In reality, however, research budgets were shrinking and the needs for fifth- and sixth-generation weapons and technologies disappeared. This new law should have enabled contractors to determine the blend of basic research, applied research and development, and the law also should have restrained the department from attempting to channel IRAD funds to favored later-stage development projects. This policy shift has had a devastating impact on basic and applied research, which could have supported a new wave of defense and non-defense technologies that have not come to fruition.īy 1991, the pressure on industry to focus on development and largely abandon basic and applied research had so negatively impacted IRAD that Congress passed a statute - codified as Section 2372 of Title 10 - barring the department from issuing regulations which would “infringe on the independence of a contractor to choose which technologies to pursue in its research-and-development program.” In 1993, the office of the undersecretary of defense for acquisition and technology published a memorandum acknowledging a necessary shift in the department’s approach to IRAD, given the revised statute’s directive to restore the industry’s independence in such projects. However, by the mid-1980s, DoD was rapidly losing interest in basic and applied research and pressured industry to focus its IRAD dollars on development of weapons from matured applied research.
![irad defense irad defense](https://radartest.com/images/detector_pics/Cobra/iRadar-dashboard.jpg)
![irad defense irad defense](https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/405313/1215-iran-missile.jpg)
This change marked the beginning of three decades in which the department and the defense industry drove American innovation for a vast array of post-industrial age technology. Broadly speaking, IRAD costs were largely barred from reimbursement until 1959, when the Armed Services Procurement Regulations were amended to create a new structure for indirect cost reimbursements. Industry’s mounting concern over the Defense Department’s more restrictive policy is rooted at least in part in history. These rule changes impinge upon the independence of industry decision-making in connection with the projects, and such changes run counter to the very purpose of IRAD. This change could be read to conflict with both the language and intent of law protecting such investments. The stated goal of the pending rule change is to address the concern in the Better Buying Power 3.0 implementation directive that contractors may use independent R&D to gain a price advantage on specific competitive bids by pushing contract-related costs into IRAD cost pools. The department has also proposed a new rule to require that - in procurements for major defense acquisition programs and major automated information systems in a development phase - contracting officials must adjust the total evaluated cost/price of a contractor proposal to account for its proposed reliance on government-funded IRAD projects. While the department has tried to assure industry that it does not intend to return to the old days of pre-approving IRAD projects, there remain very real questions for industry, such as whether and how the Defense Contract Management Agency and the Defense Contract Auditing Agency will utilize such technical interchange data. These new regulations require that contractors engage in “technical interchange meetings” prior to undertaking such projects.
![irad defense irad defense](https://s.france24.com/media/display/5295d9a6-12ef-11e9-8188-005056a964fe/w:1280/p:16x9/iran-missile-m_0.jpg)
The department has recently pushed forward with new regulations that appear focused on placing substantial limitations on IRAD funding.
![irad defense irad defense](https://sites.breakingmedia.com/uploads/sites/3/2015/09/Phantom-Works-Immersive-Development-Center_Motion-Suit.jpg)
The department must undertake a significant reconsideration of how research and development should be utilized to expand the technological defense industrial base. Moreover, without a change in direction, the department’s support for critical long-term research could continue on its downward spiral. Its language and direction seemingly conflict with a law, now simplified and reinforced, intended to protect investments. The Defense Department’s Better Buying Power 3.0 initiative has led to new rules that curtail the ability of industry to maintain both the “independent” and the “research” components of independent research and development, or IRAD. The life of government contractors with independent research-and-development funding has never been easy or straightforward, and recent regulatory changes have only made the landscape more challenging.