Contributors

Anonymous researcher at a national security and technology think tank

Key things to know

There is no one weird trick to streamlining defense acquisition. A tightly interlocking mesh of statutes, regulations, and instructions governs the expenditure of public funds; statutory authorities outlined in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and elsewhere, regulations, including the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and its defense supplements (DFARS), and the pathways outlined in Department of Defense Instruction 5000 (DoD 5000). It is necessarily complex: it must be responsive to the operational requirements of military services (JCIDS) and to broader questions of strategy and force design (PPBE). And above all, it must be responsive to the budgets authorized and appropriated by Congress.

The Department of Defense uses multiple levers to manage this complexity, from defining new instructions to building universities for training acquisition professionals. Of these, the language of DoD 5000 is crucial. Instruction 5000 shapes a large set of acquisitions ongoing within the Department of Defense. Its latest iteration introduces the Adaptive Acquisition Framework (AAF), which outlines predefined pathways for executing an acquisition effort compliant with the FAR. They offer heuristics for acquisition professionals to acquire services, software, and submarines. The 2020 reform now defines six distinct acquisition pathways, for services, business information systems, software, and urgent, "middle tier", and major capabilities.

New authorities and pathways, including middle-tier acquisition, have produced a sea change in how the Department of Defense buys things. Since its introduction, the middle-tier acquisition pathway has become increasingly popular for rapidly prototyping and fielding existing technologies. New incentives introduced in recent NDAAs, moreover, has increased the usage of Other Transaction Authorities; means of streamlining contracting and review processes for urgent needs, particularly for research and development projects.

These nontraditional acquisition authorities are unique in shifting acquisition decision-making to lower levels for contracts that do not exceed Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) cost thresholds. The MTA pathway enables the rapid fielding of a residual capability or prototype within five years; unlike with traditional acquisitions, it does not require compliance with the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS), a complex process that generates requirements for traditional DoD programs. MTA acquisitions instead can issue a succinct requirements document within six months, and streamlines the number of reports and review boards involved. OTA acquisitions, meanwhile, enable purchases of high-risk, cutting-edge technologies, particularly from non-traditional defense contractors and small businesses, without needing to inflexibly adhere to FAR requirements.

It will take several years for the full impact of these reforms to be understood. And it is clear that new pathways and authorities themselves are insufficient for rapid acquisition. There are many points of risk in the government acquisition process, from contracting to prototyping to test and evaluation, which require individual expertise and leadership top cover to navigate. But the 2016 NDAA, which incentivized OTA acquisitions, and 2020 AAF, which introduced MTAs, have provided useful levers for speeding technology acquisition. Leveraging these, and delivering at the pace of relevance, will demand a corresponding shift in culture.