How Should the Army Use Contractors on the Battlefield. Assessing Comparative Risk in Sourcing Decisions

摘要

Using contractors on the battlefield is risky, but the U.S. Army has relied on contractors on the battlefield throughout its history. Beginning with the Vietnam War, a variety of factors have led to growing dependence on contractors. Given the risks that contractors impose, is this increasing dependence appropriate. Throughout history, Army leaders have decried the risks associated with using contractors even as they continued to bring them to the battlefield to provide critical combat service support (CSS) activities. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASA M AND RA) was concerned that many parts of the Army may make decisions that affect the use of contractors on the battlefield without adequately considering the effects of their decisions on military readiness. ASA (M AND RA) asked the Arroyo Center to examine this issue and recommend improvements. This report identifies the major decisions that shape the Army's use of contractors on the battlefield. It explains the arguments that have shaped these decisions. Drawing on the Army's own approach to assessing risk, Army and other Department of Defense (DoD) documents, field interviews, literature by Army personnel about their own experiences with contractors in deployments, and a detailed case study of the largest contract supporting Army deployed forces at the time, the report offers a conceptual framework the Army could use to revisit these decisions. The framework should make the connection between these decisions and their sourcing consequences more visible and lead to Army sourcing decisions more nearly consistent with its strategic goals. The report focuses on a choice between contract and military sources, but the framework could easily be applied to a broad set of alternatives.