President Obama earned some political points recently when he identified the “procurement process gone amok” behind the Marine One helicopter project, whose projected costs have risen from $6.1 billion to $13 billion. Although the new fleet - scheduled for delivery in 2012 and 2019 - has major safety and communication upgrades, the President feels the current fleet is “perfectly adequate”, since the typical trip is a 10 minute jaunt to Andrews AFB.

But as with all things political, one elected official’s example of government waste is another rep’s pork for his home district. So trying to kill off a massively expensive project is turning into a turf war between districts that are home to Lockheed Martin facilities and districts that are home to Sikorsky Aircraft, which built all Presidential choppers before 2005 when Lockheed was chosen. Yesterday, 13 members of the House, representing districts with Lockheed Martin (or their partner in this project, AgustaWestland) operations, sent a letter to the President warning that canceling the project would be “the least responsible alternative both for the safety of your office and the investment of the American taxpayers.”

Don’t get me wrong, I am perfectly ok with spending a large sum of government money on Presidential protection. And this helicopter fleet should be the safest thing in the sky … besides Air Force One of course. Safety and uninterrupted communication capabilities are excellent goals for an updated chopper fleet for the President. But wouldn’t the President and tax payers be better served by approaching this process in a more efficient way?

And as a model, I would hold up the opposite end of the transportation cost spectrum, Tata Motors. Sure it’s hard to compare the $2,000 car with the most sophisticated helicopter on earth. But the way in which Tata approached previously expensive car components with their suppliers is something the government could learn from.

For instance, rather than push some very specific specs at their parts suppliers for things, such as windshield wiper-blades, Tata left their technical requirements far more general and instead focused on the functional goals. These loose design constraints counted on the ingenuity of the suppliers - who were competing with one another for the business - to create the best part (from a functional, goal standpoint) at the best price.

What if the Pentagon approached things the same way? Encryption, communications, safety, technology and even the on-board kitchen - aren’t those things that perhaps the innovation of the private sector could deliver smarter and cheaper? And if not, shouldn’t the procurement process have concrete goals and safeguards built in to ensure that cost overruns don’t double the price a full 10 years before the final delivery date?

Justin Fogarty is Managing Editor of Supply Excellence. For any questions or feedback on the blog or its contributors, Justin can be reached at jfogarty[at]ariba.com.