technology Development Budget Activity program elements into five program elements, and a consolidation of 7 Acquisition Workforce program elements into a single program element that the Air Force believes would increase the efficiency, effectiveness, and transparency of integrated technology development and transformational capability development,” the SAC report language explains.

The 13 program elements the Air Force wanted to be consolidated included, among others: Advanced Materials For Weapons Systems; Advanced Aerospace Sensors; Aerospace Propulsion and Power Technology; Electronic Combat Technology; and Advanced Weapons Technology.

The Air Force’s plan to condense projects for Air Force Research Laboratory’s handful of Vanguard initiatives into a new “Future AF Integrated Technology Demonstrations” budget line was the only part of the portfolio proposal approved, with Senate appropriators cutting the service’s request for $158 million down to $102 million. The cut, in part, represents SAC’s transfer of $36 million for the Golden Horde project to develop drone “swarms” from the prototyping fund to another budgetary program element, called the “Tech Transition Program,” to “accelerate” its development.

The SAC is not alone in rejecting Roper’s proposal. The House Appropriations Committee bluntly said in its 2021 spending bill that there is a lack of trust between Congress and DoD — a pointed reference to the Pentagon’s move to reprogram funding for President Donald Trump’s border wall.

Mark Cancian, a long-time budget guru with White House experience who is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says that DoD consistently has sought ways, using such mechanisms as “portfolios” and transfer authorities, to wrest more independent control over budgets, and lawmakers just as consistently reject them.

“Congress in general has never liked the idea of portfolios — or anything like that — that sort of has a flavor of slush funds; you know, that DoD can move the money around on its own authority without controls by Congress,” he told me today.

The even more ambitious Space Force’s push for wider budgetary and acquisition management autonomy also is unlikely to be accepted by Congress (as I reported back in May,) he thinks.

“I think Space Force and its advocates hoped that they’d have a radically new approach to budgeting and acquisition. I think that this makes it clear: ‘no’ to budget,” he said. “And, you know, I think there’ll be a ‘no’ to the acquisition side also, but that’ll take longer to roll out. It’s just that when you’re doing multi-billion dollar acquisitions, there are certain procedures you need to go through to make sure that things don’t go south on you.”

Gen. Jay Raymond

So Gen. Jay Raymond may now find his plan for Space Force to speed development and acquisition and winnow down the gigantic bureaucracy involved difficult to achieve.

“During the analysis that led to the creation of the Space Force, Congress identified over 60 offices responsible for elements of space policy, oversight, and guidance, with nearly 30 more who influence space architecture. We will work across the Department to unify and harmonize efforts. We will prepare implementation plans to unify disparate acquisition and sustainment authorities for space systems currently distributed across the Army, Navy, and Office of the Secretary of Defense,” Raymond’s guidance says.

“The imperative to flatten bureaucracy is about more than efficient management – it enables the decision making speed and agile implementation that generate advantage in competition or conflict,” it adds.

Indeed, this language has raised eyebrows among some analysts, who say it reads as if Raymond is trying to assert authorities that he doesn’t have. Under Title 10 (Section 9014) the civilian leadership of the service departments has authority over acquisition, not the service chiefs. Roper, for example, reports to Barrett — not to Raymond.

Cancian, for his part, said Raymond’s guidance language isn’t really clear what he is proposing, but that the debate about streamlining acquisition authorities is likely to play out only when DoD comes up with a plan for transferring personnel and authorities from the Army and Navy to the Space Force. Back in August, now Vice CSO Gen. DT Thompson told the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) that the Air Force was nearing an agreement on those transfers with both of its sister services. The plan has not been provided to Congress, which will determine its fate.