Lawmakers probe taxpayer savings in military contracts

By Andrew Rice
The Center Square

Advocates urged lawmakers on Tuesday to implement legislation that will provide for greater accountability of taxpayer dollars in military contracts.

The Department of War requested a historic $1.5 trillion in funding for fiscal 2027, a steep increase from previous years. Analysts said the department’s funding requests are not being backed up by responsible budgeting practices.

Lawmakers in the U.S. House Oversight Subcommittee on Delivering Government Efficiency held the hearing Tuesday to examine suggestions for increasing defense contract productivity.

Shelby Oakley, director of contracting and national security acquisitions at the U.S. Government Accountability Office, said lawmakers need to incentivize speed in defense contract implementation. She said it takes 12 years on average for a major defense acquisition program to be completed.

“Large contracts are awarded quickly, and success is often measured by how fast money is obligated on contracts rather than how fast useful capability is provided to the war fighter,” Oakley said. “Schedules slip, costs grow, requirements get scaled back, quantities are reduced, and taxpayers ultimately pay more to get less, and years later than promised.”

She pointed to an example where the Department of War terminated a 13-year, $7 billion planned upgrade for its Space Force satellite system due to low confidence it would meet military needs.

“Meanwhile, GPS satellites already in orbit cannot fully use some of their most advanced capabilities, because OCX [U.S. Space Force’s cancelled GPS ground system] never materialized,” Oakley said. “Now the Space Force plans to just upgrade the existing ground system to provide those capabilities.”

The advocates said the private sector would criticize how the Department of War funding process works. Julia Gledhill, a researcher in the National Security Reform Program at the Stimson Center, said the government should take a more considerate approach to the kinds of technology it implements in weapon systems.

“Technology is always going to outpace law and regulation,” Gledhill said. “The challenge is not integrating every new technology but betting on the right capabilities.”

U.S. Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., said all military contracts should undergo examination on whether it meets certified cost and pricing data requirements.

“If they say no, then one could speculate there’s maybe more to that contract than what meets the eye,” Burlison said.

Gledhill said many contractors are exempt from these requirements under the government’s parameters. She said contractors are often required to specialize products when it is not necessary.

“What I’ve found out to be is that a lot of these government programs won’t do anything that’s off the shelf. They want everything customized,” Burlison said. “That comes with a huge cost.”

Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., said the U.S. needs to diversify its weapon system in order to deliver greater military victory against enemies. He said the defense industry needs to consider how it can prepare against attacks rather than invest in more technology.

“Right now we’re engaging in asymmetric warfare but future adversaries are seeing this and they can say it doesn’t cost much to really bother the U.S. in a conflict,” Subramanyam said.

Oakley agreed with Subramanyam. She said the government’s approach to contracts needs to overhauled.

“I think that shift to thinking about capability portfolios versus program by program management, platform management is really super important because maybe we don’t need the $100 million dollar platform to be able to achieve our intended goal,” Oakley said.