战略与国际研究中心-Federal-Research-and-Development-Contract-Trends-and-the-Supporting-Industrial-Base,-2000–2015_80页_16mb

Summary of Federal Research and Development Contract Trends and the Supporting Industrial Base, 2000-2015

Core Content

This report by the CSIS Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group examines the impact of the federal budget drawdown (2000–2015) on research and development (R&D) contracting across major U.S. federal agencies, particularly the Department of Defense (DoD), NASA, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). It challenges several widely held assumptions about how budget cuts affect R&D spending and the industrial base supporting it.

Main Findings

1. Federal R&D Contract Obligations Declined Disproportionately

• Federal R&D contract obligations fell by 38% from 2009 to 2015, compared to a 29% decline in overall federal contracts.
• The decline was more severe in R&D than in other areas, especially in Advanced Technology Development (ATD) and System Development & Demonstration (SD&D), which dropped by 59% and 66%, respectively.
• Basic Research and Applied Research were relatively preserved, with declines of 19% and 16%, respectively.
• The share of R&D contract obligations allocated to early-stage R&D (Basic Research + Applied Research) increased from 30% in 2009 to 40% in 2015, indicating a shift toward foundational research.

2. DoD Faces a Six-Year Trough in Major Weapons Systems Development

• DoD R&D contract obligations fell by 53% from 2009 to 2015, far steeper than the 35% decline in overall DoD contracts.
• The decline in SD&D and ATD accounts for 72% of the total decline in DoD R&D.
• The Army is the most affected, with R&D obligations dropping by 61%, due to the cancellation of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program.
• The Navy and Air Force have seen more stability, with the Air Force planning to start work on the B-21 bomber soon and the Navy delaying the Ohio replacement program until the early 2020s.

3. Changes in the Industrial Base

• Large prime vendors (e.g., Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman) saw a decline in their share of DoD R&D contracts, from 57% in 2009 to 33% in 2015.
• Small vendors gained a larger share of R&D contracts, rising from 10% in 2009 to 17% in 2015.
• Despite this growth, the number of new entrants into the federal R&D marketplace fell sharply, especially among "Sometimes Small" vendors, while "Always Small" vendors saw more stable contract obligations.

4. Conventional Wisdom Was Often Incorrect

• Six out of seven tested hypotheses about the budget drawdown's impact on R&D contracting were not supported by the data or were contradicted.
• The assumption that early-stage R&D would be cut more heavily than later-stage R&D was refuted, as early-stage R&D saw greater declines than mid-to-late-stage R&D.
• NASA was an exception, with R&D contract obligations increasing by 21% between 2009 and 2015, due to cost savings in services contracts.

Key Information

Federal R&D Contracting by Agency

• DoD: Largest R&D customer, with a share of over 50% from 2000–2014, declining to 46% in 2015.
• NASA: Grew from 6–9% in 2000–2003 to 18% in 2015, showing resilience.
• HHS: Maintained a relatively stable share of 3–5%, with a slight increase to 6% in 2013.
• DoE: Maintained a consistent share of 20–25% since 2004.

R&D Contracting by Stage

• Basic Research (-19% from 2009 to 2015)
• Applied Research (-16%)
• Advanced Technology Development (ATD) (-59%)
• System Development & Demonstration (SD&D) (-66%)
• Advanced Component Development & Prototypes (ACD&P) (-29%)
• Operational Systems Development (-9%)
• Operation of Government R&D Facilities (GOCO) (-26%)

Hypotheses Tested

Conclusion

The report concludes that while the budget drawdown did have a proportional impact on R&D contracting, the distribution of cuts did not align with the conventional wisdom. It highlights the resilience of early-stage R&D and the challenges faced by the DoD, especially the Army, in maintaining a continuous development pipeline for major weapons systems. The shift toward small vendors and the resilience of NASA suggest that the federal R&D industrial base is adapting to the constraints, but the long-term implications for U.S. technological superiority remain uncertain.