The bidding war is over, and Netflix has been declared the winner.
After flirting with Paramount Skydance and Comcast, Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) has decided to sell its streaming and movie studios business to Netflix. If approved, the deal is set to overturn the media landscape and create ripples that will affect Hollywood for years.
$72 billion acquisition
Netflix will pay an equity value of $72 billion, or an approximate total enterprise value of $82.7 billion, for Warner Bros. All of WBD has a $60 billion market value, NBC News notes.
On Nov. 3, Jeff Koses, the General Services Administration’s senior procurement executive, posted an article on LinkedIn announcing that the “RFO is in play.” The article highlighted that GSA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Homeland Security had issued all the deviations with Nov. 3 as the effective date for the changes. A new era begins for the Federal Acquisition Regulation as agencies and departments continue to work towards implementing the RFO deviations and updating their supplemental acquisition regulations. The procurement policy teams responsible for drafting the deviations, the Practitioner’s Albums, and the FAR Companion deserve praise for the thoughtful, integrated, and comprehensive effort. The streamlined RFO is an improvement on the FAR, providing a clear, concise, and coherent acquisition framework for government and industry.
As we know, the next phase of the process, the public rulemaking, is critical to the long-term success of the RFO. The rule making process provides the public, including key stakeholders across the procurement community, with the formal opportunity, consistent with law, to comment on the deviations in the form of proposed or interim rules. A robust, transparent process will ensure that the deviations become final rules, cementing the RFO. The Coalition for Common Sense in Government Procurement’s members look forward to the start of the public rule making phase and the opportunity to formally comment on the revised FAR.
The RFO is central to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the procurement system. The FAR establishes the ground rules for government and industry transacting business in support of agency missions. The RFO streamlines and clarifies the ground rules thereby increasing competition and access to the commercial market.
Leveraging the RFO to deliver best value mission support for customer agencies and the American people centers on three critical elements: (1) requirements development (2) the acquisition workforce; and (3) operational commercial best practices.
1. Developing Sound Requirements
Clear, concise, and well communicated requirements are foundational to successful procurement outcomes that deliver best value mission support. Program offices must play a central role in developing requirements. In this regard, coordination between senior program managers and contracting officers drives effective requirements development for complex requirements. Part and parcel of requirements development is market research. Understanding the capabilities and technologies in the commercial market will inform sound requirements. Too often, government requirements reflect a “Hail Mary” approach that seeks a capability well beyond what is currently commercially available rather acquiring the 80 percent commercial solution that can meet mission needs. As with most “Hail Marys” these requirements often end unfulfilled and undelivered.
Finally, today’s outcome-based contracts are yesterday’s performance-based contracts. The administration rightly has identified outcome-based requirements as a strategy that can increase competition, improve performance and achieve greater savings. The long-standing challenge of outcome-based contracting is the articulation and implementation of clear outcomes and associated measures to support contractor performance and government contract administration. It all starts with the statement of objectives. Management focus on and investment in outcome-based requirements development is a commercial best practice. The government should look to emulate this commercial best practice to unlock the positive potential of outcome-based contracting. Perhaps leveraging technology (e.g. artificial intelligence) for data analysis and analytics can support the government’s requirements development process.
2. Embracing The Acquisition Workforce
The RFO vests greater discretion to the contracting officer. Some of the commentary around the RFO has raised the potential of increased inconsistency in contracting operations due to greater discretion. The Practitioner’s Albums, FAR Companion, and Category Management Buying Guides are the starting point for the acquisition workforce. As the implementation of the RFO moves forward, translating real life experience with the revised ground rules into a set of operational best practices will be important in fostering consistency. Further, consistent, strategic investments in acquisition training and professional development will enhance sound decision making. Finally, management support and corresponding lines of authority in contracting operations will foster consistency and accountability in the process.
3. Adopting Commercial Best Practices in Procurement Operations
The hallmark of the RFO is its leveraging of the commercial market. The RFO reduces the number of clauses applicable to commercial contracts, strengthens the preference for commercial products and services, and streamlines the overall procurement process. As a policy statement, the RFO recognizes that access to, and competition from the commercial market drives innovation, efficiency, and increases value for the government mission.
Adopting commercial best practices in procurement operations is the third key element in leveraging the RFO to deliver best value mission support for the American people. For example, as mentioned above, it is a commercial best practice to invest significant time and resources in requirements development. Sound outcome-based requirements are the blueprint for success. Vigorous competition for sound requirements is the single most effective way to drive value for the taxpayer. Avoiding government-unique, noncommercial practices is the other side of the coin. Operational practices that overregulate or reregulate the procurement process will limit competition, reduce access to the commercial market, and undermine mission support. It will be incumbent at the operational level to embrace commercial best practices while avoiding/eliminating noncommercial practices that undermine the efficiency and effectiveness of the procurement process.
Kraken, the third-largest centralized exchange by volume in the U.S., announced the acquisition of Backed Finance on Tuesday to expand its tokenized stock offering.
ServiceNow Inc. announced on Tuesday plans to acquire Veza in a move aimed at fortifying security for identity and access management. The acquisition will integrate Veza’s technology into ServiceNow’s Security and Risk portfolios, helping organizations monitor and control access to critical data, applications, systems, and artificial intelligence (AI) tools. The deal comes as businesses increasingly..
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.
FILE - The Pentagon, the headquarters for the U.S. Department of Defense, is seen from the air, Aug. 20, 2025, in Arlington, Va. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)
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.
Since January 2025, the Justice Department has been aggressively holding federal contractors accountable for violating cybersecurity violations under the False Claims Act.
Over the last 11 months, the Trump administration has announced six settlements out of the 14 since the initiative began in 2021.
Sara McLean, a former assistant director of the DOJ Commercial Litigation Branch’s Fraud Section and now a partner with Akin, said the Trump administration has made a much more significant push to hold companies, especially those that work for the Defense Department, accountable for meeting the cyber provisions of their contracts.
Sara McLean is a former assistant director of the DOJ Commercial Litigation Branch’s Fraud Section and now is a partner with Akin,
“I think there are going to be a lot more of these announcements. There’s been a huge uptick just since the beginning of the administration. That is just absolutely going to continue,” McLean said during Federal News Network’s Risk & Compliance Exchange 2025.
“The cases take a long time. The investigations are complex. They take time to develop. So I think there are going to be many, many, many more announcements, and there’s a lot of support for them. Cyber enforcement is now embedded in what the Justice Department does every day. It’s described as the bread and butter by leadership.”
A range of high-profile cases
A few of the high-profile cases this year so far include a $875,000 settlement with Georgia Tech Research Corp. in September and a $1.75 million settlement in August with Aero Turbine Inc. (ATI), an aerospace maintenance provider, and Gallant Capital Partners, a private equity firm that owned a controlling stake in ATI during the time period covered by the settlement.
McLean, who wouldn’t comment on any one specific case, said in most instances, False Claims Act allegations focus on reckless disregard for the rules, not simple mistakes.
“We’ve seen in some of the more recent announcements new types of fact patterns. What happens is when announcements are made that DOJ has pursued a matter and has resolved a matter, that often leads to the qui tam relators and their attorneys finding more matters like that and filing them,” said McLean who left federal service in October after almost 27 years. “It’ll be interesting to see if these newer fact patterns yield more cases that are similar.”
Recent cases that involve the security of medical devices or the qualifications of cyber workers performing on government contracts are two newer fact patterns that have emerged over the last year or so.
Launched in 2021, the Justice’s Civil-Cyber Fraud initiative uses the False Claims Act to ensure contractors and grantees meet the government’s cybersecurity requirements.
President Joe Biden signed an executive order in May 2021 that directed all agencies to improve “efforts to identify, deter, protect against, detect and respond to” malicious cyberthreats.
130 DOJ lawyers focused on cyber
Justice conducted a 360 review of cyber matters and related efforts, and one of the areas that emerged was to use the False Claims Act to hold contractors and grantees accountable and drive a change in behavior.
“The motivation was largely to improve cybersecurity and also to protect sensitive information, personal information, national security information, and to ensure a level playing field, so that you didn’t have some folks who were meeting the requirements and others who were not,” McLean said.
“It was to ensure that incidents were being reported to the extent the False Claims Act could be used around that particular issue. Because the thought was that would enable the government to respond to cybersecurity problems and that still is really the impetus now behind the enforcement.”
McLean said the Civil-Cyber Fraud initiative is now embedded as part of the DOJ’s broader False Claims Act practice. It has about 130 lawyers, who work with U.S. attorney’s offices as well as agency inspectors general offices.
Typically, an IG begins an investigation either based on a qui tam or whistleblower filing, or a more traditional review of contracts and grants.
The IG will assign agents and DOJ lawyers will join as part of the investigative team.
McLean said the agents are on the ground, interviewing witnesses and applying all the resources that come from the IGs. DOJ then decides, based on the information the IGs bring back, to either take some sort of action, such as intervening in a qui tam lawsuit and taking it over, or to decline or settle with a company.
“They go back to the agency for a recommendation on how to proceed. So it’s really the agencies and DOJ who are really in lockstep in these matters,” she said. “DOJ is making the decision, but it’s based on the recommendation of the agencies and with the total support of the agencies.”
Many times, Justice decides to intervene in a case or seek a settlement depending on whether the company in question has demonstrated reckless disregard for federal cyber rules and regulations.
McLean said a violation of the False Claims Act requires only reckless disregard, not intentional fraud.
“It’s critically important for anyone doing business with the government, especially those who are signing a contract and agreeing to do something, to make sure that they understand what that is, especially in the cybersecurity area,” she said. “What they’ve signed on to can be quite complicated. It can be legally complicated. It can be technically complicated. But signing on the dotted line without that understanding is just a recipe for getting into trouble.”
When a whistleblower files a qui tam lawsuit, McLean said that ratchets up the entire investigation. A whistleblower can be entitled to up to 30% of the government’s recovery, whether through a decision or a settlement.
Self-disclosures encouraged
If a company doesn’t understand the requirements and doesn’t put any resources into trying to understand and comply with them, that can lead to a charge of reckless disregard.
“When it comes to employee qualifications, it’s the same thing. If a contract says that there needs to be this level of education or there needs to be this level of experience, that is what needs to be provided. Or a company can get into trouble,” McLean said.
“The False Claims Act applies to making false claims and causing false claims. It’s not just the company that’s actually directly doing business with the government that needs to worry about the risk of False Claims Act liability, because a company that’s downstream, like a subcontractor who’s not submitting the claims to the government, could be found liable for causing a false claim, or, say, an assessor could be found liable for causing a false claim, or a private equity company could be found liable for causing a false claim. There are individuals who can be found liable for causing and submitting false claims.”
She added that False Claims Act allegations can apply not only to just the one company that has the direct relationship with the government but also to their partners if they are not making a good faith effort to comply.
But when it’s a mistake, maybe an overpayment or something similar, the company can usually claim responsibility and address the problem quickly.
“DOJ has policies of giving credit in False Claims Act settlements for self-disclosure, cooperation and remediation. That is definitely something that is available and that companies have been definitely taking advantage of in this space,” McLean said. “DOJ understands that there’s more focus on cybersecurity than there used to be, and so there are companies that maybe didn’t attend to this as much as they now wish they had in the past. The companies discover that they’ve got some kind of a problem and want to fix it going forward, but then also figure out, ‘How do I make it right and in the past?’ ”
McLean said this is why vendors need to pay close attention to how they comply with the DoD’s new Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification.
She said when vendors sign certifications that they are complying with CMMC standards without fully understanding what that means, that could be considered deliberate ignorance.
“Some courts have described it as gross negligence. Negligence would be a mistake. I don’t know if that helps for the for the nonlawyers, but corporations which do not inform themselves about the requirements or not taking the steps that are necessary, even if it’s not through necessarily ill intent, but it’s not what the government bargained for, and it’s not just an accident. It’s a little bit more than that, quite a bit more than that,” she said.
“The one thing that’s important about that development is it does involve more robust certifications, and that is something that can be a factor in a case being a False Claims Act and a case being more or less likely to be one that the government would take over. Because signing a certification when the information is not true starts to look like a lie, which starts to look like the more intentional type of fraud … rather than a mistake. It looks reckless to be signing certifications without doing this review to know that the information that’s in there is right.”
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.
FEATURED INTERVIEW — As the Pentagon undertakes its most ambitious overhaul yet of how it acquires new warfighting capabilities, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are weighing in on whether the modernization effort can happen quickly enough to bring the U.S. up to speed with China in a time of rapid technological development.
When the overhaul was announced earlier this month, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said the reforms aims to dramatically accelerate how the Department buys and fields new capabilities and that the changes are specifically aimed at cutting bureaucracy, rewarding rapid development, and pushing defense primes to invest more of their capital in new capabilities.
In the weeks since the announcement, the U.S. Army has shared details on how it will reform its service-level acquisition process. Part of the change involves consolidating the service’s program executive offices (PEOs), which are responsible for buying new weapons, into six new offices called “portfolio acquisition executives” (PAEs). Plans also include the creation of a new office to rapidly field and scale emerging technologies. Similar initiatives are in the works at the other services.
Measures like these have been championed by the private sector, which has traditionally on the cutting edge of innovative capabilities for decades. Cipher Brief COO & Executive Editor Brad Christian caught up with Entrepreneur and Stanford Professor Steve Blank, who recently published a Department of War Program Executive Office directory to help entrepreneurs better navigate the current complicated system for selling to government. Their conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Steve Blank is an adjunct professor at Stanford and co-founder of the Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation. His book, The Four Steps to the Epiphany is credited with launching the Lean Startup movement. He created the curriculum for the National Science Foundation Innovation Corps. At Stanford, he co-created the Department of Defense Hacking for Defense and Department of State Hacking for Diplomacy curriculums. He is co-author of The Startup Owner's Manual.
THE INTERVIEW
Christian: Describe your initial reaction to the Pentagon's somewhat surprise announcement that it was overhauling its acquisition process.
Blank: It was mind blowing. It was mind blowing not because anything the Secretary said was new; these are things that people who are interested in acquisition reform have been asking for the last 10 years. But it was put in a single package and was clearly done by the infusion of people who have actually run large businesses and were used to all the language of organizations that already know how to deliver with speed and urgency.
The part that didn't get said, is essentially that the Department of War wants to adopt startup innovation techniques of lean iteration, pivots, incremental releases, good enough delivery, and that gets you what the Secretary asked for, which was speed of delivery. But all those are things that we've lived with in Silicon Valley for the last 50 years. And it wasn't until we had people who worked outside of buildings with no windows inside the Pentagon to understand that those techniques could actually be applied. And it required blowing up the existing system. And they did that spectacularly well. There are very few holes in these proposals.
Save your virtual seat now for The Cyber Initiatives Group Winter Summit on December 10 from 12p – 3p ET for more conversations on cyber, AI and the future of national security.
Christian: Obviously the Pentagon procurement system is a product of decades of bureaucracy and rules. Are you hopeful that you're going to be able to see the kind of change in the rapid timeline that they've laid forth here?
Blank: Number one, this is a pretty extensive reorganization. Right now, the Department of War is siloed between requirements and system centers for testing and prototyping and acquisition, which was the acquisition with a small A with the PEOs and program managers, and then it went to contracts and then it went to sustainment, et cetera.
Those were silos. Now we're putting it all underneath a single portfolio acquisition executive. So, instead of making their offices 10,000 people, it's actually a matrix organization, much like a combatant command is. Most of those people will stay in their existing organizations but now be tasked to work on specific portfolios. And the portfolios will no longer be arranged by weapons system. They're going to be arranged, for example, by war fighting concepts or technology concepts, et cetera.
That said, boy are they trying moving an elephant and make it dance. And at the same time, they recognized - this was one of the genius parts - that people won't just get a memo and know what to do. Historically, they've depended on the Defense Acquisition University, which taught contracting officers and the rest, how to work with the 5,000 pages of the DFAR and FAR, Federal Acquisition, Defense Acquisition Regulations. One of the unnoticed things was that they basically told the Defense Acquisition University, to stop teaching what they're teaching today, recognizing that they need to teach people this new methodology. That's not going to happen by telepathy.
First of all, we need to train the trainers, then we need to train all the people who've grown up in their career following the paperwork. I predict six months or a year of chaos and confusion. And there are always saboteurs in a large-scale reorganization who are angry that their cheese has been moved or worse, their authority has been diminished or their head count went somewhere else. This is going to be no different except maybe at a bigger scale.
In the end, if we pull this off (and I'll explain the only possible reason not to do this) the country will be much better for it.
The other obstacle will be if you're on the board of directors and the executive staff of a prime, you're going to go through the 12 stages of denial and grief and whatever because I don't know how many times both Deputy Secretary of Defense Steve Feinberg and Secretary Hegseth made it clear that the primes weren't delivering and they weren't investing in the things the country needed and they got used to the system and we were kind of mutually dependent on a broken system - and that's over. Well, you're not going to let your stockholders say you just went home and packed up. Obviously, it's pretty clear that appealing to the Pentagon isn't going to work, but Congress is “coin operated”. This is now going to be a race of lobbying cash from the primes versus lobbying cash for the first time from private equity and venture capital. So it's going to be, who has the biggest pile of cash to influence Congress and the executive branch to keep these rules in place or modify them?
Remember what a disaster this is if you're an existing large company selling to the DoD. It says number one, we're going to buy commercial off the shelf. Number two, we're going to buy commercial off the shelf and then modify it. If and only if either one and two work, we will do some bespoke contracting with the existing organization. It's never happened before. Pretty clear, pretty direct. So, the easy thing would be for primes to change their business model. But my prediction is they're going to double and triple down on the amount of lobbying and dollars spent.
Christian:In addition to the lobbying are we going to see consolidation? A major prime, like you said, isn't going to just pack up their bags and go home. Are they just going to start scooping up all of the small commercial providers?
Blank: In the space segment, they were already doing that. And in fact, were told to kind of stand down and that these things needed to flourish. You have to remember that primes and corporations are companies. Their number one priority, at least in their heads, is no longer national interests, it's the shareholders and returns and revenues and profits. That's the nature of capitalism. The problem here is that the Department of War said, 'Well, that's nice, but we're not getting what we need out of that. Send a note to your shareholders that life's about to change'. That's going to create a lot of conflict - with a lot of money involved - in trying to bend the rules back.
And just as an aside, the primes aren't useless. You don't want them to go out of business. No startup is building an aircraft carrier or a joint strike fighter. We can make the argument of whether we should anymore, but that's secondary. That level of complexity and skill set is just not built yet. Maybe the Andurils and others will get there in another five years, but they're not there yet. And so, waving a wand and making the primes go away completely is equally inane as saying we could depend on startups for everything that the Department of War needs.
But the balance of power, at least as the secretary and deputy believe, is that we need to be building things faster and delivering them faster and on time. And we're going to look for alternate sources. That's just a mind blower. So, as I said, I see six months to a year of confusion as this reorganization happens and people come and go as they establish who's in charge, what the rules are, et cetera.
The only good thing about making this happen is in a normal administration, the administration would wait for Congress's approval. I've not seen that happen in many of these cases with this administration. And in this case, it might actually be good for the country. Time will tell.
Are you Subscribed to The Cipher Brief’s Digital Channel on YouTube? There is no better place to get clear perspectives from deeply experienced national security experts.
Christian: You referenced decades of Silicon Valley's experience with iterating and moving quickly. One of the threats and one of the actual challenges that a country like China poses to America is they have a top-down autocratic government that doesn't change every four years. That presents a unique challenge to the Pentagon that Silicon Valley doesn't know, or the private sector doesn't necessarily have. How much of a risk is there for the next administration to come in and potentially change everything? And then, if you're one of those big primes, are you baking that into your long-term planning that this might shift in a measurable way in the future? Or do you think these changes are going to be something that is so overwhelmingly positive that future administrations have to stick with it?
Blank: Well, if you were asking me this three years ago, I would have said you should get all this done now because it's going to be flipped back in three years. What's different now though, is the amount of capital available for startups, scale-ups, and private equity firms that can match or overpower the lobbying efforts of the primes. So as I said, both the executive branch and Congress are coin operated, even more so now than ever. And for the first time ever, the insurgents have as much or more coin than the incumbents. That's what's going to change this game.
So yes, a Democratic administration or another Republican one might have a different opinion. But in this case, we're talking about piles of money flooding the streets of Washington D.C. to try to change the game. Think about who is now sitting in the cabinet and in other places where we're seeing people with commercial experience for the first time ever at scale, inside the executive branch for sure and inside the Department of War which changes the nature of the conversation and as we're seeing - the types of things they're recommending. It wasn't that people didn't recognize this before. It was kind of hard to explain this to people who had never run a business or who have been career successful. I've said for years, we had world class organizations, world class people for a world that no longer existed.
Finally, we have people who understand what that world should be like because they've been operating in it. Secretary Feinberg has been writing checks for tens of billions of dollars- buying aircraft carriers, okay, he’s written those kinds of checks before. Tell me who else has ever been in that position.
Again, it's not that the DOW should run like a corporation or a startup, but having that experience sets a bar for what you know is possible for doing extraordinary things. It's what this country knew how to do in World War II and during the Cold War, and we just kind of lost it when Robert McNamara, ex-chief financial officer of Ford, put in the first version of the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution System (PPBE) in 1962. We've been operating on that system for 63 years, or some variance of it.
Basically, he imposed a chief financial officer's strategy on budgeting and planning, which made sense at the time. It stopped making sense about 15 years ago, but no one inside the building knew what to do differently. That's changed.
There was also one set of announcements that kind of flew under the radar, and that was that the policy organization in the DOW lost three organizations to acquisition and sustainment (A&S). I think Elbridge Colby runs that group and it went to A&S. So all the foreign military sales and all the policy stuff kind of disappeared overnight. I don't know what the talking points will be, but the optics aren't great for policy. That's number one.
The second thing that got buried in the memo and I'm not sure it was in the speech, but this new Economic Defense Unit (EDU) I think has taken over the office of strategic capital. And I think that's good given what the agenda is, which is that we're essentially using the whole of nation approach to decouple from China and not only invest in critical minerals but in the other parts of the ecosystem that we need as well, everything from batteries to drone motors to whatever. So we can operate independently. Scaling that unit up was strategically as important.
This was an acquisition announcement, but watching all these other moves are really smart chess pieces at scale, not just nibbling around the edges, but at scale. And I think paying attention to the other moves that are being made inside the DOW, you'll at least understand the master chess game that they're at least trying to implement. It's pretty smart.
Christian: You've done incredible work recently with helping people understand and navigate his environment in ways that perhaps were difficult for people to understand before. What are you going to be looking for next and what are you potentially going to be working on as a result of these changes?
Blank: I think you're referring to the PEO directory that I wrote, which is about 300 pages long. It’s the first phone book for the Department of War with a 30 page preamble of go-to-market strategies. I literally have started rewriting it and it's now going to be called the Portfolio Acquisition Executive Handbook and now it's going to explain how PAEs work and what the silos looked like before and how each service is reorganizing.
For example, the Army likely will condense 12 PEOs into six portfolios and make major shifts, this month or certainly by the end of the year. And the other services will follow. I think the Army is a little ahead of everybody else. But having a phone book to actually explain who's who and what they're supposed to be doing.
As I said, it will be six months to a year of chaos and I think having some kind of handbook that at least shows you where things are heading and who are the new people to call on would be helpful. So that's what the Stanford Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation is doing.
Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief because National Security is Everyone’s Business.
As the Defense Department moves to implement Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s sweeping acquisition reforms, Space Force leaders warn that the depth of workforce cuts is threatening to cripple the service’s ability to execute them.
“You have to have a strong, vibrant workforce to do the work and we’re in a really interesting time and a troubling time. There is a strong, motivated force but there have been an incredible amount of pressures on them this past year,” Maj. Gen. Stephen Purdy, acting assistant secretary for space acquisition and integration at the Department of the Air Force, said Nov. 20 during a Center for Strategic and International Studies event.
“We have a looming increase in acquisitions coming down the pike, and so that presents us with a really difficult situation of where we need to double down on our acquisition workforce, our acquisition training. We are in a situation where we barely have enough acquirers to do all of the work that we have now,” he added.
Purdy said the service has spent the last few years implementing the acquisition tenets set by Frank Calvelli, who stepped down as assistant secretary of the Air Force for space acquisition and integration in January. Calvelli pushed the service to “build smaller satellites and smaller ground systems and minimize non-recurring engineering or new design.” He also preferred to use fixed-price contracts when possible. Calvelli’s “tenets” were a back-to-basics formula meant to fix chronic problems in space programs.
“We’ve built upon that this last year. We haven’t let grass grow under our feet as we’ve kind of taken over in January. And we’ve built upon that foundation and moved on out and really done a lot this year that kind of foreshadowed [Hegseth’s] acquisition reforms. But the workforce question is really the key piece,” Purdy said.
The Trump administration push to reduce the size of the federal workforce through initiatives such as the deferred resignation program and voluntary early retirement has had an “outsized impact” on the Space Force. In May, Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman told Congress the service had lost nearly 14% of its civilian workforce — much of it coming from Space Systems Command, the Space Force’s acquisition hub.
“I’m worried about replacing that level of expertise in the near term as we try to resolve it and make sure we have a good workforce doing that acquisition,” Saltzman told the Senate Armed Services Committee at the time.
When asked about the acquisition workforce, Saltzman told reporters that these workforce reduction efforts have taken civilian experts “out of play,” leaving gaps in the institutional knowledge and technical skills.
As the Space Force begins implementing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s acquisition overhaul, which calls for using commercial technology as the default option, great competition and faster delivery, Purdy warned the service may not have the workforce needed to shift to the new way of doing business.
“If you look at [Hegseth’s] acquisition reforms that he’s laid out, a bunch of great initiatives and things we need to get after. But … you need the numbers of people, and you need the quality to understand. If you say ‘go commercial,’ and if you say, go after ‘new manufacturing mechanisms’ and take advantage of all of the new space companies that are out there, you need a larger number of people just to even track that activity. You need to be able to understand all that’s going on. You need to understand the incentive structure,” Purdy said.
The strain is particularly acute in contracting since the service simply doesn’t have enough contracting officers to handle a much larger workload created by recent acquisition reforms.
“In the past, if we had an acquisition program and we would go 20 years and it would be with one prime, we would maybe have one or two contracts, an R&D contract and a production contract. Pretty simple. One prime, a couple contracts. Now, with some of our programs there’ll be a five-year program, but we’ll probably have 20 contracts because I’m dealing with 10 or 15 different contractors in industry, which is literally what acquisition reform is telling us to do,” Purdy said.
“We have a serious issue here at a federal level on contracting and it’s just the numbers of folks. We do not have the numbers of contractors that we need at a federal level. Every federal agency has problems, and so we do not have the right numbers that we need,” he added.
Saltzman said the service is trying to ease the strain by requesting waivers to the hiring freeze that has been in place since the start of the Trump administration, as well as hiring authorities to fill essential acquisition and contracting roles.
Kay Sears, vice president and general manager of space, intelligence and weapon systems development at Boeing, said that while the Space Force acquisition community is more open and collaborative than ever, it is also apparent that the service’s workforce is stretched thin.
“You can tell that they’re stressed. You can tell that they’re overworked. And then when you get into that contracting element that’s really where I see the slowdown, the, ‘Hey, I’ve only got one playbook — I’m going to go follow the playbook,’ and we really start to lose sight of the mission objective,” Sears said.
Acquisition experts have said that while the proposed acquisition changes could meaningfully reshape how the Pentagon buys capabilities, the success of Hegseth’s reforms will hinge on whether the department can equip the workforce with the skills needed to operate differently.
“Scores of case studies have shown, there has to also be an aggressive, intentional and holistic approach to change management, prominently including how the relevant workforces are developed. Absent re-aligning those processes, real change will remain elusive,” Stan Soloway, president and CEO of Celero Strategies and federal acquisition expert, told Federal News Network.
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.
FILE -A steel worker moves a 155 mm M795 artillery projectile during the manufacturing process at the Scranton Army Ammunition Plant in Scranton, Pa., Thursday, April 13, 2023. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)
While much attention across the federal community has been focused on the Office of Personnel Management’s strategy to consolidate 119 different human capital systems across government, the agency, at the same time and with little fanfare, kicked off another major human resources modernization effort.
OPM is planning to revamp the USA Hire platform, which provides candidate-assessment tools for agency hiring managers, with the goal of making evaluations more efficient and leading to higher-quality applicants.
OPM, working with the General Services Administration, issued a request for information on Oct. 7 and has been meeting with vendors over the last few weeks to determine what commercial technologies and systems are available. The RFI closed on Oct. 21.
“This RFI is part of OPM’s ongoing effort to ensure agencies have access to cutting-edge, high-quality assessment tools that help identify and hire the best talent across the federal government—advancing a truly merit-based hiring system in line with the president’s Merit Hiring Plan and Executive Order 14170, Reforming the Federal Hiring Process and Restoring Merit to Government Service,” said an OPM spokesperson in an email to Federal News Network. “OPM also anticipates making additional improvements to USAJOBS and USA Staffing to enhance the applicant experience and better integrate assessments into job announcements.”
OPM says in fiscal 2024, USA Hire customer agencies used the program to assess approximately 1 million applicants for over 20,000 job opportunity announcements. It provides off-the-shelf standard assessment tests covering more than 140 federal job series, access to test center locations worldwide and a broad array of assessment and IT expertise.
“USA Hire currently offers off-the-shelf assessment batteries covering over 800 individual job series/grade combinations, off-the-shelf assessment batteries covering skills and competencies shared across jobs (e.g., project management, writing, data skills, supervisory skills), and custom assessment batteries targeting the needs of individual agencies, access to test center locations worldwide, and a broad array of assessment and IT expertise,” OPM stated in the RFI.
In the RFI, OPM asked industry for details on the capabilities of their assessment systems, including:
Delivering assessments in a secure, unproctored asynchronous environment
Delivering online video-based interviews
Using artificial intelligence/machine learning in assessment development and scoring
Minimizing and/or mitigating applicant use of AI (e.g, AI chatbots) to improve assessment performance
Integrating and delivering assessments across multiple assessment platform
“OPM seeks an assessment delivery system that can automatically score closed-end and open-ended responses, including writing samples. The online assessment platform shall be able to handle any mathematical formula for scoring purposes,” the RFI stated. “Based on the needs of USA Hire’s customers, OPM requires an assessment platform that supports static, multi-form, computer-adaptive (CAT), and linear-on-the-fly (LOFT) assessments delivered in un-proctored, in-person, and remote proctored settings.”
An industry executive familiar with USA Hire said OPM, through the RFI, seems to want to fix some long-standing challenges with the platform.
“RFI suggests OPM will allow third parties to integrate into USA Staffing, which has been a big problem for agencies who weren’t using USA Hire. But I’ll believe it when I see it,” said the executive, who requested anonymity in order to talk about a program they are involved with. “Agencies are not mandated to use USA Hire, but if they don’t use it, they can’t use USA Staffing because of a lack of integration.”
USA Staffing, like USA Hire, is run by OPM’s HR Solutions Office on a fee-for-service basis. The agency says it provides tools to help agencies recruit, evaluate, assess, certify, select and onboard more efficiently.
RFI is a good starting point
The executive said this lack of integration has, for some agencies, been a problem if they are using other assessment platforms.
For example, the Transportation Security Administration issued a RFI back in 2024 for an assessment capability only to decide to use USA Hire after doing some market research.
“USA Hire is adequate for most things the government does. It’s fine for certain types of programs, but if you get out of their swim lanes, they have trouble, especially with customization or configurations. I think getting HR Solutions to do any configurations or customization is a yeomen’s effort,” the executive said. “My concern about USA Hire is it’s a monopoly and when that happens any organization gets fat and lazy. Maybe the Department of Government Efficiency folks kicked them in the butt a little and that’s maybe why we are seeing the RFI.”
The executive said the RFI is a positive step forward.
“It could be good for some companies if it comes to fruition and OPM brings in a legitimate way for other providers with some unique competencies or services to expand the offering from USA Hire,” the executive said. “It’s too early to tell if there will be a RFP, but if they do come out what are they buying? Are they trying to bring on new assessment providers? I think a lot of us would like to know what OPM is looking for or what holes they are seeking to fill in these new solutions.”
Other industry sources say OPM has laid out a tentative schedule for a new USA Hire support services solicitation. Sources say OPM is planning to release a draft request for proposals in January with a final solicitation out in October.
This means an award will not happen before 2027.
“Due to the complexity of requirements and the amount of market research that needs to be conducted, the USA Hire PMO expects the competition timeline to be more than a year long,” OPM said in a justification and approval increasing the ceiling of the current USA Hire contract. “The government estimates that transition could take up to two years depending on the awardee’s solution.”
OPM adds $182M to current contract
OPM released the J&A at the same time it issued the RFI. In a justification and approval, OPM increased the ceiling of its current USA Hire support contract with PDRI, adding $182.7 million for a total contract value of $395 million.
OPM says the need to increase the ceiling is because of the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) adoption of USA Hire and its need to fill thousands of vacant positions after the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Because of the EO, the need for USA Hire assessments has far exceeded the initial estimated amount, which has grown at a pace far faster than anticipated when the contract requirements and needs were first drafted and awarded,” OPM stated in the J&A. “OPM planned for the steady growth of USA Hire throughout all options of the contract; however, TSA alone has consumed 95% of the requirement in option year 2 and option year 3. The government issued a modification to realign ceiling value to support the additional assessments; however, the delivery of the assessments has increased significantly.”
An email to PDRI seeking comment on the increased ceiling and the RFI was not returned.
The OPM spokesperson said the agency expects the use of USA Hire to continue to grow over the next few years as agencies implement skills-based assessments as required under the Merit Hiring Plan and Chance to Compete Act.
OPM said in its J&A that it expects USA Hire to provide assessment services to 300,000 applicants for TSA, 10,000 entry level investigators for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, along with smaller customer agencies spanning cybersecurity positions, tax fraud investigations, entry level credit union examiners and HR specialists.
Palo Alto Networks Inc. announced Wednesday it will acquire Chronosphere, a next-generation observability platform designed for artificial intelligence (AI) workloads, in a $3.35 billion deal combining cash and replacement equity awards. The acquisition, pending regulatory approval, is expected to close in the second half of Palo Alto Networks’ fiscal 2026. The move represents the cybersecurity..
WhoSampled offers an extensive database of songs, samples, covers, remixes, artists, and more. According to its website, it's now tracking more than 1.2 million songs and nearly 622,000 samples. That data is powering Spotify's latest features, like its upcoming music discovery tool SongDNA.
House and Senate negotiators are racing to finalize the 2026 defense policy bill by the end of the week, with all House and Senate Armed Services Committee disputes resolved and only a few Senate jurisdictional details still holding the legislation’s advancement to the House floor in early December.
“I think what they’re doing is, there’s been a couple of pencils-down time frames, but it sounds like it’ll be done by the end of the week. That’s what the focus is. Get it done by the end of the week, and then to be on the floor the beginning of the second week of December,”Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, told Federal News Network Tuesday.
The one big place where things are still going through the process, Wittman said, is with the other committees of jurisdiction. They can either decide to waive jurisdiction or refine the language in ways that ensure the “Big Four” on HASC and SASC will agree to include it in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
“It really is a Senate issue because the Senate has the rules where they can add some things that are not allowed under House rules. That’s really where the issue is right now, I think all the HASC and SASC issues have been taken care of,” Wittman said.
The Senate advanced its NDAA with broad bipartisan support in October, while the House version passed in September with mostly GOP support.
The two chambers were divided on topline funding — the Senate bill authorized nearly $925 billion for national defense, while the House version aligned with the White House’s $883 billion request.
Both bills are heavily focused on acquisition reforms, and while the two chambers target many of the same areas, they differ in approach and specific reforms.
“The House’s version really focused on achieving mission outcomes. It’s much more outcome-based. The Senate version was more about governance. How do we change the issues there of governance? Some of the things that we saw there that I think are really transformational is time frames,” Wittman said during the Defense One State of Defense Business Acquisition event on Tuesday. “The average acquisition process in the Pentagon is 800 days. This is going to change it to 90 to 120 days.”
Many of the acquisition reforms Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently rolled out as part of what he called a “war on Pentagon bureaucracy” mirror proposals in the House and Senate versions of the defense policy bill.
“Changing how we do modular open systems architecture — those things are going to be key, opening up the aperture even more, making it easier to use other transaction authorities, changing the [program executive officers] to [program acquisition executives], and then taking those billets that are now three-year billets and turning them into six-year billets,” Wittman said. “That’s actually a longer-term perspective for folks in those areas. I think this is the farthest-reaching effort in acquisition reform in the history of DoD. And a lot of what the House and Senate are doing is reflected in some of the things that the Pentagon is doing.”
Hegseth’s move to replace the current program executive offices with a smaller number of portfolio acquisition executives — giving these new portfolio leaders broader authorities, including the ability to shift funds among programs — is also part of the Senate’s acquisition reform proposals.
When asked whether officers who used to serve three years as PEOs would want to serve six-year tours as PAEs, Wittman wagered they would as long as it doesn’t interfere with the promotion process.
“We’ve been clear that this does not interfere with the promotion process,” he said. “There’s nothing that prevents somebody that goes into a PAE position as a two-star to come out as a three-star, or, for that matter, even a four-star.”
The change will also allow PAEs to take more risks in a culture that is deeply risk-averse. But it has to start with Congress, Whittman said.
“We can’t lecture and say, ‘Take risks,’ and then the first time there’s a failure, we call somebody up on Capitol Hill and bang the table and holler and scream and go, ‘How did you do this? How could this happen?’ That behavior will stop in a heartbeat when somebody goes, ‘You know what? I watched them grill this PAE up on Capitol Hill. I’m not going to do that, so I’m not going to take any risks,’” Whittman said.
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.
Contract for online business. The concept of electronic signature, e-signing, digital document management, paperless office, and signing business contracts.
Login
