「방위사업법」상 시범사업제도에 대한 비교법적 고찰 -미국의 특례거래권한(OTA)제도와의 비교를 중심으로-

As the utilization of innovative technologies in the defense sector is expanding, and these technologies often have very short life cycles, it necessitates a rapid defense acquisition system for theses technologies. To address this, on May 16, 2023, 「Defense Acquisition Program Act」 was amended to adopt the “Pilot Project System.” This article compares the “Pilot Project System” with the United States’ Other Transaction Authority (OTA), which is considered its model, and proposes ways to improve the pilot project system. The OTA allows flexible contract execution by excluding the application of various regulations, such as the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). The advantages of OTA include the flexibility to procure the latest and most advanced technologies, the ability to engage enterprises that have not traditionally participated in defense procurement, the deviation from complex and burdensom regulations, and the ability to expedite procurement. However, there are also disadvantages to the OTA system, including the fact that OTAs are subject to less oversight than regular procurement contracts, are not subject to laws and regulations designed to protect the interests of the government and taxpayers, and can be less transparent and difficult to hold contractors accountable. Based on a review of the OTA system, the following recommendations for improving Korea’s pilot project system can be made. First, there needs to be clearer regulations regarding the applicability of 「Act on the Contracts in which the State is the Party」 and the 「Defense Acquisition Program Act」 to the pilot project system. Second, incentives such as protection of intellectual property rights should be provided to companies that succeed in prototype production. Third, criteria for selecting projects should be established to encourage participation from innovative companies that have not traditionally been involved in defense projects. Fourth, mechanisms for swift legal remedies through the State Contract Dispute Resolution Board should be put in place to enhance the efficiency of dispute resolution related to pilot projects. Fifth, statistics related to the pilot project system need to be managed transparently. Sixth, meaningful cooperation between the public and private sectors, as well as among private entities, should be achieved in the pilot project system. Finally, it is important to recognize that the pilot project system does not automatically guarantee rapid acquisition, and efforts should be made to secure the expertise of Agency for Defense Development (ADD)’s personnel responsible for the system.