contractor follows the VECP procedures to introduce
the change for consideration. The incentive to the con-
tractor is that they receive a percentage of the savings
that the government would experience due to the in-
sertion of the technology if the proposal is accepted
(DAU 2010). The benefit to the government is a more
relevant, efficient and sustainable piece of equipment.
This is in keeping with the November 2010 memo
from Dr. Carter further emphasizing contractor incen-
tives, “Implementation Directive for Better Buying
Power - Obtaining Greater Efficiency and Productiv-
ity in Defense Spending.” The intent of this memo is
to provide guidance on achieving efficiencies in con-
tracting using various measures such as incentivizing
contractor productivity and innovation in industry.
The message is clear – contracting will be under in-
tense scrutiny by several stakeholders to include the
Army Audit Agency, Congress and the Government
Accountability Office, Office of Management and Bud-
get, as well as a plethora of private sector think tanks
to ensure investments yield the highest productivity
possible. The opportunity here is the enormous lever-
age that can be achieved with deliberate partnership
with industry to insert proactive technology which is
the essence of sustainability development.
Technology insertion can also be accomplished by
governmental research and development discoveries.
The mechanism in the acquisition process that covers
this is through Engineering Change Proposals (ECP)
and of course results in savings to the government,
not shared with the contractor. In addition, there is
research being done in the Army in the lane of “En-
vironmental Quality Technology”(EQT). This effort is
currently divided among numerous offices right now.
The EQT program provides great opportunity for in-
sharon
(sharon)
#1