Defense technology companies broadly agree on what secure software looks like. Less consistent, though, is industry-wide understanding of the Defense Department’s mechanisms for demonstrating security compliance. Instead, stakeholders generally see a lack of “consistent and standardized methods for attestation processes,” according to recent industry feedback.

A new summary document released by Acting DoD CIO Katie Arrington compiled and analyzed industry responses to three separate DoD requests for information on advancing and securing software for the federal government.

“Overall, there was a strong call for the DoW to define a legitimate attestation, identify what is required to complete an attestation, and to ensure consistency of these standards across the DoW,” the document states. “Additional hurdles such as resource constraints, difficulties managing supply chain opacity, and cultural barriers further underscore the intricacies of enforcing a robust secure software development practice.”

In response to the DoD CIO’s requests for information under the office’s recently launched Software Fast Track Initiative, industry overwhelmingly pointed to established cybersecurity frameworks such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Secure Software Development Framework and the widely used Open Worldwide Application Security Project standards for managing software and supply-chain risk. More than 75% of respondents said they rely on NIST’s secure software framework, which aligns with DoD’s approach to software security and risk management.

But companies told Pentagon IT leadership that uncertainty around compliance remains a major obstacle. Vendors said it is unclear what qualifies as a valid attestation, what documentation must be included in a body of evidence, how often attestations are required and whether companies are allowed to self-attest to security practices or must rely on third-party assessments. Since NIST’s secure software guidance is designed as a framework rather than a checklist, vendors warned that compliance is open to interpretation and risks inconsistent application across the department.

Arrington announced the Software Fast Track, or SWFT Initiative, in April with the aim to reform the ways DoD buys, tests and authorizes secure software. Arrington has argued that the Pentagon’s existing processes for approving software are too slow. Since returning to the Pentagon in March in acting CIO capacity, she has pushed to overhaul the department’s legacy processes for buying software, namely the Risk Management Framework (RMF) and the authority to operate (ATO) approval process. She previously said she is “blowing up the RMF” and that she hopes ATOs are “something I never hear about again.”

The SWFT effort intends to shift away from rigid checklist processes toward dynamic, continuous authorization to operate. To inform the shift, the CIO office issued three requests for information asking vendors for insights around tools in use, external assessment methodologies, and how automation and artificial intelligence could help the department accelerate secure software adoption.

Not only did the first RFI, focused on Software Fast Track tools, reveal that companies are concerned about inconsistent attestation requirements, responses also flagged challenges with integrating the secure software framework into existing workflows. 

“The amount of evidence required for NIST SP 800-218 compliance would likely require automation and integration of multiple tools within existing infrastructure. Similarly, integrating manual documentation and effort into existing logical processes and workflows could be challenging,” the Software Fast Track RFI summary reads. 

At the same time, about 90% of respondents said they would provide software bills of materials — detailed inventories of the components used to build a software product — to the department. Most said those SBOMs would cover their own software.

Nearly all companies said they already perform software risk assessments and would provide DoD officials with risk assessments artifacts. Most said those artifacts are generated through automated tools, and the majority made clear “their willingness to provide these artifacts in an efficient manner through standardized formats and secure exchange processes.”

To that end, companies recommended allowing vendors to submit artifacts directly into DoD platforms such as Enterprise Mission Assurance Support Service (eMASS) through application programming interfaces to expedite software security reviews.

External assessments

Industry respondents said most companies already rely on a mix of internal and external audits to assess software security.

Internal audit functions typically include continuous monitoring, code reviews and regular red-teaming exercises designed to identify vulnerabilities before they can be exploited. Meanwhile, external assessments are often conducted by third-party auditors or independent penetration testers to provide objective validation of a company’s security posture. 

Top compliance regimes include the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program, NIST cybersecurity standards and Service Organization Control (SOC), which “further evidences a mature security posture among organizations.”

At the same time, companies stressed that any external assessment functions would require clear guardrails. Respondents said assessment organizations should demonstrate relevant experience in high-security environments, secure data handling methodologies, established quality management and high degree of independence. Moreover, such assessments should be conducted by qualified personnel with industry-recognized certifications and a strong understanding of DoD security frameworks.

Applying automation and AI tools

Industry respondents said automation and artificial intelligence could deliver the biggest gains in speeding DoD software risk assessments, particularly by reducing manual paperwork and enabling continuous monitoring. Companies emphasized that automation and AI serve different purposes, with automation best suited for executing repetitive, rule-based tasks, while AI can “make decisions and learn to perform tasks with a human-like intelligence.”

Companies also warned about significant challenges in applying automation and AI. Vendors cited concerns around AI explainability, data quality and model reliability, noting that authorizing officials must be able to understand how risk determinations are made. 

Arrington said the Software Fast Track Initiative is on track to roll out early next year.

“People that think SWFT wouldn’t happen — joke’s on you. If it wasn’t for the furlough, that would have gone live in the beginning in November. So look in early January,” Arrington said during the Defense Information Systems Agency’s annual Forecast to Industry event on Dec. 8. “Software Fast Track: so you can ingest software and we can get it approved in days, not months and years. Making sure that we have a baseline called eMASS that can make sure that if an ATO is granted, then an ATO is reciprocated. We have the Software Assurance playbook. If anybody doesn’t know about that one, it’s when software has vulnerabilities. We work through them to remediate them, blowing up the RMF. We’re already starting to do it using continuous monitoring, the ten tenants of what it needs to be.”

The post Industry flags DoD’s lack of standardized software attestation processes first appeared on Federal News Network.

© The Associated Press

For months, congressional leaders have been working to deliver what they have described as “the most significant acquisition reforms in a generation.” But several key provisions — including measures on pricing transparency, oversight of major programs and Other Transaction Authorities — were ultimately dropped from the final version of the fiscal 2026 defense policy bill.

Both the House and Senate sought to close the loophole that allows companies to submit cost and pricing data after contract price is agreed upon. 

The House version of the defense bill included a provision that would prohibit contractors from using cost or pricing data that is more than 30 days old as a defense against defective pricing allegations. Lawmakers backing the proposal said it would “empower the Defense Department to enter into contracts with sufficient pricing information.”

The Senate version of the bill contained a similar provision, but both proposals were removed from the final bill. 

Instead, lawmakers directed DoD officials to examine whether late disclosures of cost or pricing data is a systemic problem and recommend ways to fix it. 

“We note that the sweeps process under the Truth in Negotiations Act is a post-price agreement review requiring contractors to disclose any updated cost or pricing data in their possession for certification before contract award. We are aware of concerns that contractors may not be providing disclosures of cost or pricing data in their possession prior to a price agreement, opting to disclose such data only after agreement and immediately before contract award,” the lawmakers said in the joint explanatory statement. “This practice may result in upward adjustments to contract pricing without providing time for sufficient review due to factors such as the expiration of funds or urgent military needs for the products or services.” 

House-led efforts to rein in cost overruns and strengthen oversight of major defense acquisition programs were also blocked during the conference process. The proposal would have accelerated the Pentagon’s reporting timeline, requiring the department to alert Congress within 30 days of any significant or critical cost overruns.

Also omitted is a House proposal to curb the outsized influence of tech giants over the cloud computing and artificial intelligence defense contracting spaces. The measure would have directed DoD to ensure there is a competitive award process when procuring cloud computing, data infrastructure and AI capabilities.

OTA reforms 

While other transactions are intended to move innovative technologies out of the lab and into production, lawmakers said it remains unclear how often these agreements actually lead to follow-on production contracts. 

But a House proposal that would have required Pentagon officials to provide a report on detailing use of follow-on agreements made under Other Transaction Authorities between 2022 and 2025 did not make it into the bill.

Instead, the Government Accountability Office was directed to conduct a review of how OTAs are used, including whether follow-on agreements deliver long-term capability.

The House also sought to require large OTA-funded projects to follow the same oversight rules as major defense acquisition programs, but that proposal was ultimately dropped from the final bill as well.

Small business and workforce provisions left out

A House provision aimed at expanding opportunities for veteran-owned small businesses was stripped from the bill — the measure would have required DoD to set annual contracting goals for small businesses owned by veterans. Moreover, it would have allowed the Pentagon to use noncompetitive procedures when awarding certain contracts to veterans.

“We note that veteran-owned small businesses are an important part of the defense industrial base and we encourage the Secretary of Defense to continue supporting veteran-owned small businesses,” the lawmakers said.

The House’s proposal to create a standardized Schedule V for reporting veteran employment and retention data across all DoD contracts and grants was also dropped from the final bill.

Another House provision would have required the department to ensure contractors are meeting the federal 7% disability hiring requirement.

Portfolio management reforms

While the move to a more portfolio-centric approach to acquisition is a feature of the defense policy bill, negotiators dropped a Senate proposal to establish “capstone requirements” for future portfolio acquisition executives. The shift in strategy for defining needs aimed to improve speed and innovation by revising programs in consultation with the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.  

The House also tried to address DoD’s longstanding high turnover in key acquisition leadership roles by requiring a six-year minimum assignment for bosses formerly known as program executive officers, but the effort failed to advance. Instead, the final bill directs the Pentagon to brief Congress next year on “actions taken to strengthen stability in program management and tenure for critical acquisition positions.”

Legislators did endorse the spirit of the foiled measure.

“Stable, milestone-aligned tenure is essential to program continuity, accountability, and cost and schedule performance. Short-term assignments can incentivize short-sighted decision-making by officials who will not be present to manage long-term consequences,” they said. “Longer tenure strengthens accountability by ensuring that the same leaders who initiate major acquisition decisions remain responsible for their execution and outcomes. Frequent rotations disrupt long-term planning, erode institutional knowledge, and hinder the Department’s ability to deliver capabilities to the warfighter on time and within budget.” 

The House passed the annual defense bill on Wednesday. The legislation now heads to the Senate.

The post Here are key acquisition reforms dropped from the 2026 NDAA first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Getty Images/iStockphoto/Mika Makelainen

The 43-day partial government shutdown left us all bereft of information technology news and updates on program progress. Now that agencies are funded at least through Jan. 31, the conference circuit is in its end-of-the-year sprint and lawmakers are working on the final touches of the defense authorization bill, there are some interesting IT news items that have emerged over the last week or so. Here are three of them that deserve highlighting.

TMF Board beats deadline

The Technology Modernization Fund officially expires on Friday, meaning the board can only continue to oversee and fund existing awards.

While the House was attempting to add a provision to the fiscal 2026 defense authorization bill to extend the TMF, the board quietly made at least one new award before the impending deadline.

The National Nuclear Security Administration earned an investment of $28.3 million for three separate, but interrelated modernization projects.

The agency will use the funding “to modernize the foundational technology infrastructure supporting its nuclear security missions through an integrated cloud and artificial intelligence transformation. Current systems have critical vulnerabilities: the FireGuard wildfire monitoring activity requires intensive manual analysis across classification barriers; the Turbo Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center (FRMAC) radiological assessment tool cannot communicate with other emergency response applications; and limited AI development infrastructure prevents rapid evaluation of models for nuclear security threats. These vulnerabilities hamper data aggregation, slow emergency response, and leave gaps in the agency’s ability to assess evolving technological risks.”

A government source with knowledge of the TMF award said most of the funding — about $23 million — will go to modernizing the AI infrastructure for NNSA’s classified environment.

NNSA has been building out its classified environment in the cloud for much of the last two years and the influx of funding will accelerate that effort.

For example, NNSA recently implemented AskSage’s platform to access secure AI tools through the Army’s tenet.

The source said through the TMF investment, NNSA can more quickly implement its own version of AWS, Microsoft and Google clouds with AI tools built in.

NNSA expects to create a centralized AI infrastructure for its classified users to make it easier for them to access these tools more quickly.

This was NNSA’s second TMF award. It won $3.8 million in July 2024 to modernize its Radiological Response Data Portal.

The source said the other two projects, for which NNSA will receive about $3 million for FRMAC and $2 million for FireGuard, were grouped together as part of the overall modernization initiative because they will rely on AI and machine learning tools.

“Through the TMF, FireGuard aims to use machine learning to automatically track fire boundaries and move data between computing systems. This automation would allow analysts to spend their time verifying maps instead of drawing them from scratch, which is particularly critical as wildfires pose growing risks to nuclear sites,” the TMF states on its website. “Through the TMF, NNSA plans to shift the Turbo FRMAC radiological assessment tool from its legacy desktop software to a cloud‑based platform, providing emergency teams with the speed, accuracy, and collaborative capability they need to protect the public and critical infrastructure during radiological crises.”

The source said while much of the work to modernize the systems and to develop the AI infrastructure was already underway, the TMF money certainly will help NNSA move faster.

And that idea of moving faster brings us back to Congress failing to extend the program’s authorization. While plenty of programs operate without authorization, it seems like this type of investment, at least for the short term, is on hold.

There still is some hope, as the Senate did allocate $5 million for the TMF in fiscal 2026 in its version of the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill. This is the first time in three years lawmakers didn’t zero out new funding for the TMF.

Commerce, USDA race for AI

The departments of Commerce and Agriculture are in a friendly race to see who can implement the new USAi platform first.

Brian Epley, Commerce’s chief information officer, said at ACT-IAC’s Executive Leadership Conference last week that, hopefully within the next few weeks, employees at all bureaus will be able to begin using the different large language models for their use cases.

Meanwhile, Tony Brannum, the chief information security officer at Agriculture, said deployment of the AI shared service across the agency is imminent as well.

These would be the first agencies to take advantage of the USAi platform, which GSA launched in March and expanded this summer to provide generative AI chatbot tools for other agencies.

“The code base is the same as GSAi. It is just a copy for our agency partners to use so that they can do that deep exploration across a broad portfolio of generative AI technologies and large language models, but most importantly, capture the observability telemetry data so that they can make informed decisions about how they’re going to buy well into this disruptive space in the future,” GSA CIO Dave Shive said at the ELC conference.

GSA says the USAi platform is part of how it’s providing agencies the opportunity to try out AI tools that previously would’ve either been cost prohibitive to roll out across the agency or included too much risk.

Zach Whitman, GSA’s chief AI officer, said USAi has become an interagency project in terms of developing and learning from its use.

“With a tool like USAi, you can really get practical, hands-on data to suggest these are the ways in which we’re seeing this adoption curve today. And the telemetry that we’re gathering in terms of how frequently do people use the thing is an important step for the program development,” Whitman said. “But then also, what are they asking of this tool? What kinds of mission functions are they using this tool for? That true fidelity on how the thing is being used is, I would argue that the real value proposition of a tool like USAi is to be able to see inside how the workforce is truly adopting this new technology to such granularity, and then shape policy and workflows to maximize that utility has been an eye opener for us, as well as our partners.”

As for Commerce, Epley said it will use the chat prompt tools to answer specific questions that arise in each bureau based on their individual use cases.

“We have an AI use case inventory of more than 300. USAi will bring Commerce to life when it comes to AI tools,” he said. “We looked at what we were doing on our own when it came to AI and decided it was best to partner with GSA. The majority of our workforce doesn’t have a working knowledge of AI, so now they will have tools at their fingertips. We expect USAi to increase our productivity for our employees and for the mission.”

Epley added that Commerce will use its lessons from implementing USAi and create a playbook for other agencies to ease their move to the shared service.

This is a multi-year effort for Commerce, as Epley expects they will have to optimize the value of the LLMs and figure out which tools are best for which mission area.

As for USDA, the implementation of USAi is the culmination of a decade-long journey to improve its data tagging.

Brannum said knowing what data the agency has, where it’s located, and who has access to it will make the application of AI tools easier.

“There is a lot of interest in AI across the agency. We are asked why something is blocked, or once they see something out there from GSA, they ask to use it,” he said.

JWCC-Next, JOE and more from DISA

The Defense Information Systems Agency will continue to run its own multiple award contracts for the foreseeable future. DISA’s Procurement Services Executive Doug Packard, who will retire in January after more than 35 years in government, said the agency has no immediate plans to consolidate acquisition programs into GSA.

That means the Joint Warfighting Cloud Computing Contract-Next (JWCC-Next) and several other high profile programs will remain in play for 2026.

At DISA’s annual industry day on Monday, executives said JWCC-Next, Olympus, the Joint Operational Environment (JOE) and several other major IT programs are positioned for significant progress over the next year.

Byron Stephenson, the J-9 vice director for the Host and Compute Center at DISA, said DISA has been working with the DoD CIO’s office to collect requirements for the new contract.

“We are still looking at all the requirements that were collected across the department to ensure we bring the best cloud capable contract for the future,” Stephenson said.

He expects DISA to issue the JWCC-Next solicitation during the third quarter of fiscal 2026 and make an award about a year later.

Additionally, DISA will issue a solicitation in the second quarter of fiscal 2026 for technical support for the JWCC engineering program office.

As for the current iteration of the contract, which DoD awarded in November 2021, Stephenson said the use by the services continues to grow.

“In 2025, had over $3.9 billion in total orders. We are actively seeing increases as the Air Force onboards to the contract now,” he said. “We had large Army orders last year, so it is continuing to see progress.”

Aside from JWCC-Next, DISA J-9 is busy implementing several large scale technology programs. Stephenson said the joint operational environment is operational in multiple theaters with active workloads, including the Indo-Pacific Command. Through JOE, DISA is bringing commercial cloud services to commands located outside the continental United States.

Meanwhile, DISA’s Olympus, which is its infrastructure-as-code initiative, is active in two environments, AWS and Microsoft, and military services and agencies can take advantage of the tools through DISA’s working capital fund.

The post TMF makes one more award before authorization expires first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Getty Images/iStockphoto/monsitj

Despite its popularity and broad bipartisan support, right-to-repair provisions that would have given service members the ability to fix their own equipment in the field were stripped from the compromise version of the 2026 defense policy bill after industry pushback. 

The House’s Data-as-a-Service Solutions for Weapon System Contracts provision, which would have required DoD to negotiate access to technical data and necessary software before signing a contract, was removed from the final text of the annual legislation released over the weekend. The Senate’s provision requiring contractors to provide the military with detailed repair and maintenance instructions was dropped from the bill as well.

Instead, the legislation requires the Defense Department to develop a digital system that would track and manage all technical data and verify whether contractors and subcontractors comply with contract requirements related to technical data. The compromise version of the bill also requires DoD to review all existing contracts to determine what contractors were required to deliver and what data DoD can access. 

“It’s almost completely meaningless relative to ‘right to repair.’ It only addresses cases in which the contractors have failed to deliver or make available the data that is already in their contracts. It doesn’t address in any way whether the contracts themselves are sufficient to support service members’ right to repair,” Greg Williams, director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project on Government Oversight, told Federal News Network.

While this is not the first time Congress has stripped right-to-repair language from the National Defense Authorization Act, the 2026 defense policy bill is likely the most high-profile attempt to block the reform — this year, the proposal had gained momentum and wide support from the Trump administration, the House and Senate, and senior DoD leaders.  

But defense lobbyists pushed back against the reform during the conference process. The National Defense Industrial Association, for example, said these bipartisan efforts would “hamper innovation and DoD’s access to cutting-edge technologies by deterring companies from contracting with the DoD.” 

Eric Fanning, former secretary of the Army and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association, said the right to repair provisions would “cripple the very innovation on which our warfighters rely.”

“Given that we had support in the House and the Senate on a bipartisan basis, and we had the support of the Trump administration and the secretary of Defense, I don’t know how to interpret this, other than to say that industry prevailed in their influence over Congress, and the NDAA now reflects the interests of the business community instead of the American taxpayers and service members,” Williams said.

For years, the military has struggled with contract-imposed restrictions on repairing and maintaining its own equipment and weapons, forcing it to rely on original manufacturers to conduct necessary fixes in the field, which is costly and time-consuming. 

Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, for example, has become an outspoken critic of large defense companies — he previously said that defense contractors have “conned the American people and the Pentagon and the Army.” Driscoll recently highlighted a Lockheed Martin Black Hawk helicopter part that costs the Army $47,000 to replace because the manufacturer refuses to fix a control knob the Army could make for $15.

 Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mt.) said in a statement they “support the Pentagon using the full extent of its existing authorities to insist on right to repair protections when it purchases equipment from contractors.” 

Williams said while this is the chance for the Pentagon to exercise its existing authorities, without legislation that enforces consistency, it’s very unlikely that contracting officers will be able to effectively implement right to repair across thousands of contracts. 

“I don’t want to let the Pentagon off the hook either. I believe that if Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made this a high priority, he could ensure that we acquire adequate data. But he would have to make sure that every contract officer on every contract was way more diligent than they have been up to this point,” Williams said.

For now, the right-to-repair effort is likely stalled until next year. Lawmakers will vote on the NDAA one more time before it is sent to President Donald Trump for his signature.  

“We will keep fighting for a common-sense, bipartisan law to address this unnecessary problem,” Warren and Sheehy said.

The post Congress quietly strips right-to-repair provisions from 2026 NDAA despite wide support first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network

The Defense Department wants to shake up how it works with value-added resellers.

In a draft memo obtained by Federal News Network, the Pentagon would place a 5% cap on most fees charged by resellers starting with a specific special item number (SIN) for IT products. This cap would only apply to IT products sold through the General Services Administration’s schedule contract.

DoD says it spent about $2 billion in fiscal 2024 through the GSA schedule on these technology products.

The draft memo is one of two expected from the administration to address what it believes are higher than normal costs when buying IT products and services through resellers.

GSA initiated this review and proposed overhaul of the reseller market earlier this year. It started in June with a letter to 10 value-added resellers to collect data to better understand the role of such companies and what it would take for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to sell directly to the government. Then in early October, sources said GSA was close to issuing a memo that would establish such a cap on resellers.

While GSA has yet to issue such a memo, this undated draft memo from the undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, Michel Duffey, offered more specifics into what this market cap and oversight process would look like.

Duffey references GSA’s plans in his draft memo.

Duffey wrote the initiative would “initially entail GSA contracting officers’ use new control measures to support their determinations of price reasonableness for products offered for sale under IT Special Item Number 33411. Specifically, GSA will more closely scrutinize pricing from entities that hold themselves out as resellers.”

It would focus on SIN 33411, which is for the purchasing of new electronic equipment, including desktops, laptops, servers, storage equipment, routers and switches and other communications equipment, audio and video equipment and even two-way radios.

Since this cap would only apply to purchases off the GSA schedule, DoD is returning to the idea that these prices are no longer automatically considered “fair and reasonable.”

This harkens back to 2014 when both DoD and NASA issued deviations to the Federal Acquisition Regulations that said schedule prices shouldn’t be automatically considered fair and reasonable. Several years later, DoD and NASA removed that deviation.

“When placing orders on IT contracts, I expect the department’s contracting officers to independently determine fair and reasonable pricing by considering the unique factors of a given acquisition in the same manner as GSA,” Duffey wrote in the draft memo. “Finally, and in general, we will apply the same common-sense approach to avoid paying excessive pass-through costs and avoid paying non or low-value added price markups across the complete range of the procurement.”

A third change DoD would require is for vendors to disclose in their price proposal the manufacturer or dealer price, the percentage markup from the OEM price. DoD also will require a description of the value provided that compromises the markup amount. Any markup more than 5% would require additional vendor justification and a higher level management attention. The memo doesn’t describe what either of those will look like.

Multiple emails to DoD seeking comment were not returned.

DoD’s reasoning for price caps questioned

Federal acquisition experts and resellers questioned the DoD’s rationale for applying price caps.

Three different executives who work for resellers as well as a former federal acquisition official, all of whom requested anonymity for fear of retaliation and to talk about a pre-decisional memo, said this approach flies in the face of what the Trump administration has been trying to do since January to relieve the burden of federal acquisition and encourage more vendors to participate.

One executive at a reseller says the first thing that DOGE went after was cost plus contracts. Now, DoD wants to take what this person called clean and simple transparent firm fixed price contracts for commercial products and turn these into cost plus type contracts, which the executive said makes no sense.

“Audits, narratives, justifications, additional steps and time, how is this simplifying acquisition and growing the industrial base?” the executive asked. “Are they going to cap gross profit on other items they buy like cars, furniture, office supplies, building materials, heating, ventilation and air conditions (HVAC) systems, lighting, plumbing, tools, safety gear and maintenance supplies next?  Where does it stop? Why are we being targeted?”

The executive says there seems to be a big misunderstanding about the role of resellers and even how the market works.

“It’s competition, not price controls, that drive down price. If that’s the ultimate goal,” the executive said. “Capping margins would drive out the best, service-oriented partners that invest in engineering and innovation — leaving behind low-touch resellers who only process orders. This reduces competition, supplier diversity and access to expertise.”

Another executive at a reseller says determining what constitutes an “excessive mark-up” is subjective. The source said for an administration that wants to keep things moving in a timely pace, giving contracting officers discretion about what is an excessive mark-up will cause more problems than it will solve.

“They are assuming that the contracting officers have the appropriate knowledge and training to do that,” the executive said. “Unfortunately and frequently that isn’t what the contracting officers have. There is a lack of understanding that will end up causing confusion and delays.”

VARs solve problems

A third executive questioned how DoD, or any agency, would oversee this entire initiative.

They asked whether the resellers would not need a cost approved accounting systems? If so, that would add significant costs and burdens.

Finally, the former federal acquisition executive, who spent more than 25 years in the federal government, says resellers provide a lot of value to agencies, partly because OEMs traditionally don’t sell directly to the government nor do they want to, but also because the resellers solve problems for the agency.

“They know the technology. They know the OEMs and can tell you what will work or what will not work. Resellers are invaluable,” the former executive said. “In terms of their markup, you just have to negotiate better. If you get at least two resellers to bid, you will get a good price.”

Is capping profits even legal?

All the sources agreed that if DoD or GSA wants better prices, they should do two things: ensure there is competition at the task order level and train contracting officers and other acquisition workers to be better negotiators.

“If you don’t have contracting officers who can push for better pricing at the task order level, then how are you going to have contracting officers who can make these determinations of the value of the markups that are over 5%?” asked the third executive. “You are better off training contracting officers to go after better prices at the task order level. GSA has ways to help like the 4P tool that combs all over for publicly available prices. But applying caps on fees or profit goes against capitalism. It goes against common sense and it will be detrimental to the government and its industrial base.”

Aside from just questioning the rationale behind the price caps, experts also asked whether the memo would violate the FAR and even some federal laws.

One of the reseller executives highlighted five FAR provisions and/or laws this idea seems to violate.

The executive says this requirement seems to violate the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) in the sense that commercial Items are not subject to TINA, which requires contractors to provide certified cost or pricing data to the government during negotiations for other items because the commercial marketplace is presumed to be a competitive environment and should drive a reasonable price.

Another part of the FAR this initiative may violate is Part 2 for the acquisition commercial items. The executive said if the government is obtaining a “fair and reasonable” price, then the focus is not about contractor costs, reasonable mark-up, or profit, it’s about the price the agency is paying.

A third section of the FAR this may violate is under Part 15. This includes a prohibition on obtaining certified cost and price data for commercial items.

Cy Alba, a procurement attorney with the firm Piliero Mazza, said if the government is buying through a firm fixed price contract, then they are not supposed to be asking for cost or price information. He added if it’s awarded through the GSA schedule and it’s below the maximum order threshold then prices are determined to be fair and reasonable by GSA.

Alba also said if it’s a commercial item, or really anything that has adequate price competition, the market is supposed to make that determination that the price is fair and reasonable. He said if the government thinks the markup is too high, then they don’t have to buy the product or service from the vendor.

The post Draft memo details DoD plans to cap most reseller fees first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Alex Brandon

Interview transcript:

Terry Gerton: You’ve recently laid out a mix of reforms and warnings and priorities for the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, which is still moving through Congress. What’s the overall message before we dig into the specifics that POGO wants to send about this year’s recommendations?

Greg Williams: Sure. I think we all welcome all of the extraordinary work that Congress has done this year to produce two different versions of NDAA bills that work very hard to overhaul military acquisition. Now that said, they place an enormous emphasis on deregulating military acquisition, with the Senate’s version repealing no fewer than 86 distinct statutes that govern military acquisition. Now, Congress has its own research arm to help inform for these decisions, and that’s the Government Accountability Office. Now the Government Accountability Office maintains a database of suggestions. And last I checked, there were 750 recommendations they had for how the Defense Department is run and exactly none of them recommend repealing any statutes having to do with military acquisition. Now I think the unavoidable question is if Congress doesn’t seem to be listening to the GAO, its own investigative body, well, who is it listening to? I think it’s only logical to wonder to what extent these changes are being pushed by the defense industry, perhaps at the expense of the interests of the taxpayer.

Terry Gerton: Are you seeing any specifics in the NDAA that relate back to those 750 GAO suggestions?

Greg Williams: Frustratingly few. Two that I’ll call out that I think are really important are passages in both the House and Senate versions that secure greater right to repair the military’s own equipment. Just imagine you’re far from home, you have a piece of equipment that you rely on, perhaps for your safety or in order to be able to complete your mission, and it breaks. Right now, there are rules, laws, contracts that often get in the way of military personnel fixing those things. This year’s NDAA, whether the Senate or the House versions prevail in this context, will dramatically increase the military’s right to repair its own equipment. And I think it’s really important that those passages survive conference. The other one that I think is particularly important in terms of acquisition law are some reforms to what’s called the Nunn-McCurdy Act, which stipulates that Congress needs to be informed if weapons development or procurement programs breach certain cost thresholds and requires that the Secretary of Defense or Secretary of War recertify those programs and provide updated timetables and budgets for their completion. So the passages that amend that provide Congress more say in the recertification of those programs and they make it easier to call out cost overages, especially in the case of large programs like naval shipbuilding, where if you look at the overall program, you may not have breached overall cost thresholds. But you’ve already built two or three ships and you can tell that they’re way over budget. What this passage allows you to do is to treat them as distinct subprograms and apply those thresholds to them individually.

Terry Gerton: Well, you’re right. There’s certainly a lot of coverage in the NDAA, both versions, around acquisition reform. One of the other pieces that POGO has really called out is the use of military force. First, you recommend that the authorizations for the use of military force from 1991 and 2002 tied to operations in Iraq be repealed. Why is it so important to take those off the books now?

Greg Williams: Well, those AUMFs have been used very pervasively to authorize all kinds of use of violence around the world that seem to have very little to do with the original intentions of those two AUMFs. And one of the ways Congress can clarify the use of its power to decide when and where we go to war is by not leaving things like that lying around to be potentially misinterpreted or reinterpreted by the executive branch.

Terry Gerton: I’m speaking with Greg Williams. He’s the director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project on Government Oversight. Greg, let’s follow up on this a little bit because there are conversations happening between the president and his team and Congress right now about operations in Venezuela. So how do those AUMFs relate to those kinds of current conversations?

Greg Williams: Well, I’m going to emphasize that there are operations against Venezuelan nationals and Venezuelan boats, and they’re being treated by the administration as being very distinct from potential operations that might take place in Venezuela. And in fact, the administration is arguing that they don’t need to comply with the War Powers Act in the context of the Venezuelan boats because we’re not deploying troops in harm’s way. As you may know, these boat strikes are believed to be largely conducted by unmanned aerial vehicles and so arguably, American troops are never in any danger as we execute these strikes. Now if we were to invade Venezuela or if we were to fly crewed aircraft over Venezuela or even close to Venezuela and engage in a shooting war with them, that would more clearly trigger the requirements of the War Powers Act, or at least that would not be subject to the exclusion that the Trump administration has called out in the context of those boats.

Terry Gerton: One of the other concerns that you raise about military deployments is border enforcement and the use of military forces in that function. What’s the concern there?

Greg Williams: Well, the overall concern is that what we’re seeing is a steady erosion of what we thought were bright lines, protecting both American citizens and others against being arbitrarily seized or killed. And whether we see those lines blurred outside our borders, as in the context of these boats or inside of our borders, it just makes us all a lot less safe. It’s much harder to count on not being swept up in some raid and potentially deported to a foreign country without any meaningful opportunity to defend our rights.

Terry Gerton: Well, military deployments and acquisition reform are really big topics. I want to pull you down to something a little more wonky and talk cost accounting standards because you’ve got a recommendation in here and there’s been a lot of conversation about moving DoD from cost accounting standards to GAAP, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Why was that important enough to raise in your memo?

Greg Williams: I think it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how accounting in general works. And it undermines a very basic control that any customer organization wants to have over vendors that are submitting things like expense reports. So at a high level, I would describe the generally accepted accounting principles as a set of tools that are created by an industry consortium to protect shareholders in private organizations from misrepresentation of the value of the enterprise. Cost accounting standards are like the expense report guidelines that any consultant or anyone who’s ever worked as a customer for a big business has to comply with. And different customers have different standards. Some say you can’t have any alcohol at all with your dinner, some say you can have one drink. Some say if you’ve traveled less than 50 miles, you can’t submit any meal-related expenses. It represents an agreement between the customer and their vendor about what is and is not an acceptable expense. And it’s a very basic structure that any business person should recognize.

Terry Gerton: How does that relate to DoD’s ability to pass an audit?

Greg Williams: I don’t think it is particularly related. As long as you follow whatever rules are articulated for you, you can pass an audit. I think use of cost accounting standards is more about making sure that the government gets a fair deal from its vendors when those vendors submit cost reports for reimbursement.

Terry Gerton: So POGO’s list is pretty specific in terms of things that you would hope Congress would consider. If they were to take up your list, what kinds of impact would you expect to see in terms of military readiness and operations?

Greg Williams: Well, I think it’s really interesting that over the last several weeks we’ve paid a lot of attention to the USS Gerald Ford Carrier Strike Group. There are two readiness issues that bear on it directly that have received some attention, I think, should probably receive more attention. One is that it was called out as a specific example of how service people are affected by the inability to repair their own equipment. And the example that was used was, I think, more than half of the ovens used to prepare meals for sailors embarked on the Ford were out of commission and had to wait an extended period of time for the vendor to repair them. Now that’s one thing when you know you can’t have muffins with your breakfast. But if similar principles apply to systems that allow the aircraft carrier to launch and recover aircraft or move weapons to the flight deck and things like that, just imagine being 6,000 miles away from the contractor who might repair those things and having one of them break and having to wait or redeploy back to the continental United States to have those things fixed. It’s just, I think, a fundamentally unreasonable expectation and puts our troops needlessly in danger.

The post POGO has new recommendations to improve the 2026 NDAA before it’s finalized first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network

A new forecast projects that defense spending will keep rising through 2035, while civilian agencies face years of flat or shrinking budgets, continued cuts and growing pressure to scale back. 

The Professional Services Council’s latest federal market forecast, compiled with input from more than 400 industry volunteers and subject-matter experts, predicts that in an environment where legislative logjam is likely to persist, defense spending will continue rising at roughly 2% annually after its first $1 trillion budget in fiscal 2026 — a one-time spike driven by reconciliation —  while cuts will “continue to fall disproportionately on civil agencies until elections change the balance of power.”

“What this means in practical terms is that the fiscal environment for the next decade will be tight, competitive, highly dependent on supplemental funding, reconciliation and prone to crisis-driven appropriations. Base budgets alone will struggle to drive new initiatives, especially on the non-defense side. In this environment, as one of our interviewees suggested, it’s best to keep your customers close and your congressional supporters and lobbyists closer,” Mike Riley, a volunteer for PSC’s Vision Federal Market Forecast told reporters last week.

In the defense space, PSC volunteers said their discussions with defense stakeholders revealed a shift, or “strategic realignment,” in the Pentagon’s priorities. While the Indo-Pacific Command remains of “elevated importance,” the Northern Command and Southern Command are gaining new emphasis as the department puts greater focus on homeland, border security and expands its presence in Latin America and the Caribbean. 

“This year was a bit of an interesting year for us. A lot of defense folks acknowledge the growing importance under this administration, but also a lot of consternation about the directions the administration might be going and just kind of the lack of clarity. There’s some continuing trends — deterring China, integrated deterrence, that pivot to the Pacific — that’s an ongoing thing that didn’t change from the previous administration. Of course, border security, the Department finds itself in an uncomfortable position,” Jason Dombrowski, a volunteer for PSC’s Vision Federal Market Forecast, said.

“They are getting a little bit more heavily involved in domestic politics than they would otherwise prefer to. Certainly, they always reiterated their intent to be responsive to the commander in chief. But historically, of course, the American military has tried to avoid a domestic role,” he added.

The department is also placing greater emphasis on the Golden Dome missile defense system, shipbuilding and munitions under this administration.

“I think everyone’s been paying attention to the news that there has been some very notable plus ups and focuses of this administration, most notably around shipbuilding, but also to include things like nuclear modernization, which in previous years we had highlighted as a potential toss up, but this year definitely moved into the winners category,” Dombrowski said.

Acquisition reform

The Defense Department also moves to implement Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s sweeping acquisition reforms, which emphasize greater competition, faster delivery and making commercial technology the default option. It’s unclear whether the department has the ability to implement those changes given deep personnel cuts across the contracting workforce.

“The contracting professionals — there seems to be a large reduction. How do we get this done? That fundamental capacity to get things done is really going to make a difference, whether you’re putting out contracts, supply chain, workforce throughput … It’s going to affect how we can actually help out the government. Adaptability is the name of the game,”Jim Kainz, a PSC volunteer, said.

In addition, the department’s new acquisition strategy promises to lower barriers to entry to encourage startups and non-traditional vendors to join the defense industrial base. Dombrowski said that while stakeholders are cautiously optimistic about the reforms, there is also a “healthy cynicism of saying, ‘How is this time any different?’” 

“This administration has made a big priority of trying to attract new people, and we looked at the pros and cons of it. It’s probably worth noting that, aside from a few very notable successes that we can all figure out, there hasn’t really been much movement in this regard,” Dombrowski said. 

“We’re very excited, certainly [Commercial Solutions Opening] and [Other Transaction Authority] and just a variety of things that should provide a lot of flexibility, but let’s see it,” he added.

Winner and losers

Dombrowski and Kainz said several areas emerged as clear “losers” in this year’s defense outlook, including the department’s buying power, which continues to erode as inflation and reshoring efforts drive up costs across programs.

Legacy systems and advisory and assistance services are facing cuts, and U.S. Africa Command and Central Command are being pushed lower on the priority list as resources shift toward European Command.

There is also uncertainty around operations and maintenance funding, which Dombrowski and Kainz said remains a major concern for both think tanks and potential customers. Sustainability initiatives appear to be split — the “green side of sustainability” will most certainly lose ground, while efforts tied to energy resilience may gain momentum. 

Contested logistics, once considered a toss-up, is gaining traction as a priority, and scalability — the ability to rapidly increase production in a crisis — is emerging as a clear winner across the department.

Overall, research and development spending is increasing, but only in areas related to advanced weapon systems, technologies, drones and energy. 

“However, there’s a belief and a growing expectation that the contracting community will bear more of those responsibilities,” Dombrowski said. “It’s really unclear where that line is going to be drawn between things that are really government exclusive where DoD is willing to pick up all costs associated to it. There are things we can all imagine, like fighter jets. But what about things that are more in the gray areas? Avionics, business process systems, back-office systems, things like that — definitely more of a sense that we are going to have to be developing those on our own.”

If you would like to contact this reporter about recent changes in the federal government, please email anastasia.obis@federalnewsnetwork.com or reach out on Signal at (301) 830-2747.

The post Defense spending will continue to climb as civilian agencies brace for years of cuts, new forecast projects first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Derace Lauderdale/Federal News Network

 

Interview transcript:

 

Bob Venero As we look at AI in in the federal government, but also in the companies that support the federal government — like the Northrop Grummans of the world, the Raytheons — AI is extremely important in helping them accomplish mission. Whether that mission is for the warfighter or whether that mission is for the Veterans Administration or any of the other areas within the government. And what we’re seeing is there’s a tremendous amount of pilots that are happening within those government agencies. At the end of the day, AI means something different to everybody, right? And really if you look at it, what is going to be the business outcome of some type of AI strategy or AI automation that you, as an agency or as a federal systems integrator, are trying to accomplish? That’s the key factor. I don’t want to say there’s no magic behind the curtain as it relates to what AI is — it’s things that are going to happen at speed and scale, tied to incredible technologies from companies like NVIDIA. I look at them as the grandfather of AI. And actually, I think next week is NVIDIA’s GTC event in DC, right? Really geared towards the government and you know what AI is doing for them. So as we look at different areas within the different government spaces, automation is key. Having the proper large language models to support what those agencies are trying to do, and then really protecting the security around what those AI models are going to do, and the guardrails that the government has to have, which is different than the bad actors around their AI testing processes and procedures.

Eric White That’s one thing I’ve been curious about as large language models and other AI tools start being implemented and the idea of contractors competing for different jobs. How are government officials going to judge who has the better large language model or who’s piggybacking off of who? Just getting your thoughts on what the future in that realm will look like.

Bob Venero Well, when you look at that … people are saying, hey, prove to me that you didn’t use an AI model to do that, right? And I look at it and say, if I’m smart enough to use that AI model, you should be looking at me because I’m going to be innovative and smart to help accomplish the goal. I don’t necessarily look at it as a bad thing. Who is going to leverage the proper tools that are out there to accomplish the job in the most efficient, effective and cost-based area? And I think that’s key for people to start to look at. You’ll see now when people actually do interviews, they’re asking them, are you doing this interview with AI or not with AI? And they have to attest to that. But to me, that goes counter to what AI is looking to do for everybody, right? It’s about speed, accuracy, and automation. And if someone knows how to leverage it better, that’s probably the person that you want, because those tools are going to be in your environment. It doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a bad opportunity or they’re a bad contractor or there’s a bad comparative against large language models. It’s who’s using the technology to the best of its ability to accomplish the goals and the business outcomes? That’s the answer.

Eric White How much help will it provide on the bottom line, do you think, as far as budgets are getting tighter and tighter? How much more will this provide?

Bob Venero As we look at what AI can accomplish, automation is a lot of that AI conversation. Because when you can do automation, then you can take people out of the mundane tasks that are just labor-intensive and have them focus on better things to do, that are more thought-provoking, within their environment. So, it will make a difference as far as cost is concerned. Because if I have an individual that we’re paying $150,000 a year, and we had him doing tasks that were mundane because it was a part of his job description and now we can automate that and have him do more thought-provoking things? That’s better for the environment that we’re going to put him in, but it’s also better for the bottom line. Because now I can do things quicker, more efficient, and more effective. And now I can come in under budget potentially. So as budgets become more and more strained, AI becomes a much better tool. But you know, the big fear … am I going to lose my job to AI? That’s a very broad question. You shouldn’t lose your job to AI, and if you do lose your job to AI, then you weren’t focusing on really what your career was in your future. Because if AI can just take the job away, then you haven’t built value for yourself as an individual. It’s about how AI can help you do your job better, faster and right now the question is accuracy, right? Because there’s a lot of mistakes that happen within that model. Whether it’s Grok or ChatGPT, and you ask it a question that you know the answer to, and you know that the answer they gave you is wrong, and then you just say, are you sure? And you prompt that in, and they’re like, oh you’re right, actually, I did make a mistake. Now that I thought about it, here’s what it is. So it’s not even a question of oh, is that model 100% accurate? If you’re taking that as the rule of law, then you’re going to be in a situation where it’s going come back and bite you in the butt.

Eric White We’re speaking with Bob Venero, he’s the president and CEO of Future Tech Enterprise. That’s been the selling point of this technology, faulting whatever the doomsdayers say about loss of jobs, that you know it will help automate and free you up from those mundane tasks. Are we already seeing that or when is that going to kick in? Because I still find myself doing a lot of data entry here, Bob.

Bob Venero I think it’s definitely happening. Not as efficiently and effective as it should, and that’s because we haven’t been educated properly on prompt engineering. If you don’t know how to ask the AI model the question the right way, it’s going to take you longer sometimes to get to the end result. So there’s a whole education cycle that needs to happen on how to create the right prompting, to ask the right questions to get to your end result and goal. And I think that’s going to develop over time. So right now we’re in the infancies of it. I can tell you that it definitely helps in some of the mundane tasks that are tied to, hey, I want to write a brief about something, here is my topic. It gets you 80% there, and then you have to go in and adjust it. But that 80% has saved you a lot of time and effort, from starting it from the beginning to the end. But then you need to validate what it is, the end result, and make sure your answers are correct. So, we’re not quite there yet. I think in the next 12 to 18 months you’ll see a big difference as these models become more and more intelligent in supporting the businesses that they’re handling, the government agencies that they’re handling, whatever the area that it is, because it’s all about the data. And you know … [garbage] in, [garbage] out, right? And that is, from a data perspective, extremely important as these models become trained.

Eric White Let’s zero in on the defense side of things. Where, from a warfighter perspective, could this technology even work out for the Department of Defense? In the procurement contract world, could this technology be of assistance?

Bob Venero Oh, without a doubt. So a lot of times when the agencies like the DoD put out an RFQ for some type of solution, they’ve got criteria that they need to look at and vet each time the respondent is doing what they’re doing. And that criteria now can be handled by AI versus an individual having to compare hundreds or thousands of pages of response, going through it, pulling out the key areas in there, and then evaluating them across each other. And I think that’s very important. As you take a look at the speed of getting things done, what we’re seeing in the organizations, the systems integrators, speed is so important to them. Now to be able to respond to something accurately, efficiently, and be there first versus somebody else who maybe isn’t leveraging those tools is key. If the Department of Defense can use those same tools to evaluate and compare and contrast versus the human eye, it’s a game changer. It really, really is. And it can give you weighted results against each of the potential bidders on there and pick what it believes is the right solution based on your criteria. But then you still have that human intervention that says, okay, let’s really weigh the results here. Thank you for giving me the information. I see it this way, but Northrop Grumman performed better than BAE did on this, or vice versa, and there’s historics that you can take a look at from a DoD perspective. So I think the more and more it’s adopted within that space, the more efficient those agencies can become, the quicker they can give awards, and the better the cost base will be. They it’s going to reduce their costs as well.

Eric White And the bidders may be able to use it if they have to go through a lengthy RFQ, right?

Bob Venero Which without a doubt. Future Tech as a company, we do a lot of RFQs because we support a lot of the federal systems integrators. And we have an AI tool now — we’ve been in business 29 years, so 29 years of responses — and we fed it into the large language model. So now when something comes across the plate, I don’t have to have a team of seven: “Hey, pull from this, pull from that, pull from here, pull from that.” The AI goes in, it looks at the criteria, it then pulls it in and helps us write a draft of what the response is, the key things that we’ve had. And that’s been amazing from a time-reduction perspective and from a personnel and skill perspective.

Eric White Yeah, pointing it back at yourself, you gave that example. What are you having those seven folks do now that you don’t have to have them digging through all of that paperwork?

Bob Venero Here’s a perfect example. The person now who heads up our RFQ team, she wanted to expand and be a part of the onboarding and training for individuals that come into the company. And so now she has a dual role in the organization. That role wasn’t there before, but now we created this additional role, she’s got both of them, she has the time to do it based on the tools that are there. And now from an onboarding and training perspective, we’re going to bring in an AI module that’s going to help her with that as well. So if you’re embracing it properly, it is going to take you to places that are good. I always use this analogy. I’m a boater, right? And years ago, you had two sticks when you had two engines, right? You had sticks for left and right and back and forth, and then they came out with a joystick. And the joystick is just like we know, you turn the joystick left, it goes left, turn it right, back, forward. All intelligence built into it. The key and smart thing about what that has done — I used to get yelled at, “you’re a cheater, you’re a cheater, you know, you’re not learning the old way.” I’m like, no, I’m actually smart — it’s a lot easier to do it this way. I can get to my route quicker and I can park a lot more easy. It’s the same thing with these tools, right? Embrace them. Bring them into your environment, leverage them out there, and it’ll help you as an organization. But also any of the agencies that do it, it will help them be more efficient, effective, and that’s important right now, tied to costs and cost reduction.

The post What comes next for federal workers after AI takes over the mundane tasks first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Getty Images/wildpixel

Interview transcript

Terry Gerton Mr. Buzzett, let me start with you. Tell us a little bit about the National Armaments Consortium. What is it, how does it work with the Department of Defense?

Joe Buzzett Yeah, so the National Armaments Consortium is a group of engineers, designers, scientists and manufacturers from across the defense industry, really focused on the armaments part of the portfolio. We’re one of the oldest, I think the oldest [Other Transaction Authority (OTA)]. We were started in the early 2000s. We came out of what was called the [Warheads and Energetics Technology Center (WETC)]. It was really focused originally out of Picatinny Arsenal on warheads and energetics. And since that time, it’s really grown over the last 25 years to include now missile systems, broader energetics, rocket motors — across the whole industry. But we’re really the nation’s armaments consortium. We’re a CMF-based consortium, OTA, and we really have a broad range of large and small businesses.

Terry Gerton And one of the things that you all do is help DoD stay current with technology and innovation, right?

Joe Buzzett That’s exactly right. That’s exact right. And you know, over 75% of our members are small, non-traditional businesses. Of course we have a large traditional business, the Raytheons and General Dynamics and Lockheed Martins, but what really gives us the innovation is being able to have that collaboration that we bring through our consortium where we can get a lot of the startups, a lot of the non-traditional businesses and get that developed into the warfighter in a very quick manner.

Terry Gerton And Mr. Harris, Mr. Buzzett has just talked about the range of companies in the NAC, but you also have 1,100 … Member organizations. With that broad of a scope, could you give us your assessment of the defense industrial base, especially from the armaments perspective? How are we doing there?

Ben Harris We’re doing better than we were 10 years ago, but we have still a long way to go. Right before I retired from the army, we were working on a 15-year modernization plan just for the ammunition industrial base. So we started that in 2016 and we finally have support from throughout the department and Congress. And you see that pendulum now shifting everywhere because it’s not just building ammunition. You also have to be able to have all the depots to do the ship overhauls and repairs. You need the depots to rebuild your helicopters and paladins, so there’s a huge investment that this country is gonna have to make to really reset that industrial base.

Terry Gerton Well, certainly at current events, the war in Ukraine has shed a lot of light on the ammunition industrial base. How has that changed the focus or maybe increased the urgency of these modernization plans?

Ben Harris Well, the focus always seems to focus to ammunition when there’s at least more than one conflict happening, because we typically cut back on ammunition. And there’s a reason for that. If you order too much ammunition, 40 years later you’re going to have a huge demilitarization problem where you’re gonna have to pay to destroy it. So there’s delicate balance there. The good news is the weapons systems that this country has innovated on are proving to be very successful overseas. There are a lot of foreign customers now that are all looking to buy U.S. Weapons systems. So that’ll be good for the industrial base. So if the U. S. Has to cut back on its purchases, there should be foreign orders that can come in and keep the capacity running so that those plants are operational and able to surge.

Terry Gerton Mr. Buzzett, did you want to add on to that?

Joe Buzzett Yeah, I also wanted to add the aspect that, you know, we’ve been working on next generation capabilities specifically for the Pacific. So, you now, one of the highlights of the programs that we did was the Prism missile, you know a missile that goes out 500 plus kilometers that was started in 2018 under the OTA and has just been fielded. So there’s a lot of things, innovative things that we’ve been able to do through the use of OTAs and through the flexible contracting that we get with OTA’s to do things quick, get them out to the field, and get them tested and fielded.

Terry Gerton Mr. Harris?

Ben Harris I’ll just add that two other OTAs that went through the NAC [were] the new hypersonic weapon system, Dark Eagle, and the new radar upgrades for the Patriots, the LTAMs. Those both were OTA’s through the NAC.

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Ben Harris. He’s the executive director of the National Armaments Consortium. Joe Buzzett is NAC’s executive committee chair. Mr. Harris, let me come back to you. You mentioned foreign demand for US armaments, as well as domestic. Talk to us about the biggest challenges that the industry is facing in terms of capacity, technology, innovation, supply chain.

Ben Harris Well, it’s time and money, first off. You know, they want it now. Factories don’t build themselves overnight. Everybody knows that. But … I see significant funding being added to increase that since 2022. There was a lot of congressional supplemental dollars that were added to expand our capacity. And now that we also see — we support the Navy at Indian Head. They actually now have funding where we see the beginnings of a rebuilding of the Indian Head facility there.

Terry Gerton So Mr. Buzett, let me come to you. You’ve just added five new industry veterans to your executive committee. Tell us about how their experience, their companies are going to shape NAC’s direction and really build better collaboration.

Joe Buzzett Sure. So our executive committee is made up of six large businesses and six smaller non-traditional businesses. And plus we have one university — Penn State University is representative. So we use this diversity to manage the board. We are all volunteers. We all have day jobs that are in this business, so we’re all very committed to this OTA model, to providing capability to the warfighter. So our new members are from Raytheon, Dan Zimmerman and Applied Research on the large business side. And then E-optic, which is an optics business. We have PER, Precision Energetics Research, and McCormick Stevenson. So we really have a diversity of large and small businesses that help us guide the NAC. We have goals and we have Ben Harris, who is our our lone employee, and Ben executes our vision for us. So he’s very hands-on, very experienced, and we go through and our vision is, we want speed. We want speed for the warfighter, and I think it lines up very well with with some of the new policy changes that are going on in the administration.

Terry Gerton Mr. Harris, let me come back to you to talk about some of those new policy changes. The Trump administration is really emphasizing speed, flexibility, OTAs, as both of you have already talked about. How are these changes affecting NAC, its objectives, and its members’ ability to deliver?

Ben Harris It’s all positive. Ever since the executive order came out on 9 April, we’ve really been able to share with everyone, hey, we’re here. We’ve always been here. And so what it’s enabled us to do is to focus on the time to award. We had kind of drifted away from being able to get OTAs awarded quickly. But now with all of the administration’s focus on trying to do as much as they can in the development sphere through OTAs … We’re able to now message, hey, let’s start focusing on not just where the dollars go, but how fast are those dollars are getting on contract, which is really what our members have been pushing for.

Terry Gerton And how are your members assessing their own capacity to respond to that faster delivery objective?

Ben Harris There’s no pushback from our members. We typically — we’re really looking forward to the Army’s announcement [about] the transformation that they’re doing. And then the memo that just came out this week from the Secretary on the transformation all focusing on speed. We’re still going to focus obviously on cost and performance, but this new emphasis of speed is what we need. It’s difficult for small businesses to write white papers one year, and it takes over a year to get it on contract. You’re counting on cash coming in and you spent dollars to actually write these white papers. So this is all going to be good news for our members.

Terry Gerton So, Mr. Buzzett, let me come back to you to kind of wrap this up. As you look to the future, 2026 and beyond, what are NAC’s critical priorities?

Joe Buzzett So as Ben mentioned, it’s doing things fast. It’s being able to answer to the department’s needs. Some of the needs that we’re really focusing on are counter-UAS. We see the proliferation of all these drones and how do you counter them. We’ve got active programs on proximity munitions and other ways to defeat these UASs. And then on the offensive side, the UAS weaponization piece. So as the army decides and the department decides how they were going to fight with drones as they watch what’s going on in Ukraine and how we use that as a force multiplier. So, you know, right now this isn’t our first rodeo, as they say. We have 550 active projects. We’ve been doing this a long time. We measure, every month how we’re doing on, from the time the Army or the [Department of] war says we want something to when we can get it under contract. That’s piece one. Piece two is actually delivering that prototype, and getting it to the hands of the warfighter quickly.

Terry Gerton Mr. Harris?

Ben Harris And I’ll just say we also continue to try to recruit new members to help expand the defense industrial base. So that is another one of our focuses going forward. So the more members we have, the better the competition is. And all our members are U.S. Based.

 

The post The National Armaments Consortium is gearing up for 2026 with fresh direction and a focus on armaments innovation first appeared on Federal News Network.

© The Associated Press

The Space Force is finalizing a strategic roadmap that will lay out what space systems, infrastructure and manpower it will need over the next 15 years to stay ahead of emerging threats.

Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman said most of the work on the document, known as the “objective force” is largely complete. 

“I want to publish objective force 2025 before the end of the calendar year. That’s the task I’ve given the staff. And of course, they immediately push back saying we can’t possibly do that. I think they can. So I’m really trying to hold them. I think the bulk of the work is almost complete,” Saltzman said during a Center for Strategic and International Studies event Thursday.

Saltzman said the “objective force” is designed to be a living document, updated regularly and republished every five years. The 2025 version will outline what the service will need between now and 2040, but its purpose is not to list everything new that’s needed by 2040. Instead, it maps out which systems the service will need to sustain, phase out or bring online over the next 15 years.

“There are systems we are flying today that we will continue to use into 2040, so the objective force will account for that. There are some systems we use today that we will wean ourselves off of in the intervening years between now and 2040 — the objective force will say that, ‘Hey, we plan to sunset in the 2030 time frame, 2035 and the new system will be growing along the same time so we preserve that mission capability,’” Saltzman said.

“That’s the way you want to think about, it’s not what do we need for 2040, it’s what happens between now and 2040 to make sure we have that objective force we need,” he added.

The document, however, will go beyond simply cataloging the types of systems the service already has or will need in the future. It will also outline the broader infrastructure needed to sustain the mission, including how many bases and squadrons are required and whether new military construction will be necessary — offering a full roadmap for what it will take to build and maintain a future Space Force. 

Saltzman acknowledged that circumstances and requirements will inevitably change, so the roadmap is meant to adopt along with them. 

“There will be annual updates based on resourcing, obviously, and then every five years we will re-snap the chalk line and say, ‘So objective force 2030, we’ll be looking to 2045.’ It’ll be this rolling campaign of learning to make sure that we have the force documented that we think we’re going to need in the out years,” Saltzman said.

Clear demand signal

Saltzman said the Space Force needs to clearly and formally communicate what it needs long-term to its stakeholders, including Congress, defense contractors, allies and partners. 

“We’ll try to lay all of that out, to publish it to the stakeholders so that they can see what our plan is and see a stable, comprehensive demand signal to what we need to buy, what approvals we need, how much resourcing we might need to put it in place,” Saltzman said. 

While Saltzman had originally aimed to publish the document by the end of 2025, he said its release will most likely slip into 2026.

“I think while you may not see a published document before the end of December, I can pretty much tell you that the work will be complete by the end of December, and we will be in final approvals to say yes. We’ll take this to the secretary, obviously, and make sure that the whole staff understands what we’re trying to do,” Saltzman said.

“I think the work of the force design will be done in 2025, and then hopefully publish it again to stakeholders in early 2026. That’s kind of what I see as the current timeline,” he added.

The post Space Force to finalize 15-year force design this year, with release expected in 2026 first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Getty Images/Neal McNeil

 

Interview transcript:

 

Terry Gerton A lot has happened over the last few weeks and as people in the contracting world get back to their desks and start things back up again, they’ve got a lot to touch base on. Just before the shutdown we had the publishing of the FAR overhaul and defense has come out with a lot of new priorities. How can people start to put all these pieces together and make sure they’re working with the whole picture?

Emily Murphy It’s a really complicated picture right now. I want to go back and say — GSA, DoD, NASA, OFPP did an incredible job in getting that FAR overhaul done and published. And they even got the updated FAR companion out during the shutdown, which I know has to have been a struggle. So they did a wonderful job with it. USDA, Department of Homeland Security, and GSA have all adopted the entire new set of standard deviations. That means, however, that no other agency has. So if you’re a contracting officer right now or you’re a contractor, there’s not a standard set of rules you can go to. You have to be looking at which deviations did this agency adopt? How does that interface with what contract vehicle I’m using? And what about this other policy that’s happening over at the Department of War? There’s not a clear one-size-fits-all answer to the problem anymore. If you think of GSA, for example, assisted acquisition has always said that they follow the rules of the funding agency. So, money and requirements coming into GSA’s assisted acquisition service, they’re going to follow that agency’s money and the rules that come with it. Well, that might mean that they’re adopting, if it’s coming in from Department of Energy, one set of rules; Department of War, another set of rules. If it’s coming in from the SBA, it might be a third set of rules. So I keep thinking that if I’m an 1102 right now, a contracting officer, I want more monitors. Because I’m going to have to have so many different versions of rules and guidance up until we can make it through this. I think the standardization is going to come, but I think it’s going to be a really tough few months — as the new rulemaking takes effect  as more and more agencies adopt those standard deviations, and as we get more clarity on what the Department of War’s new announcement from the 7th of December actually means in the application, so that we know what to expect with those contracts.

Terry Gerton How much more complicated does the continuing resolution make it? Because now some agencies have full-year appropriations. We have a CR in place for others through the 30th of January. And on top of that, we have all these new rules that you’re talking about.

Emily Murphy So if one thing contracting officers are used to dealing with and contractors are very used to dealing with, it’s CRs. I don’t think that that’s going to be the hard thing. It does slow down new starts for the agencies that have a continuing resolution. For the agencies that actually have their appropriations, it means that they can get started. It actually may help balance the workload out a little bit, because you can start the new starts for agencies that have the authority while you’re still working on the continuing resolution and continuing the existing contracts for all the other agencies. But the sort of mosaic of rules and regulations out there is going to make things tougher … it’s one more complication thrown into the mix. And the irony is that this is all really intended to make things simpler, faster, cheaper, better. And I think ultimately it will, but it’s going to be a little bit painful for the next couple months.

Terry Gerton Well, speaking of simpler, faster, better, cheaper, what’s the perspective of contractors? We’re talking first about the contracting workforce, but contractors and especially small business organizations who might not have a big contracting shop to help them navigate all of this. What should they be looking at and thinking about in this new, sort of interim period?

Emily Murphy So they need to be really carefully looking at not just their contracts, but the agencies they’re doing business with and seeing where the changes are coming. For example, if you’re an 8(a) firm, you need to be looking at the new competition rules that are in part 19. If you’re a service-disabled veteran or a woman-owned small business or hub zone company, it’s opening up the realm of what you can compete for, because things that were previously in the 8(a) program are now available if an agency chooses to take them and compete them amongst those other socioeconomic categories, they can. That’s just looking at the small business programs. They also need to be looking at the clauses. Right now, their contracts probably have the old clause matrix in them. Part 12 reduced for commercial type contracting, reduced the number of clauses by about 30%. Which clauses are changing? Which ones can they get, and what does that transition look like for them? What can they stop doing? And what do they have to change how they’ve been approaching? And it’s going to be a sort of a contract-by-contract answer. Someone’s going to deal with their flow-downs. And then we’re also hearing — I think Jason Miller, your colleague, reported on it — that there’s going to be maybe some changes to how IT value-added resellers are being treated. So that’s not even in the current regulations, but it’s something that’s sort of looming out there over the community that they that they’re going to need to be paying a lot of attention to, because limitation on subcontracting is becoming more important. Compliance with contracting terms, frankly even the move towards OTAs and CSOs and all sorts of alternative contracting, they’re going to have to become masters at a whole other set of contracting options — or award options, I should say, not even contracting options at that point.

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Emily Murphy. She’s former administrator of the General Services Administration and senior fellow at the Baroni Center for Government Contracting at George Mason University. Emily, along with all of these changes, you’ve been a strong advocate for training of 1102s. But with all of this happening, and we have Secretary Hegseth announcing a complete shift in focus for DAU, now the Warfighting Acquisition University, what do you see as key to keeping 1102s current and keeping their mindset focused on these new ways of doing business?

Emily Murphy So we’re giving the 1102s, the contracting community, a lot of new tools. I mean, you’re seeing GSAI, the Department of War is rolling out new tools as well. Everyone’s got new tools. We’ve got new regulations, we’ve got new authorities. What I haven’t seen is anyone budgeting for the time to train the workforce on how to use these and how to use them properly. There are some very powerful tools out there and very powerful changes in the regulations themselves that give that workforce a lot more authority. But you’ve got a realignment of who the your contracting officers are going to be reporting to within the Department of War, so that they’re going to be reporting instead of up into a contracting organization, they’re going to be aligned with the program instead. At least that’s what’s been stated. We haven’t seen the reassignments happen yet. So how is that going to change day-to-day business? Who’s taking the time to sit down and explain you can now do a simplified acquisition procedure for commercial items up to $9 million? What does that look like? How do I do it? How do I do it well? If I still have to get a senior-level approval for an award above — and choose your threshold because it varies from agency to agency — $100,000, $50,000, $250,000, $1 million, what advantage is there to these new simplified tools that I’ve got if everything’s still going to go through an enhanced level of review that’s imposed at the agency level? How does that play itself out? And where should I be spending my time and prioritizing to get that best deal? There’s so much more data. How do I use it? How do I make sure that it doesn’t create a conflict of interest, also? If I’m educating an AI model, how do I make sure I’m educating it appropriately and then using it in a way that it doesn’t create its own organizational conflict of interest or its own problems with inherently governmental? How do I make sure it’s not hallucinating?

Terry Gerton Who should be thinking about that training and who should be funding it since so many of these changes are centrally driven?

Emily Murphy  I know that GSA has been thinking about this. Clearly the Department of War, with the rebranding and renaming of the BAU to WAU, is thinking about training. The problem is time. You’ve got a workforce that has been under enormous pressure to get things out the door. And training isn’t something that happens … they lost over 40 days, they lost over six weeks of opportunity that they couldn’t go and take that training. And there is a backlog of work. Training, unfortunately, gets frequently put on the back burner at that point when it needs to be prioritized first so that you’ve got the ability to actually execute better on what’s waiting on your desk. But that’s easy to say. It’s a lot harder to do when your desk is overflowing with work.

Terry Gerton Contracting shops are a lot leaner after all the DRPs and downsizing. We’ve got lots of new confusing rules. Do you anticipate that this is going to pose a problem in terms of oversight and then potentially protests as this plays out?

Emily Murphy I think it is. I think it’s interesting. I heard the other day that it’s about 25% of the acquisition workforce that’s gone. I couldn’t point to the source of that statistic, but that’s a substantial reduction at a time when we’re not seeing a reduction in contracting actions or in spending. And when you’ve got different rules and different interpretations of those rules and guidance that can be changed regularly, that doesn’t have the same effect as a actual regulation, it leaves open the possibility that contracting officers or program offices or others can be interpreting things in different ways. And a difference of interpretation is ripe for oversight. And I don’t mean that in a in a negative way; that oversight can actually help highlight where you’ve got discrepancies if it’s done appropriately. It can also, though, turn into a game of “gotcha.” And for a workforce that’s already stretched pretty thin, playing “gotcha” with them just doesn’t seem very fair right now.

The post Now that the shutdown is over, contracting officers have a lot to catch up on first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Getty Images/iStockphoto/ipuwadol

Interview transcript: 

Jared Serbu Don’t need to dig into all of the details that went into the source selection here, but if you could give me, just give our listeners a minute or two on this new platform and what makes it such a step forward from the platforms it’s replacing, that would that would help us out greatly for the rest of the conversation.

Ryan Ehinger Yeah, and I could go ahead and give an industry perspective on that. And this is Ryan. So really back in the 2012, 2013 timeframe, we were looking to differentiate capability for the warfighter in terms of vertical lift capability by going twice as fast and twice as far. And a lot of that was under the future vertical lift program effort. And so we started with a demonstrator concept called the V-280 Valor. That really captured a lot of lessons learned from previous tilt rotor experience that Bell had, and it really leveraged that to fly a demonstrator in 2017, accumulate about 215 flight hours on it, and I think inform the Army on tilt rotor technology and requirements that could be met by that technology to support their eventual solicitation and down select of a tilt rotor for supporting the future long-range assault aircraft program.

Jared Serbu Great. Anything to add on that, Colonel?

Col. Jeffrey Poquette Yeah, it’s very similar in that the Army was looking for something that provided transformational speed and range over the current Black Hawk fleet. And then additionally, the government really wanted the aircraft to be an open system. So the ability to upgrade the aircraft in the future quickly, cheaply, without necessarily having to go to any one particular vendor. So the open system is another key part of the platform.

Jared Serbu Got it. And so at this point looking forward, the ask from the Secretary, as I understand it, is to get a prototype up and running by next fiscal year, which is pretty ambitious. So talk us through a bit some of the key things that you’re going to be doing to meet that schedule.

Ryan Ehinger Yeah, we’ve been laser focused on acceleration and getting a prototype out there next year. And so a lot of the work that we’ve been doing is taking the success that we had on the V-280 demonstrator, applying a lot of the items from that in terms of configuration and critical technologies, applying that to a design meeting the requirements for the future long range assault aircraft. And so what we’ve been working on with the government team is first and foremost establishing a foundation of an all digital design, incorporating using model-based systems engineering, but incorporating, as Jeff mentioned, the modular open systems approach. So a lot of the design work that we’ve been doing with the government to date has resulted in more than 90% of our engineering being released and a significant amount of work going on across the industrial base related to building hardware to support that first, and not just the first prototype, but the first six or eight prototypes that will be coming out of the program. But we’d look to complete that in early FY 27, that first prototype.

Jared Serbu Colonel, from the government side, what sorts of risks does that aggressive schedule potentially introduce for you, and what are some of the things that you’re looking to do to manage that?

Col. Jeffrey Poquette Yeah, I think initially when we were asked to accelerate, our concern was, okay, if we start working now while we’re still in the middle of the design process, the chance is always there that we could end up building a prototype that doesn’t do what we need it to do. The reason why we’re okay with that and are willing to accept some of that risk is exactly for the reasons that Ryan mentioned. The V-280 demonstrator gives us a lot of confidence in tilt rotor technology. We know Bell knows how to do it. The open system is something that they’re fully on board with. And then the digital engineering and the digital environment provides the government a lot of insight into the design itself as it’s occurring. Other things that we’ve agreed to do was allowed Bell to pursue some commercial best practices when it comes to safety of flight on some of the early prototypes and being able to leverage FAA certifications instead of Army airworthiness certifications, while in the background we’ll continue to work Army airworthiness. So that is a little bit of an elevated risk, but one that the Army was willing to accept. Some of the digital engineering and technical deliverables, we’ve deferred the actual delivery of the items. However, what we’ve decided to do is really work together as an integrated team. So my team of a hundred or so engineers very often are down there out in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, working side by side along Bell engineers. So we have the insight of working along the way. Bell has the ability to ask questions and make adjustments and they get feedback very quickly, as opposed to maybe earlier it was about handing over technical deliverables for very thorough reviews. So we’ve kind of accelerated our review process, other things. The supply chain is always a concern and the Secretary asked us to leverage the Defense Production Act. So we are engaged with the Army and soon to be the Department of War on how we can potentially get some elevated priority on our program when it comes to the Defense Production Act.

Ryan Ehinger Yeah, and I do think that approach is working well, and I do appreciate when people ask us the question about risk associated with acceleration because it gives us a chance to kind of walk through why I think we’re in a uniquely favorable position to accelerate. And part of it we talked about was the demonstrator and going 215 flight hours and all the data we were able to capture from that successful effort, but then also looking at the steps that we go through from early digital engineering and digital design where we have fly-throughs leveraging virtual reality and augmented reality. We bring the maintainers into that virtual environment and have them simulate maintenance of the aircraft very, very early in the design phase so that we don’t have discoveries, three, five, ten years later as we’re trying to sustain the platform. A lot of that gets baked in early. And then from the standpoint of getting to first flight and flight test activity, we spend a lot of time trying to get discoveries as early as possible in the process. And how we do that is by doing a lot of component-based testing, whether it’s fatigue testing, vibration testing, things of that nature at the component level. And then we integrate all of those components, aside from the structure, but all the systems, a pilot in the loop, all the software in a weapon systems integration lab. And we have that facility down in Arlington, Texas, and the pilot will fly a fully integrated set of systems on the ground for months and months and months, proving out the software and proving out the integration of these components before we ever step foot in an aircraft. So we get a lot of opportunity to reduce risk and learn these lessons early in the program before we’ve started making even some of those accelerated LRIP aircraft.

Jared Serbu Digital engineering’s come up a few times in the conversation so far, and I’m wondering if either or both of you want to give some concrete examples of some of the work that you’ve been able to do in that virtual world and save time that way versus things that, in a previous era, would have had to be done purely in a physical world.

Ryan Ehinger Yeah, just to give a couple examples and then I’ll pass it to to Jeff. But I mentioned the maintainers, and being able to have maintainers, in some cases it’s veterans that we’ve brought over from the services into Bell that have done this for their first career and now they’re spending their second career, so to speak, making sure we get it right. But they actually have virtual, I’ll say tools and toolboxes, and they work to maintain that aircraft. And they’ll come to the engineering team after a test run and say, look, I had to remove three things to get to the part I was trying to fix, and it gives us an opportunity to fix that and make sure that number one, keep things from failing, but if something does fail, let’s make sure it fails in a benign way and in a way that we can replace it and repair it in the field and as easily as possible. And the digital engineering, and I think Jeff will probably touch on this, it is an investment. And it’s an investment early on that allows you to also take all these digital artifacts as kind of one source of truth and use them to support your tech pubs and your manuals, and again that sustainment and logistics tail that the aircraft will have for decades to come. But it all goes back to that initial investment in digital engineering and that single source of truth. And I’ll pass it to Jeff.

Col. Jeffrey Poquette Yeah, we’re really proud of the fact that this program was born digital. So we are clearly leading the way for defense acquisitions. We’re a digital engineering pathfinder for the department. Like Ryan said, I think there’s perhaps a misnomer out there that the investment in digital engineering somehow means that you get to go fast while you’re designing. And I always say, look, this is an investment in time. So it doesn’t necessarily mean that we are designing faster. What it means is when we complete the design and then build it, you can actually test faster because there’s a lot more that’s right with the aircraft. You’re a lot closer to what you wanted to get. The model-based systems engineering approach has allowed us and allowed Bell to really come up with a design that we’re very confident won’t miss any of the key requirements. In the past, it would be hard to know whether you were going to miss satisfying a requirement until you got to test. And then if it happened to be a big expensive miss during test, then you’re now iterating in the test environment. The goal was to really iterate in this digital and MDSE environment such that when you build the prototypes, you can have a test program that’s half as long as a traditional aircraft test program that has occurred in the past. So that’s really what we’re getting at. MDSE and digital engineering go hand in hand. My engineers can go right to their computer and workstations and look at the design in real time. And that has never been able to be done before when you do things the old way.

Jared Serbu On that requirements piece, I’d love to hear you both talk through a bit about the extent to which, if at all, requirements have needed to be changed in order to meet that go faster directive. And if the answer’s no, tell us a bit about why not.

Col. Jeffrey Poquette I’ll take that one. Look, this aircraft is made up of hundreds and hundreds of requirements and they’re tiered into different buckets. None of the most important requirements to include things that are deeply important to the Army, like MOSA, have had to be trade off. Might we have to trade some weight, take on a little bit of extra weight to include some provisions to ensure that the aircraft is truly modular and can handle the SOCOM variant and handle the medevac requirement? Might we have had to make those kinds of decisions? Absolutely. Are there certain things in the requirements document that are deep down in the in the requirement that might not be on the first aircraft? Probably. But that’s not what we’re seeking. We’re not seeking perfection. The Secretary and the Chief made it very clear. We’re not trying to get it absolutely perfect. What we need to do is deliver transformational capability. That’s what we mean when we talk about the speed and range twice as far, twice as fast, and the ability to handle the MOSA architecture and the open system. If we get that, we’re going to have a very, very good first iteration of the aircraft. And by the same token, the open systems architecture will allow us to go in and upgrade anything that needs upgrading. When you go faster, you might have to trade off requirements. We haven’t had any big decision event like that yet, but it is certainly something that we might have to think about in the future.

Ryan Ehinger Yeah, and I would echo that. I think we’re very proud of where we’re looking relative to the requirements for the platform and the capability it will provide the warfighter. And I’ll just go back to the, I’ll say, head start we had relative to tilt rotor technology being being mature and giving us a good foundation to start with.

Jared Serbu Last thing here, and I don’t want to look too far down the road, but now’s the time to start thinking about these things obviously, and obviously you have been already thinking about sustainment, but specifically, what do things like that open systems architecture, having that engineering data, having all of that digital engineering data in hand, do for you, down the road when you get to a sustainment phase on a platform like this?

Col. Jeffrey Poquette I’ll take this one initially. So sustainment is one of the things we’ve been thinking about very early on in the program. When we went to our development decision, Milestone B, I would say nearly half of the very extensive and rigorous documentation we had to submit to the Army and the Department of War was focused on the lifecycle sustainment plan. So it’s very much a key element of the program. I would say one quarter of my office are logisticians that focus on things like training, on maintenance and that kind of thing. Ryan mentioned the digital environment, being able to look at the design through virtual means with virtual headsets or augmented reality, that kind of thing. That has given us the ability to provide feedback so we get it right the first time. And then having access to certain data rights allows the Army to write training so that the training meets the Army’s standards. It allows us to make decisions on what components we want to overhaul in the depot out there in Corpus Christi. Most importantly, I would say, is maintenance and ensuring that we have a good understanding about when parts will need to be replaced. I think all the work that Bell has done has allowed us to have a lot more insight into when components would need to be overhauled and replaced. Digital twins will be developed. So every tail number in the Army out there will have its own digital twin that will reside and can be accessed by my office so that if there is a problem in the field, my logisticians and former maintainers will be able to look at that digital twin and have a really good snapshot of what’s going on with the aircraft. And like Ryan said, it all comes down to having a single source of truth. In the past, documents would get shoveled over email, and eventually, inevitably, someone would end up with an out-of-date or not the current version of what you’re supposed to be looking at. This eliminates a lot of that churn, and I really see the sustainment of this aircraft is going to be a big part of why we call this aircraft affordable. As you know, sustainment, for the lifecycle of a program, we consider about 70% of the cost of the lifecycle of the program to be due to the sustainment phase. So it’s very important to us that we reduce those sustainment costs. And kind of final point here, you typically can estimate the sustainment burden of an aircraft based on its weight. And while the MV-75 isn’t especially light, it’s on the heavier side when you compare it to heavier lift aircraft like Chinook. We have a much, we’ve predicted through simulations and modeling that the sustainment is going to be much, much less than aircraft of its size and weight.

Ryan Ehinger Yeah, I think that’s a good point. And I would just say from an industry standpoint, programmatically and I’ll even say culturally, we’ve approached this clean sheet development in a different way that I think provides a lot more tools for the user, for the Army to maintain this long term. And some of the things that Jeff mentioned related to the correlation between weight and maintenance cost or weight and cost in general. I’d like to think we’re breaking some of those cost curves with this because of a lot of the tools that we’ve used, and quite frankly because of some of the newer technologies that are available today that weren’t available when some of the currently fielded aircraft were developed.

The post Can digital engineering cut a decade-long test program in half? first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein