The Department of Defense’s (DOD) traditional acquisition system is by design methodical, slow, and risk-averse. It has evolved for a peacetime environment, one where threats aren’t pressing and are always just far enough out in the future. As such, with enough time, this system can eventually provide capability to the warfighter, account for taxpayer dollars, and guard against corruption. The system’s inefficiency and lack of cost-effectiveness wouldn’t be a compelling national security problem if the balance of threats hadn’t profoundly changed in the last decade. But, that’s unfortunately not the case and we no longer have the time to wait for capability.

DOD’s current acquisition practices lead to noncompetitive results and, at best, only incremental innovation. The Pentagon has fallen behind the commercial sector and is in danger of falling behind our adversaries. Commercial industry continues to move at the speed of Moore’s law while DOD acquisition moves at the speed of its outmoded linear processes and bureaucracy. Commercial innovation is now revolutionizing defense and dominates 11 of the 14 technologies DOD has identified as critical to its future.

Our acquisition system must be flexible enough to adapt to these disruptive new technology trends in real time. Congress gave some recognition to this almost a decade ago when it passed a series of reforms that sought to recreate conditions for a time-based acquisition system modeled after past successful periods of defense and commercial innovation. These reforms gave DOD new authorities like Middle Tier of Acquisition (MTA) and Production Other Transaction Authority (OTA) to move fast with non-traditional sources of innovation and implement a commercially-equivalent acquisition approach. 

Despite these efforts to forge acquisition pathways around the Pentagon’s lethargic system, progress so far has been marginal and fragmented. Without embracing at scale the changes championed by Congress to speed acquisition time, DOD will be incapable of meeting future threats.

Given these challenges, rather than rely on isolated pockets of innovation like the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), it’s time to create an alternative defense acquisition system. We’re in need of a system that’s geared not towards compliance and process but speed and results in areas such as AI, robotics, quantum, space, and autonomy, all of which are dominated by commercial technologies. While it would be great if Congress could wipe the slate clean for defense acquisition, the best it can probably do is to create a complementary, time-based structure. This would provide a roadmap for the majority of capabilities that require a faster, more disruptive innovative path.

Congress already possesses many of the authorities to do this, but leadership is required to overcome bureaucratic intransigence. Critical reforms should focus on the following 5 pillars:

1. Management: Put an Organization in Charge and Give It Authority

• Much as we are seeing now with the DIU and Replicator, and in the past with the organizations that built the first naval nuclear reactor, ICBMs, and reconnaissance satellites, someone or some office must be put in charge of a new major capability effort for it to succeed. They also must be given the tools to do the job. Congress and the Secretary of Defense should clear away all bureaucratic barriers for these organizations to directly use flexible acquisition, budgeting, and personnel authorities.

2. Personnel: Speed the Time to Hire and Limit Tenure

• To recruit the talent to staff these acquisition organizations, Congress should support the old David Packard adage of getting good people, giving them authority, and then getting out of their way. The organizational heads should be given expanded personnel authorities and the ability to directly hire Highly Qualified Experts (HQEs), with tenure limited to support rapid results. Warfighters should be equipped in no more than five years’ time and personnel tenure should align to those milestones.  

3. Contracting: Enable Fast and Flexible Contracting with Non-Traditional Contractors in Specific Commercial Sectors

• To support these designated organizations, nontraditional contractor OTA consortia should be established in specific commercial sectors. Like in Operation Warp Speed, leveraging specific sector-wide OTA consortia made up of non-traditional contractors will allow for greater industrial collaboration and result in faster development times and contracting.

4. Acquisition and Requirements: Leverage Rapid Acquisition, Software, and Middle Tier Pathways

• The acquisition tools are already there if organizations are allowed to use them. Congress may need to either mandate their use in certain circumstances or ensure that barriers to their use are removed.

5. Budgeting: Support Year of Execution Budget Flexibility

• Acquisition capability efforts within the designated acquisition organization should be able to be immediately started with rapid funding authorities in the year of execution, dramatically reducing decision time. 

An alternative acquisition system to rapidly create and deploy new capabilities will enhance deterrence and national security. The authorities already exist to do this. It is a matter of will and leadership to scale current experimental efforts at reform.

The post Reforming Defense Acquisition in a Changing and Contested Threat Environment appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.