Tag Archives: 809 Panel

Congressional Mandated 809 Panel Recommends Hybrid Changes to SBA Small Business Program



” In its third volume of its final report the panel made a bold recommendation (No. 35) to replace current, cumbersome buying practices with a new authority called readily available.

In part, this recommendation would eliminate mandatory small business set-asides and instead provide a 5% price preference to small businesses while keeping utilization goals in place. “


“Hysteria quickly ensued, with headlines stating the 809 panel recommended the “Elimination of Federal Small Business Program” and “Eliminate Most DoD Small Business Set-Asides.”

These reactions are more sensational than accurate. The panel recommended creating a new way for the Defense Department to obtain competition, thus eliminating mandatory set-asides when using readily-available procedures. This change would not eliminate small business set-asides, nor would it eliminate the federal small business program. Under these procedures, DoD would still have the option to set-aside procurements for small business.

Some are concerned that implementing this recommendation would lead DoD to stop setting aside work for small business. A prominent real-world example shows that this is unlikely. Under the General Services Administration (GSA) Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) program, solicitations are frequently set-aside despite the fact that the “rule of two” is not applicable to these purchases. Agencies strive to meet their small business utilization goals, so they set-aside procurements when appropriate, even though they are not required to do so.

The panel’s recommended changes are necessary to put mission first, prioritize warfighter needs for state-of-the-art capabilities and break away from the current compliance-oriented acquisition culture. The panel believes many of the constraints in the current system can be removed while still meeting the broader public policy objective of acquiring supplies and services from small businesses through government contracts.

The panel’s Volume 3 Report states, “Many companies do not view DoD as a viable, much less a critical, business partner.”

Companies that do business with DoD, including many small businesses, may like it that way because it limits competition. They know how the system works, with all its quirks and inefficiencies, and can leverage that knowledge to get contracts. Under the panel’s recommendations, some of these incumbent small businesses will be challenged by additional competition from non-traditional small businesses that could offer better solutions for warfighters and better value for U.S. taxpayers. That would be a win for restoring true competition and enabling DoD to reap the benefits of innovation from a wider variety of small businesses.

The private-sector small businesses that drive the majority of innovation want nothing to do with the current DoD market. Many do not even know what FedBizOpps is and can’t wait a year to find out if they’ve won a contract. Others have tried to sell innovative technology to DoD, giving up after experiencing what feels like an endless business development cycle. These are often insurmountable hurdles for companies that endeavor to create and deliver innovation at speed.

The Air Force’s recent Pitch Day showed how one DoD organization is reaching out to industry and embracing small business by simplifying and accelerating the acquisition process. But much like Other Transaction Agreements and Middle Tier Acquisition, Pitch Day was a work-around to traditional practice orchestrated by bureaucracy hackers (kudos to them!). For long-term success, acquisition practices like this must be the norm, not the exception.

It is time to stop creating or expanding authorities for DoD to operate outside the acquisition system and deliberately implement changes that will make DoD’s acquisition system function in today’s private-sector-driven marketplace, establishing a system that meets warfighters’ needs in a way that provides agility and values time.

—Section 809 Panel Volume 3 Report

In Volume 1, the panel recognized that small businesses are valuable sources of innovation and described a pivot in how they should be utilized to support DoD’s warfighting capabilities and capacities. The recommendations included bolstering support and funding for the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR), and Rapid Innovation Fund (RIF) programs, making SBIR and STTR permanent, and providing increased flexibility for use of RIF.

The panel’s Volume 3 recommendations aim to help level the playing field by drastically streamlining and simplifying defense acquisition. Currently, small businesses are at a disadvantage navigating these complex processes because they lack the staff and infrastructure many large businesses have dedicated to their work with the federal government (e.g., business development, compliance, legal). By reducing many of these government-unique processes, the panel cuts administrative time for both small businesses and the government’s acquisition workforce, allowing the system to deliver solutions faster.

A closer look at the panel’s recommendations as a whole made it clear that the panel views small businesses as central to DoD’s mission, as long as DoD policies focus on encouraging innovation and maintaining a diverse pool of suppliers that can meet mission needs. If the Section 809 Panel recommends eliminating anything, it is the excessive amount of time it takes to deliver innovation to warfighters.

So let’s throttle back on the hysteria and work together to put DoD’s acquisition system on a war footing to better support warfighters defending against the nation’s adversaries. Congress should adopt, and DoD should support, the panel’s readily available recommendation in the 2020 NDAA.

U.S. warfighters need more innovation from small businesses, and they need it now.”

Pentagon Considering Major Acquisition Shakeup In Line With 809 Panel


Pentagon Who's Stirrin the Pot


“The Section 809 Panel — an influential advisory group established by Congress raised the prospect of replacing the traditional program executive officer role with that of a “portfolio acquisition executive,” and consolidating program element budgeting into one capability portfolio budget.

The advisory group envisions the Pentagon combining many different programs that have similar capability focuses, such as air superiority, cyber or space, and putting them under the same overseer. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Kevin Fahey said the department is open to that idea.”


“The Defense Department is contemplating a major change in the way that acquisition programs are managed, a top Defense Department official said July 16.

“Currently the department really doesn’t manage its major weapon systems based upon capabilities,” Section 809 Panel Chair David Drabkin told National Defense in a recent interview after the “Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations: Vol. 2,” was published.

“They manage individual programs, individual systems, and it doesn’t provide them with the flexibility to move concentration of effort between various programs” that are geared towards similar mission sets, he added.

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Kevin Fahey said the department is open to that idea.

“You see in the second [809 Panel report] … they actually started talking about portfolio management,” Fahey told reporters at the Farnborough International Airshow outside London. “At [the office of the secretary of defense], that’s how we’re thinking we’re going to change the way do business. Instead of overseeing, you know, 100 big programs we’re going to do portfolio management and oversee a few programs.

“We have various other people saying this is a good way to do it,” he added.

Fahey was asked if such a shakeup would that entail consolidating program executive offices under a broader portfolio manager.

“That’s the discussion of how do we actually implement” the reforms, he said. “That’s going to have to be a department [leadership decision] on how do we actually do that. And I think we’ll be willing to do that.”

Fahey said the Pentagon is generally supportive of the approach that the 809 Panel is taking toward acquisition reform. Members of the panel meet with him on a monthly basis to discuss their work, he noted.

“I don’t think we see anything in [the report] that we think is counterproductive,” he said. “I don’t think there is anything in there that we think in general what they’re saying is off base.” The biggest challenge will be working out the details of how to make the changes, he noted, citing proposals to make it easier for acquisition officials to purchase commercial items.

“There’s a whole bunch of good stuff in there on commercial items, but there’s a lot of stuff,” he said. “We’ve got to make sure we really understand it and we understand how we’re going to implement it.”

Fahey’s office and the panel are both looking for ways to speed up the acquisition of new technology. “Our focus is how do we change to be able to deliver capabilities at the pace of innovation … and how do we get the services the capabilities when they need it,” Fahey said.”