Bess Dopkeen, Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering

Lauren Bedula 01:33 Welcome back to Building the Base, and it's an exciting day. Lauren Bedula and Hondo Geurts here live from the Pentagon. We are launching a series with DoD, R & E. So, the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering focus on highlighting some of the great work they're doing. So here today with us is Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for R and E, Bess Dopkeen, who's going to walk us through some of what the office is doing, what we hope to accomplish with this limited series with R & E, and also talk about her background, incredible time on the Hill. We're working on HASC emerging threats and capabilities subcommittee, and also time in CAPE, so we'll get into that as well. But Bess, thank you so much for joining us. Bess Dopkeen 02:13 It's my pleasure to be here with both of you. Thank you for having me. Hondo Geurts 02:18 So, Bess, as we get going here in this limited series. Why don't you outline for us a bit kind of what we're trying to get accomplished in the series, your kind of vision for pulling this together and some of the guests that folks will hear in subsequent episodes? Bess Dopkeen 02:33 Yea no, this is delightful for us. We don't get to talk a lot about what we do outside often, although we definitely try, but we know that you guys get a large microphone here, so we really appreciate you inviting us on. I think when we were thinking about what to do here, we were thinking, what, what is it some of, what are some of the major things that we would love to talk about that we've been really pushing in the past couple of years? So, I think the way we broke it out is after me. We've got about three different episodes, one specifically on biomanufacturing and advanced manufacturing. We have the manufacturing and innovation institutes, and we have this billion-dollar investment that the White House is going to make in biomanufacturing, and it's really exciting. And we have just let our very first contract with this money, and we are hugely excited about what's going to happen. So, I'm really excited for you to talk to both Tracy and Kate about that coming up, because they will really go into what it is. And it is fun to get in with both of them, because they are, you know, if you were to sit down with a bio, brilliant person and a manufacturing, brilliant person and put them together into one team. That's pretty exciting. What we've done there. Okay? And so, then the second one is, I believe, microelectronics and Office of Strategic capital, so you'll be able to talk to dev and Jason about the cool things that they are doing. Obviously, you guys are tracking the chips Act, and the funding and science for America. Act, tips and science for America. Act, yes, that came out. There were two. One was in the NDAA a couple years ago, and then the funding actually followed last year. Hugely exciting for the DOD. We have a microelectronics Commons, which is about $400 million a year over five years. So that's $2 billion sorry, one yes, $2 billion apologies. I'm getting my one billion and two billion mixed up, because, you know, you play in billions, just kidding. So, the $2 billion over five years, which is really exciting, and so that's on top of our trusted and in microelectronics program, which is about 706 to $700 million a year, is over a billion dollars that we are putting into microelectronics and Microsoft specifically R and D, which is huge. So, we appreciate getting the word out on that there are hubs across the country and the projects were just awarded are about to be awarded. Excuse me, next month, so you're really coming out right on the time that we would love to talk about. It so very exciting for Office of Strategic capital, that's some initiative that we have put together over the past three years, and it is truly dear and dear to our hearts. This is bringing loan and loan guarantees to the Department of Defense in a way that we never had. There are 131 other federal credit programs in the executive branch, and this is 132 and we are thrilled that that type of innovation is coming to the department. We finally, you know, it was, I believe he'll talk about it. But after Sputnik crossed our skies in 1958, they set up NASA DARPA and the SBIC program and the Small Business Administration, and so we've been doing loan guarantees as long as we've had DARPA and NASA, but for some reason, it's the first time the department has figured out that this could be huge for us. So, we're really excited about that. And it's not easy to build a new organization and bring new things and new tools to the Pentagon, and so we're really proud of them, and every day is another exciting adventure for them. Then the last one is, we're really excited for you to talk to shotgun browning. His name is actually Tom Browning, but you will understand when you talk to him why his ego is by shotgun and him, we brought him over from DARPA. He ran the assault breaker two program there, which is an exciting thing that be interesting to see how much he can talk about with you, but we brought him over here to kind of do that same type of thing, which is get at the issues that we need to get at today. How can we iterate, push things out faster? Work with non-traditional. Work with traditional. But what can we do fast and move out, and how can we partner with the Joint Staff and the acquisition community at the same time to get sent out into the war fighters quickly. So that's a really exciting one. So, I'm really excited for the lineup that you have, and I'm excited to be here today. Thanks for having me. Lauren Bedula 06:54 Well, we're thrilled to be hosting this series, because we know there's so much interest from across our listeners and all the things you mentioned. So, thanks again for having us. And I know for today's episode, we also wanted to dig into what you're working on specifically in your background. So maybe best we can start with just telling that story. What brought you here today? How'd you end up working in the Pentagon? If you could tell our listeners that story, that'd be great. Bess Dopkeen 07:16 All right, so I'm currently a political appointee, but I started in the Pentagon 19 years ago. Years ago, which is crazy. So, I came in just as a contractor, like the 10 months out of college, I was, you know, in DC for International Development NGO fellowship from my university and told people I didn't really know what I was going to do next. I joined a crew team, and someone said, Hey, weren't you going to leave? And I said, Yes. And they said, pass me your resume. And I got a call to interview, and I said, where? And they said, the Pentagon. And I almost fell out of my chair and thought it would be like a great experience. And I told my dad I was going to go do an interview in the Pentagon. And he was like, well, that's the first-time adoptee never came there. And so, we laughed about it. And I went in, and I kind of laughed through my whole interview, and it was like a long wooden table with, you know, leather chairs and like, pictures of planes, ships and submarines on the wall. And I just thought, This is hilarious, and they're just gonna laugh me out of this room. And next thing I knew, I was hired. And five days later, this was 2005 beginning of 2005 and I had security clearance. So, it was a long time ago, and I started, and they made me promise that I'd be here for a year. So, yada yada yada, 19 years later, I am still here. So, I did a stint with ATL for three years. I just figured it was like studying abroad, I learned a new language, which was military speak. And I definitely it was like that, you know, my old boss, Dr, Nancy Sproul, in ATL, she sent me an email once that said, in my like, first week there, and said, Bess. And then it was just acronym, acronym, acronym, acronym, acronym. Thanks Nancy. And I just panicked, because I was like, No one understands what that means. That's not a that's not a normal paragraph. But it was an amazing three years there, learning from her and the other acquisition experts. And I went from having four, what they called, like, kind of vanilla green programs, to having, I think, 19 programs before I left, and one of them being the presidential helicopter and other fun things like that. And I had the winti program, which, with my analysis with the predecessor to CAPE, PA&E, we realized that there were some issues, and raised up to the under secretary at the time, and it became a number, Curti. And then I met CAPE, and they offered me a job, and I said, I don't even have, you know, my graduate degree. I was gonna, you know, I'm however old I was at the time. I was very young, and I think I've been there for, you know, two or three years. So, I was probably, like, 26. Hondo Geurts 09:54 So, explain what CAPE is for the audience. Bess Dopkeen 09:58 So, CAPE is, Yes, my apologies, because I've been here now, and I truly have embodied that. Hondo Geurts 10:05 I wasn't going to say that you resemble that remark. Bess Dopkeen 10:09 So, yes, so CAPE is the independent and analytical group to the Secretary and the deputy secretary. So, they kind of, they sit outside, they do the independent analysis, they do the five years planning, and they do the independent cost estimates. And I actually went to go work for the independent cost estimates folks. So, at the time, yeah, I was like, There's no way. The only people you have in your office are a bunch of, like, rocket scientists and engineers, and I don't even have my grad degree. And he was like, Well, you know, the building and I can teach the analysis, that's the easy stuff. And I was like, that's crazy, but he said, maybe we'll help you get your graduate degree. And turns out, later on, they sent me to War College. I think I might have been the youngest person at War College, which so cool. Was a little crazy, but it was amazing, and it's just been a great ride this whole time. So, my 11 years at CAPE was amazing. I went from doing independent cost stuff to kind of running their data initiative, so that people weren't starting from scratch every time, and we could do things faster and more strategically and plan for better data and software, so that we could do better analysis, so that we could tee it up to the decision maker, and they can make decisions on data and not wild goose chases based on hunches. So that was my goal in CAPE when I went on maternity leave and came back and there was an opportunity to, I was invited to go chair the Defense Innovation board's software acquisition study. And I was like, Okay, let's do this. This feels like something that is the next step here. So, I was lucky to have the director of CAPE champion me for that, which was lovely and supportive. So, they detailed me to the Defense Innovation Board for a year where I got to run the software acquisition strategy for them, sorry, the study for them, that was for Congress and for the undersecretary of ANS at the time, while we were in the new R and E. So that was a fun, fun, exciting opportunity to work with folks from Silicon Valley and academia. And people were like, What is going on with this pentagon of yours? And then we were able to actually bring them in. So, it wasn't as much of the tourist engagement, about, like, an actual solving of real problems. So that was exciting. And really got to work across a lot of great offices that I get to work with still today, which is wonderful, and the people that and really what we did there was, like, engage with the actual organization, so that the organizations came up with, like, the best paths forward, so that they felt ownership, and then wanted to go push forward, which was wonderful. After that year, I went over to the hill, and I got the wonderful opportunity to become a professional staff member, and I had the science and technology portfolio, which was amazing, and I had Army, Navy, Air Force, et cetera, and then OSD. So, it was just an awesome place to learn very cool things about what everyone was doing and the policy and the politics behind it. So that was an amazing PhD in chaos and excitingness. And then I got the opportunity to come back in as a political appointee for MSU, so I'm our senior advisor. And you know, there's nothing more fun than being able to run down the problems, because my biggest thing over on the Hill was, I had to learn a different way of doing it. You know, coming from the building where you just constantly hit your head against walls and then figure out the way around them. But like you constantly push, and on the hill, you push in a different way by like lobbying little question bombs and move it. You see people move and writing language that comes out later and people react to it over the next five years. It's a lot more hands off, but very, very important and awesome. So, it's kind of exciting to be back here, to be like no back into hands on motion and go run things down, which is great. Hondo Geurts 13:54 Well as a recipient for many of your indirect approaches in my past life. It's great to be back with you. So, you know, over the 20 years, the department's kind of view on technology, and who's a player in bringing new technology, I think, has been shifting. What's your sense of it? Having watched this for 20 years, and you think the department's moving in the right direction and making progress, and if so, where are you seeing that the most, and shifting to new directions on how to engage with industry, approach technology insertion and adoption, kind of all the above. Bess Dopkeen 14:33 So, I mean, there's you know, Silicon Valley itself was created when the department said, Hey, Stanford professors stop doing research and spin out some companies and sell this stuff back to us, right? So, we have inherently been working with industry and the world of like, we'll pay for the basic research you, you build it for us, and we'll bring it back for a very long. Time, I think, you know, and DARPA, for example, does tons of that, right? You know, like, DARPA has these ideas. They go find nontraditional industry, they go find researchers, they go, like, kind of try to do whatever you can to make something the needle move. And we do a lot of that too, right? So, I think across the whole department, right, the laboratories, Mission capabilities, shotgun shop, DARPA, and then you have like CDAO and DIU and others that we all partner together. I think we're really getting after trying to work with industry as best as we can. I was just down in Mississippi last week with Senator wicker and his team and our Assistant Secretary, and we were having a conversation with a lot of business owners. And, you know, there's, you know, frustration sometimes when you know, I, all I need is $50 million this year to get this done. And you're like, Yes, totally. Except also, right, there's, there's just also, you know, these things that, right? We can't pivot the money right now for that. Now, that said the company that we were talking to had been working with the department and with Congress and with others for many years. I remember meeting with them when I was on the on the House side as well. But, you know, they're we need slightly more. I mean, this is not for everything, right? But we need to be much more agile. We need to be able to, like, do contracting better. We need to optimize the use of OTAs, all of that, right. And then we also need to have a really good plan that we can lay out to Congress. And then also have some sort of trust with Congress, which I don't think we have at the moment, to be able to say, hey, I need to reprioritize this, right? Things have come up that need to happen today to get this out, and I will cover down on these other things that I told you are important, or we're going to shut down these other things, because this has become more important, and I can't do the others, right. So we need that kind of reprogramming, not reprogramming, but like reprioritizing ability within the lines and having the authority and kind of freeness to be able to do that the time, not, and try not to use the four letter word flexibility, because, like, you don't want to say that, but you do need to be able to re like, to reprioritize, right? And go back to them and say, we were getting at these issues, and we need to reprioritize that. But like, otherwise, you know, where we are in the moment is, it's F it's like, you know, FY, 24 and the budget that can be affected every time you talk like industry talks to us, is the 27 budgets with the services. And it's like, that is an ungodly long time to wait, right? So up until then, and shotgun will talk a lot about this with his rapid prototyping program, which is kind of like the six four, which is prototyping and experimentation stuff. Well prototyping. And then six three lines, his defense innovation activities. Line, they actually have the ability to reprioritize inside of those and so kind of go after things. And then they are also working on Raider, the rapid defense experimentation reserve, which the deputy announced back in, I think, June of 2021, that we're finally in our first year of execution for because of that programming process, right? And everyone's like, well, what's happened? You're like, oh, it's been two and a half years, right? That we've been kind of waiting to get that money, because you have to do it in that way. And what ended up happening was that ideally, that operator effort was going to be more of a prioritize the year of so you can get after those things. But what it ends up being, because we have to make that case to Congress that we need the money for it, we started planning ahead, so now we are planning out 27 and 26 as well, while executing 23 executing 24 hoping for 25 rights, like planning and hoping for 25 and that kind of thing. So, it's sometimes it's hard to pivot because of that planning process, which is really unfortunate in the ways that we can possibly use those, those accounts that are more open to reprioritization, we have to try to get after that. Lauren Bedula 18:59 You talked a lot about the different stakeholders, and it's interesting, because you've sat in many of the positions and kind of understand the process, which you've also talked about. I have a question. A lot of our listeners come from industry. How do you see them fitting into this in an efficient way? Like, what would your advice be to these industry players who want to be at the table and helping? How can they help? Bess Dopkeen 19:21 Yeah, no. I mean, so we love that they want to help, and we are going to do so much better by partnering with industry and working with them and figuring out some of their wonderful ideas that can get after the things that we need. The biggest gap, I think, is the actual gap analysis, right? So, I was just having a conversation with a company last week about this, but, you know, so I, I've, you know, I've built something as a company. I've, I've put it out there. It works. I've prototyped it. Who, like, who? Who is going to buy this now, right? But, okay, so, so what is the gap that, that, that the Navy sees, or the joint staff sees, and are you going to solve? Something for them, right? Because right now they have, like, their plan for the next five years is set to get after their problem set. What is it that you can do cheaper and better, and it is like a smarter way than what they've already done, and what can they not pay for in their budget to do that? And, sorry, it's like a zero-sum game in that way, but you got to get after what this brings them that is a requirement for them. And again, I don't mean like, full requirement, but like, yes, ideally, they will do that, because to get them into the acquisition stage, are going to need to get that. And that's another thing that shotguns really working on how to get better requirements out there to, like, go after things that that are actually, you know, getting after that joint warfighting concept problems, right? But you really, you mean, need to circle back to the Navy requirements folks, or the Joint Staff requirements folks that are saying we are using the money that we have towards getting after this problem. And so, if your thing can solve 12% of that problem, does that make the business case? You got to close that business case for them, right? And I've heard, you know, other kind of business cases being made of like, well, if you have a billion dollars for replicator, you spend a billion dollars on my technology, I would be able to get you X amount of them. And it's like, well, that's, that's not going to solve that problem, right? But you can get at their business case problem by showing that you can take care of 30% of something that would normally be a much more expensive product. Hondo Geurts 21:26 I think what I hear, what I hear you say, is, rather than shopping a piece of technology or a product, spending some time understanding the problem or the need and then understanding how that technology or product can help solve that need. What are some of the initiatives the department has been doing to help illuminate some of those needs in a way that industry, maybe particularly industry who hasn't done a lot of work with the department, can have some insight into. So, if I'm a company and I hear you best, I'm interested. I don't want to just shop my product. I want to understand your needs. What is your advice you have for them on how to take steps to understand that need and then see if their product or technology could be useful in meeting that need? Bess Dopkeen 22:15 Okay, so a couple of different things. I think that's a wonderful question. I think you guys should really go after it with shotgun too, because shotgun has a lot of these kind of Industry Days where he's doing it with CDAO and DIU and some labs, right? Like where people are all kind of showing up together to get after things. And I think there's a lot of good conversations that are happening at those. So, I would love to see more people attend those. And I know, I know that they're, they're shooting them out far and wide, but he should definitely talk more about that. Ms. Shyu has done a couple of things where it's like, have a conference with industry that has both the RDT & E guys and the procurement guys in the same in the same group, so that you can say, like, here's what we're looking for, here's what the procurement guys are looking for, so that people can, like, come and just ask questions and have conversations. I think there's been two, like, two conferences, like last year and this year on the AI and autonomy world specifically on that. Additionally, another way to shop around inside the department is with the SIBR sitter program. So, I've heard so many things like, oh, SIBR sitter, it's not that helpful. Okay? So SIBR sitter is amazingly helpful for a couple of reasons. Okay, small business innovative research and Small Business Technology Transfer Programs, so they are like, kind of seed dollars, small dollars amount. There's a phase one, a phase two, and then there's a phase three that I'll talk about in a second. But the phase one and phase two comes from what I would never call a tax on the RDT and E programs, because it is not never say that out loud that is, but it's like a percentage of the money that goes to intramural, our intramural RDT and E, inside the building and inside the department sees me as a whole, gets put out there. I think it was like 2.8 and then 3.4 total with SIBR sitter or something like that. But they that's of that's billions of dollars a year gets put into just SIBR sitter type of awards. So that can be like Air Force does for everybody, like an open topic. So, you can just submit what you have, and then we can, like, kind of shop it around and see who it might be useful for. But it gives, you know, phase one is kind of a concept study, and then phase two is actually money to develop, you know, up to, like, an early, early prototype or something that you can but part of that is shopping around the building and meeting the people who will be interested, and that community shares a lot of information. And then additionally, the biggest benefit of SIBR sitter is that you no longer have to compete for anything, right? You can anything that comes out of SIBR sitter work can be bought without competition. Going forward, it's a huge deal. So, you know, there are multiple companies you know that you know their names. That were once superseder and now can sell without competition. I mean, that's it. That's a huge benefit. So, when people are like, Oh, I've never seen anything good come out of SIBR sitter, you're like, No, that's not true. There's a lot of good things. I mean, the Navy is very good at taking superseder stuff and constantly improving the things that they have. And then other people are kind of, you know, I mean, everyone's good at that. But, like, there's other cool things about SIBRs that are about really being able to then go out and buy things from these companies later on. And so, it's a great way to get in and meet people and figure out who your customer is and what your customer needs. Lauren Bedula 25:33 So here you talk about both the opportunity to convene, which I think is huge, and industry certainly tries to show up, and then also some of these avenues to get in, whether it's rapid acquisition, we'll talk more with shotgun browning. But the piece that I thought was very interesting as well out of your office was Ms. Shyu priorities around technology too. So even just listing this is what we care about, and I know you have to be delicate about how public you are. But could you talk a little bit about that vision for releasing that list and what I hoped it would accomplish? Yeah, Bess Dopkeen 26:06 So that critical technologies list was helpful for us, right? But I mean, and again, I want to stress we have the full portfolio from science and technology to critical technologies to that kind of transition world of getting things over. And so, I never want you to forget that. Like inside of our basic research world, we want people to just come up with brilliant new things that we never would have thought about otherwise, GPS wouldn't exist, and other things like that that we stealth wouldn't have existed. And all the things that that blue sky research really produced still needs to be focused on for the critical technology. Is what she's saying is in the near term and long-term future, because her responsibility is both like this, zero to two to three years. And you know, what can we actually get out and iterate with and experiment with today and then that 30-year roadmap, right? But like bringing new capability to the warfighter and so on that she's kind of broken up her list into 14 critical technology areas. One is seed areas of our responsibility, right? So, we've got kind of biotechnology is in there, quantum is in there, which is actually funny, because it's over time over since we've done that. It's even kind of like moving around a little bit in some of these. But the middle stage is kind of the, like, the things that are inherently defense, like hypersonics, right, you know, and other things like that, that there are wonderful ways to partner with industry, you know, like nontraditional industry on it, but like, really, we only want to be the only ones buying hypersonic missiles. And then there's the other one that's like, the fast followers, where most of this stuff does not need to be us leading, but we need to be able to follow it quickly, and we need to be able to use it best, right? So, she kind of breaks things up into that, and right? And for that, we've got other things like, you know, obviously advanced software and computing things like that would be part of those groups, although future G is part of the more seed research. But anyway, she kind of, like, thinks about it in that way. And absolutely, if there is industry out there, she is out there, traveling and meeting with industry, having the closed-door conversations about what they're doing, and saying, like, hey, that's close to something that could be very useful. Have you thought about something else? Right? Like, that's like, close to that, but something different, because that could be really useful for us, right? Like, so trying to have those conversations. So, she's got, like, a very good perspective of, like, what she would love to see her, her vision of that world be, but, yeah, so, I mean, I'm glad, I'm glad that that is useful. It's definitely helpful inside of the department to make sure that Army, Navy, Air Force, DARPA, us, like CAPE, others, kind of like convene around these types of in Comptroller, so that we can think about it in that way. How are we doing in this area? What's the vision? What are the gaps on how to get there? How do we need to proceed? Where can we lean on industry for that, and where do we need to make those investments, and that's been a nice way of kind of working through that. I Lauren Bedula 29:04 think it's particularly helpful to hear about those follow up conversations, because I think one criticism of the list is it's so broad, so it's hard to know. But if it's putting industry, appointing industry in the right direction, also thinking through the investment community to so private capital. Where should they be looking so just a quick follow up, how are you working with the private capital and investment community? Bess Dopkeen 29:26 All right, so private capital, so that was a question. My like, my first day, when I got here, we were going to, we were, we were talking about, kind of doing a secretaries and Investment Initiative. And I was like, hold on, there's a lot of things that we need to think through before we do this type of thing. And so, we worked on it for a year. And at the 2022, Reagan, Reagan forum, we actually made, like the Secretary of Defense made the announcement that he was standing up Office of Strategic capital. And that's really like the way we are. Trying to get at this, and so ideally, Jason will be able to talk more about this. And I think you guys have met with Jason in the past, so really appreciate you doing that. We greatly appreciate you. But like, really, how can we get after making capital cheaper for investors, right? So, there's two kinds of ways of doing it right now. They've partnered with the Small Business Administration for the SBIC program that was started in 1958, right? And they do a two to one match to private investors that want to go after some sort of area. And so, in our critical technologies’ initiative with the SBAS SBIC program, they are going after critical technologies that we care about. And so that is now a billion dollars’ worth of funding that is going towards investment companies that will invest in the areas that we care about that are aligned to the critical technologies. So that's exciting in that way, and then the actual OSC effort that we now have authorities and appropriations to do, thank you, Congress, they will be getting after actually providing loans and loan guarantees directly to companies. Hondo Geurts 31:01 So, Bess, we've had many members of Congress on I don't know that we've had many professional staffers on the show. And so, you talked about trust as a key element to success, I think anywhere but particularly between the department and Congress and industry. Can you tell the listeners a little bit about what your role is as a professional staffer, because I'm not sure everybody understands that difference from what they might think is a personal staff. And then areas where you've seen success, whether it's between a government partner or a DOD partner, and you in Congress, you know what makes for a good relationship there or with industry. Wow. You know, how have you seen success when you were staffer that would help give you that trust? And then when did you not see it and then beat up people like me when I come visit you? So, Bess Dopkeen 31:53 all right, the professional staffers and you were, you were always a wonderful briefer for us. Thank you, Hondo. So professional staff is the staff that's on the committee. So, the House Armed Services Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, the House Appropriations Committee for defense, or the Senate appropriations for convention for defense. And they, they staff, technically, the chairman or the ranking member, and but they, they work for all the members on that committee. And then when it goes to the floor and other things, they work for pretty much all of their members, be it on the House or the Senate side that want to get information into the bill and language into the bill. Additionally, they meet with lobbyists, they meet with government. They meet with everybody. So that's kind of a fun one, because you don't see as much of that on the government side unless they're really out there. I'm talking not the government side, the executive branch side, excuse me. So, you really get to, like, hear the problems from industry and be able to kind of give them, like, Hey, have you talked to so and so about this, which is fun inside the sorry, so let's talk more about that. So, success, successful. Successes. I think OSC is actually a very good success story in that it's something that originated here, but also needed to then originate over there, and they had to go across many different hurdles to make sure that everyone felt the ownership and the responsibility and the trust that was needed to give the Defense Department something that many people did not think we should have, which is loan and loan guarantee authorities and it was so foreign to us. And again, our staffers and our oversight organizations reflect us in the same way industry reflects us and everyone right? But like it was, it was very foreign to them as well. Even though there are 131 other federal credit programs, it's not something the Department did, and it's not something our committees did So huge thanks to all of the staffers that were able to go from zero to 100 on the like the policy and the technicalities and like what scores and what doesn't score and whose jurisdiction is it, and all of the partnership that went in to make this a reality, that was huge, and that was just a constant iteration, and a huge thanks to, you know, the senior leadership in our organizations and our and, you know, the Pentagon and OMB and others for supporting this. But yeah, and that was it. That's a huge thing. And being able to say like, Hey, we'll come back to you, and actually were about to come back, they tasked the appropriations committee with the appropriations for the purpose of loan and loan guarantees, which is a huge deal. And I believe one of the one of the clerks for the appropriators appropriations committee said it was a minor miracle that we received it. So, like a huge thanks to everybody. But in their a. Appropriations. They said, Hey, come back within 120 days with a signed package between the Secretary of Defense and the director of OMB on the criteria that we want to make sure that we like, keep us on the guardrails, to make sure that we know what's going to happen, and everyone agrees that we're good, and we are literally taking that to the secretary tomorrow, and it's been signed by OMB, so it's like a huge deal for us, and we've done it. It's due on the 20th, and it is the 15th today, which is amazing. So, we're really proud of that. Hondo Geurts 35:26 I think another, at least in my experience, and I don't know I'd be interested in yours, is one. I think we sometimes get defensive on both sides, as opposed to creating relationships. I always love the fact you would tell me what other folks were thinking and what industry was thinking, or where Congress has concerned, or whatnot. So, building that I think the other one is coming, not only just going over there when you're asking for something, and being as quick with bad news as with good news, is that your sense? Yeah, over there, absolutely, Bess Dopkeen 36:01 yeah. And don't, don't let anyone surprise you. That was always our, our, our role, and it's my role here. Please. Let's not surprise the anyone over there, right? Like, let's give them a heads up before something happens. My favorite is when I would read something big in the news, and five people would email me to include my chairman and say, what's going on? And then I would have to be like, I don't know, hold on a second, right? Like, you never want that to happen to your staffers. And then additionally, I mean, I spent a lot of my time with our budget briefings this past year. Because we are, we are a growing organization inside of R and E, and we are, we are still learning some of these things. Because, you know, back when we were at L, sorry, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics that I worked for many, many years ago, when they broke into the research and engineering and acquisition sustainment, there was a lot broken in between there that we are still working to repair, right? Just because, like the muscle memory of working together as outside entities, had never been built. And then also, you know, many of the biz ops operations inside, like, went to one or the other. And so, everyone has to, kind of, like, reintegrate into how we participate in the President's budget review and how we do congressional reports and all of these types of things. Like, you have to kind of relearn it. And so, we've been going through that with us with our budget appropriators and our authorizers to, you know, and like that, that kind of not surprising. Them being more detailed than you think you need to be is important, right? And I have these conversations with people in our organization a lot about like, give the full schedule of like, what we think is going to happen, and the contract numbers, and who do we think is going think is going to apply for this, and whatever, right? Because, like, the point is, is that the appropriators want to see that you have a plan, and want to understand the plan and know the plan, and then feel slight ownership of that plan, right? And the obviously, the tendencies seem to be like, well, well, I'm still working that out perfectly, right? Or I that could change, right? Yes. Like, I get it. Like, everyone understands the plan is only good until the day it is used, and then it changes, right? But, like, Can we, can we give them as much as we have right now, so that, like, we are working through this process together as partners, and that's really the goal that we try to get to. And, you know, I think many more years of working like that will build the trust that is necessary. I'm Lauren Bedula 38:27 going to shift gears a little bit and talk about talent. What are you seeing in terms of interest to get into this type of field? Do you work with universities? Or what's your take on the talent and workforce outlook? Bess Dopkeen 38:38 Yeah. So, we've got tons of stuff like that. That's wonderful. I'm so excited that you asked that. So, in our science and technology assistant Secretariat, and I was just gone down with Dr April Erickson. She just got confirmed about four or five months ago. She comes from NASA. So very, also very excited about that, and sipper sitter, and basic research and all the things, right and so. But we have tons of great things like that. We have the smart Fellowship, which is Scholarship for Service. So, you come in as a college student, you get your college paid for, and then you owe us yours back in the same number of years that you got college paid for back in the laboratories. And then they have something like a crazy amount of people that stay in the laboratories, over 70% 80% or something like that. I have to get you the most updated numbers, but it's amazing. Like, these kids are like, No, I'm here, right? Because, like, that's the that's the coolness of being in a place with a security clearance, and like, getting to see the actual problems that you get to work on. And so that's an extremely successful program. In fact, like, I think Congress and OMB and others would love us to expand that program. And like, the problem is that you need to be able to have positions for all these people students, so I think it's about as big as we can do at the moment. But like, we're constantly figuring out how to do better. We have a huge HBCU and minority institutions program, something that we're very proud of is that we raise that to $100 million a year. Congress used to plus it up. We used to have it around 2829 3031, and they would add $70 million to it, and now we are just fully in the 100 million dollars and fully committed to this kind of partnership. I mean, look, this is there is an amazing wealth of talent all around the country that we are not tapping into oftentimes, because just schools don't have enough resources, and we haven't, they're not, they haven't been on our radar. And so, we've expanded the smart fellowship, I believe, also with HBCUs type, type of partnerships as well. So that's a huge deal for us as well. Additionally, we're doing depth score. You're going to make me define it, and it's going to be hard defense. I think it used to be experimental, and now it's existing program for science. Anyway, it's, I will get you the actual definition of depth score. It's a very, very, very long title of some bill. And come on, that's not fair, but, yes, so, so, but depth score is the defense's world of EPSCoR. EPSCoR is part of like National Science Foundation and others, but that's getting research dollars to state that don't get a lot, a large amount of the normal defense research dollars, and so that's a big deal. It's a big deal for our chair and ranking of Senate Armed Services and other things like that, because they come from Rhode Island and Mississippi and places that could definitely use it. But that's the same thing, which is really trying to get after the talent that is all over the country and sometimes ignored. So, we have huge things like that. We have K through 12 programs. And then, of course, we have like Vannevar Bush fellows, which are like, kind of the best of the best. We also have, oh, I'm gonna blink on the title. I apologize, there's another fellowship for really, that's like the that's funding for graduate students that are really, like the cream of the crop. And so there is no, there's no service requirement, because these guys are the ones that can get money from anywhere but the path, the fact that we are funding them and they are doing research with the Navy or the army or whatever, we hope that they will continue doing research for the next 30 years with us, because we they are going to be the ones that are really groundbreaking in the science. Hondo Geurts 42:16 So, when you were on the hill and I was into building your results, sense that we were not getting, I would say, all the cutting-edge companies interested in national security for a variety of reasons. And then covid hit, and then Ukraine hit is your sense that you're seeing more and more interest in wide variety of companies that want to support national security and national defense, and what other barriers do you think we need to keep working on to enable them? You know, anybody who wants to participate from being able to bring their technologies or products to bear as fast as possible. Yeah, Bess Dopkeen 43:01 no. I mean, I absolutely think there's been a major shift since then. And I think, I mean, if I remember correctly, when I was over the Defense Innovation Board, we had just had the Google issue with, you know, other things like that. And I think it's been a very big 180 on that. And there are companies, you know, banging down our door, and so that the thing that we need to give them is the support of being able to find the right place and be able to talk to the right people. And I still greatly believe in that. And man, if I had more time to do things, I would totally do the transition. Sherpa, I think that that's absolutely what's needed of awesome people doing wonderful things and connect them to the right places and help them kind of go through the acrobatics of what's needed unfortunately inside of the department, to like, be seen by the right folks, noticed by the right requirements folks, and programmed appropriately, or shifted money reprioritized inside the current contract. That that's really, I mean, if, if I wish we could, you know, be more agile and responsive. We have a lot of different groups that are trying to get out there to do that, and I'm excited for you to talk to shotgun. Obviously, DIU is out there. CDAO is trying as well, with their guide effort and others. But yeah, I think the answer is not, I don't think its people are running away from us anymore. I think if only we knew how to harness that better, would be great. Lauren Bedula 44:25 I'm going to shift gears again a little bit. You've got this awesome job. You're working on some very interesting and important things. I think the first time we met, Bess, I was a new mom at the Reagan defense forum, and you're like, oh, just, you just gave me all sorts of advice right off the bat. So, I wanted to see if you had any advice for our listeners who are thinking through balancing personal and professional goals, like, how are you maintaining? Bess Dopkeen 44:50 Well, we should have, like one of those 360, assessments to see if other people agree with what I'm about to say and how I'm doing. But yes, no, I have a seven-year-old about to turn seven to. Ro and a two-year-old. And I believe the only reason I was able to give you any advice on it is because the year before I was a brand-new mom doing all the mom things at the Reagan defense forum. And so, I'm more than happy to impart any of those advice for any of your listeners, if they if they want, if they want suggestions, but, yeah, no, I think, I think it's hard. I think, you know, you constantly second guess yourself. And I think the, you know, I tell people because they're like, you know, in my job right now, I can, I can get shit done during the day and go fight the fights that need to happen. I can be a mom, and I can read email, and I can choose two of those things, and what is died is the email. And I know I drive everyone crazy, but I'm like, if you need me, you got to send the carrier pigeons. You got to send someone else. But like, there's, I think, the success of that, being able to survive that and not be completely fired at this point because of it, is just having a team of people that are amazing and like, know that my time is spent best, you know, doing the knife fights in the meetings, and they are able to flag things for me. And, you know, kind of like the water goes around the rock at some point, and the right folks Newton, so like, I've got a great team of, like, people in the front office and special assistants to the under and across the department, and like, military assistance that are, like, getting after those other things, and flag for me the problems and show me where to go. That's the way I survive. Well, Lauren Bedula 46:40 you do have an amazing team, and we're excited to showcase more of them. Thank you, Beth, so much for kicking off this initiative with us, for your time, for everything you're doing, and for coming on the show today. It Bess Dopkeen 46:52 was such a pleasure to hang out with you, too. Thank you. Thank you.