2025 didn’t fix defense acquisition, but it certainly changed the direction.

2025 is the year everything changed for me. I got married. I became a parent. And
somewhere in between learning how to function on very little sleep and recalibrating what
really matters, I watched the defense acquisition system start to change in ways I honestly
wasn’t sure I would ever see.

Those major personal milestones have a way of sharpening perspective. For me, I stopped
tolerating vague timelines. I stopped accepting “eventually” as an answer. I care a lot more
now about whether systems actually work, whether decisions get made on time, and
whether outcomes match intent. That lens has significantly shaped how I’ve watched
acquisition reform unfold this year.

Anyone who has spent real time in defense acquisition knows the problems I’m about to
discuss. The system has been slow, fragmented, and ineffective for a long time.
Requirements haven’t kept pace with the threat. Programs have been built in isolation and
magically expected to interoperate later. Integration has dragged on for years, all while
costs balloon and schedules slip. Good technology continuously dies in the valley of death
because funding decisions and procurement timelines never quite align. Meanwhile,
warfighters and allies wait WAY too long for capabilities we already know how to deliver.
None of this has been hidden or done in the shadows. These issues became an embedded
part of the acquisition culture. We have collectively lived with them, complained about
them, and learned how to work with and around them. But in my opinion, 2025 felt
different. Not because the problems changed, but because the response to them finally
seems to have.

In 2025, the Department of War (DoW) and national security leadership seemed to stop
pretending that the old system could be patched, tuned, or optimized. They started taking it
apart and dismantling the old infrastructure. That alone is why this acquisition reform effort
feels fundamentally different from the ones we’ve seen before.

The National Defense Strategy (NDS) made that message clear. The current (old)
acquisition system simply can’t deliver what the strategy demands. Congress and the
administration followed up with a slate of reforms throughout 2025 and solidified them in
the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2026. The EOs, directives, and
legislation issued in 2025 explicitly support portfolio management, requirements reform,
engineering integration, and new funding mechanisms. These efforts seem to be a real
departure from the incremental tweaks to legacy processes we’ve all grown used to.

Take, for example, the shift from Program Executive Offices (PEOs) to Portfolio Acquisition
Executives (PAEs). Anyone who has worked in or around a PEO understands how
entrenched that model has become. It has delivered results, but they’re usually siloed and
not widely replicated. The new portfolio model for PAEs pushes leaders to consider
integrated mission outcomes rather than protecting individual programs. With the PAE
model, design, integration, engineering, and funding are tied to the mission rather than to
the org chart. In an ecosystem where org charts seem to change constantly, this is a long
needed, structural shift that should have happened years ago. Now the 2026 NDAA
formally locks it in.

The same is true for requirements reform. The Joint Capabilities Integration and
Development System (JCIDS) has been a bottleneck for as long as most contractors can
remember. It was built in (and for) a different era, and it has slowed decision-making for
decades. The 2026 NDAA officially removes it as the governing construct and replaces it
with mechanisms that are focused on identifying Key Operational Problems (KOPs). Those
problems will be ranked and pushed into funded action through the Requirements and
Resourcing Alignment Board (RRAB). This is the first time that senior leaders will have a
formal way to say, “These are the problems that matter, and this is where the money needs
to go.” That alignment has been missing for a long time.

The Joint Acceleration Reserve (JAR) is another practical step forward to addressing one of
the biggest acquisition challenges faced by small companies with innovative solutions –
The valley of death. The valley of death didn’t come about by accident. In fact, it’s been a
predictable outcome of the budget process for a long time. Until now, there hasn’t been a
mechanism to fund solutions as soon as they’re ready to be fielded. The JAR is meant to
change that dynamic and give the Department a way to move when capability is actually
available.

The Mission Engineering Integration Activity (MEIA) tackles another long-standing issue.
Integration has too often been treated as a cleanup effort at the end of procurement and
production. The MEIA should push shared engineering foundations, common data models,
and earlier industry engagement to the front, where integration belongs. This is the fix that
years of “we’ll integrate it later” policies never delivered on.

One of the most significant changes we saw in 2025 was the administration’s undertaking
of the “legendary” Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul. For decades, the FAR has
grown through constant accumulation. More clauses, more exceptions, more compliance
layered on top of compliance. Everyone inside the system felt the drag, even if they
disagreed on how to fix it. In 2025, the decision to address the problems with the FAR truly
signaled something important: that this acquisition reform isn’t about adding another
workaround or pilot. It’s about simplifying how the government buys, removing
requirements that no longer serve a clear purpose, and giving contracting officers more
room to exercise judgment rather than defaulting to box-checking. The overhaul is still
underway and FAR from finished, but it’s a critical complement to portfolio management
and requirements reform. If the broader reforms are about what the government buys and
why, the FAR overhaul is about how it actually happens day-to-day.

Even with all of that said, not everything survived the legislative processes and
negotiations.

Several proposed reforms that would have strengthened pricing transparency and oversight
were stripped from the final 2026 NDAA. Early House and Senate versions included
provisions to limit outdated cost and pricing data and close loopholes that allow prices to
be justified after the fact, but those didn’t make the final cut. Instead, Congress asked the
Department to study the issue and report back, a much softer outcome than many pricing
reformers hoped for.

The same thing happened with oversight of Other Transaction Authority (OTAs) agreements.
Proposed guardrails were replaced with a much more basic approach – a Government
Accountability Office (GAO) review. Supporters of flexibility argue that the Other
Transaction Authority should remain light touch. Critics of the outcome argue that the lack
of oversight invites abuse. That debate still remains unresolved.

Perhaps most surprising was the elimination of right-to-repair provisions. Even bipartisan
reforms wanted to give service members the right to repair their own equipment. However,
those inclusions were stripped after industry members pushed back. (I think we know who
wants to keep the rights to repair their own systems, at a greater cost to the government….
Looking at you, big primes!) Those provisions had broad support and still didn’t survive. It’s
hard not to see that as a reminder of how much influence traditional primes continue to
have over maintenance and sustainment.

Taken together, the omissions highlight a tension running through the 2025 reform efforts.
On one hand, the 2026 NDAA codifies real change. On the other hand, there is a distinct
avoidance of some of the most challenging fights over issues such as transparency,
oversight, and incentives. That tension leaves many people unsure about what’s going to
come. Some are wondering if we are truly entering a new era of capability delivery, while
others wonder if we’re rebranding parts of the same system and hoping for better results.
For the workforce, the message is mixed. Authority is shifting, and expectations are
increasing. Portfolio thinking and engineering discipline are clearly on the rise, but the lack
of hard constraints on cost and oversight leaves room for old habits to creep back in.
Industry is getting the same mixed signals. Companies are being told to build modular,
interoperable, exportable solutions that fit into portfolios. At the same time, many of the
old pricing and data practices remain untouched. These disconnects could slow real
competition.

There’s no question that 2025 marked the most significant acquisition reform effort in a
generation. And on a personal level, it was a year that reshaped how I think about time,
urgency, and follow-through. Both professionally and personally, this year reinforced the
same lesson for me. Real change doesn’t come from talking about it. It comes from doing
the work to drive change and continuing to confront and execute on the harder work that
follows.

For me, the reforms that passed in 2025 show what’s possible, and the ones that didn’t
show how much work really remains. What happens next will matter far more than what
was announced this year.

In 2026, I’m watching closely to see the follow-through from what was started in 2025.

Federal Contracting Is Changing—Fast. If You’re Not Diversifying, You’re Already Behind.

By Chelsea Roberts

If you’re still waiting for the federal market to go “back to normal,” here’s the truth: this is the new normal. And if your strategy still revolves solely around chasing traditional FAR-based contracts, you’re not just limiting your pipeline, you’re missing some of the most effective tools federal buyers are using in 2025.

Over the years, I’ve worked with contractors of all sizes, from fresh startups to mature 8(a) firms, and a clear pattern has emerged. Companies focused only on the Federal Acquisition Regulation, or FAR, are feeling stuck. They’re caught in long proposal cycles, slow award timelines, and heavy compliance obligations that weigh down operations. Meanwhile, firms that understand how to navigate both traditional and alternative pathways are gaining ground quickly.

To be clear, this isn’t a conversation about choosing between FAR and non-FAR methods. FAR-based acquisition is still the foundation of government procurement. It governs most of the dollars, supports major programs across defense, health, and infrastructure, and offers the predictability that is critical for certain types of work. But even within the FAR, there are faster, more flexible options emerging.

The Software Acquisition Pathway, or SWP, is a prime example. SWP is a FAR-based pathway, but it operates with greater speed and adaptability than traditional approaches. It was created specifically to streamline software delivery within the Department of Defense by eliminating outdated steps like JCIDS and integrating proven commercial practices such as Agile, DevSecOps, and Lean. As of March 2025, it is mandatory for all DoD software acquisitions, and it is already reshaping how defense agencies buy and build software.

What makes SWP different is not that it sidesteps the FAR, but that it uses it in a way that prioritizes outcomes, user needs, and rapid iteration. In some cases, programs using SWP will also rely on flexible solicitation methods like Commercial Solutions Openings, or CSOs, or Other Transaction Agreements, or OTAs, to move faster. But those tools support the pathway, they don’t define it. At its core, SWP is still a FAR-based model, designed to function without unnecessary delays.

This is why diversification matters. It doesn’t mean abandoning FAR. It means understanding that the acquisition landscape is broader than traditional requests for proposals and that successful contractors know how to engage in multiple ways depending on their capabilities and the buyer’s needs.

In addition to SWP, federal agencies are using:

• Other Transaction Agreements for prototyping and experimentation,
• Commercial Solutions Openings to quickly onboard innovative commercial technology,
• Broad Agency Announcements for exploratory research,
• Cooperative Research and Development Agreements to support collaboration and tech transfer, and
• Prize competitions to source creative solutions from a wider range of vendors.

Many agencies also rely on cooperative agreements and grants, particularly in research-intensive environments like the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation. DHS and NASA regularly use prize-based challenges to evaluate early-stage ideas. New authorities under 10 USC 4023 and 4022(f) now allow the Department of Defense to transition successful prototypes directly into production, eliminating the need for a new competition and giving smaller, agile firms a major advantage.

If your strategy focuses solely on responding to RFPs posted on SAM.gov, you are operating in the slowest and most crowded lane. The government is not abandoning the FAR, but it is adapting how it uses it and combining it with other tools to move faster and be more responsive to mission needs.

Since 2016, the Defense Innovation Unit has awarded more than $1.7 billion in prototype OTAs to over 400 companies, many of them small and non-traditional vendors. These projects are not theoretical. They are operational capabilities that are already being deployed. Other organizations, including the U.S. Space Force, Army Futures Command, and DHS Science and Technology, are also using these tools to get new solutions into the field quickly, bypassing years of procedural delays.

Diversification offers more than speed. It allows your company to remain resilient in the face of budget shifts and award delays. It gives you opportunities to pilot new solutions, work directly with end users, and build lasting agency relationships. But it also requires you to understand the nuances of each method. A winning OTA strategy is not the same as a strong FAR response. A successful CSO brief is not built like a standard technical volume.

Here is what I tell every client: diversify before you are forced to.

Take time to understand the structure, purpose, and pace of each pathway. Learn the difference between direct and consortium-based OTAs. Get comfortable with writing concise, outcome-driven capability briefs. Study how your solution could support a program under SWP or respond to a prize-based competition. Most importantly, be willing to adjust. The government is no longer following the same acquisition trail it did ten years ago.

The federal market is not shrinking, it is shifting. And the contractors who lead in 2025 and beyond will be the ones who understand the full landscape, speak the language of modern acquisition, and position themselves as agile, mission-ready partners.

In this era of acquisition reform, diversification is not a hedge. It is essential.

If you’ve ever thrown your hands up in frustration at federal procurement, you’re not alone, especially if you’re a small or non-traditional business. For years, the government’s own rules have kept the most innovative, cost-effective solutions locked outside the gates. This, while agencies default to expensive, custom-built systems or hang on to half-empty offices. But with the latest Executive Orders signed in April 2025, that landscape is about to get a lot more welcoming for businesses ready to bring commercial efficiency and creativity to the public sector. 

Commercial-First Procurement: The End of “Custom by Default” 

Let’s start with what, for many contractors, will be a game changer: the April 16th Executive Order titled “Ensuring Commercial, Cost-Effective Solutions in Federal Contracts.” On paper, the government should have been “preferring commercial solutions” ever since the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA). In practice, that preference has too often gotten buried under a pile of exceptions, waivers, and risk aversion. Agencies have frequently defaulted to custom-developed, “government-unique” solutions, which have left most commercial innovations and competition on the sidelines. 

The administration’s new EO turns that old system on its head. Now, every federal agency is required to review all open solicitations for non-commercial products and services, and every contracting officer must justify why a commercial alternative isn’t being used. These justifications aren’t rubber stamps; they go straight to the agency’s senior procurement executive, who is then tasked with scrutinizing whether market research and cost analysis have really been done—and if not, the requirement gets bounced back for another look.  

It’s worth noting that these changes are likely to send ripples through acquisition offices and already short-staffed contracting shops. With many agencies facing a shrinking workforce, the extra layer of justification and review required by this new EO could actually add to acquisition professionals’ workloads. Rather than accelerating the process, the added steps for documenting and vetting commercial solutions might initially create new bottlenecks—or even slow things down further—until teams adapt. In other words, while the intent is to make procurement smarter and more cost-effective, the rollout could put even more strain on busy contracting staff, at least in the short term. 

Those who are supporting innovative, market-driven companies can help contracting professionals and the companies they serve by preparing them for these justification requirements.  Agencies must now prove that custom solutions are necessary. If your company’s solution exists in the commercial world—even if it needs some tweaks to fit government needs—you’re in a stronger position than ever to win new business. If you’ve been dependent on developing customized solutions for government-specific needs, contracting officers will now be required to justify the purchase of your products. You can help your government customers by comparing your solutions with similar commercially available solutions side by side. This can help provide them with the information they need to craft those justifications. 

This EO also assigns real accountability to the words. Agencies must submit annual reports on their compliance with commercial first principles, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will be watching. That means every time a government office tries to justify a custom building, they’ll need compelling evidence to back it up. No more hand-waving. 

If you’re a commercial technology provider, logistics firm, facilities manager, or service innovator, you’ll suddenly have a much more straightforward path into the federal market. It also serves as a wake-up call to dust off those capability statements, make sure your value proposition aligns with government pain points, and be ready to explain how your solution outperforms old bespoke models. If you’re a legacy government contractor who’s built your business on custom projects, now’s the time to build your commercial partnerships and rethink your approach. 

From Empty Offices to Smart Spaces: A Real Estate Revolution for Agencies 

Procurement is only half of the April Executive Order story. The “Restoring Common Sense to Federal Office Space Management” EO is designed to tackle another different longstanding pain point: the government’s chronic mismanagement of its own real estate. If you’ve ever visited a sprawling federal office building and wondered why half the desks are empty, you’re not alone. If you’re a taxpayer, you’ve helped foot the bill for all that unused space. 

The “Common Sense” EO asks agencies to do what private-sector businesses have been doing for years—take a long, hard look at how much space they need, consolidate where possible, and shed what’s no longer necessary. With hybrid and remote work now cemented in agency culture, it no longer makes sense to pay for row after row of vacant cubicles or to hang on to underutilized leases out of habit. This EO’s impact on the return-to-work order that most federal employees received earlier this year has yet to be seen.  

Agencies are being ordered to assess their space usage, renegotiate leases, and prioritize office consolidations. The EO encourages the disposal or reconfiguration of unnecessary properties, investments in shared and flexible workspaces, and the adoption of space utilization benchmarks. This isn’t just about saving money (though the potential savings are massive), it’s about right-sizing government operations for the new administration and post-pandemic world. For contractors specializing in facilities management, workspace design, or office technology, this EO creates a golden opportunity to pitch solutions that help agencies achieve these mandates. 

The “Common Sense” EO is impactful because it explicitly ties real estate management to mission needs and employee behavior, not just legacy assumptions. It also holds agency leadership directly accountable for results. You can expect to see more RFPs and RFIs related to occupancy analytics, workspace optimization, and flexible real estate models.  

As with all the April Executive Orders, any evidence of impact will need to come from agency action to implement the guidance contained in them. Most of these initiatives are not new. Prior administrations have tried hard to reform acquisitions, both Clinton and Carter issued executive orders aiming to reform federal property management, and the government has had a designated preference for commercial products and services since 1994 with the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-355, as amended) (FASA). The problem with these prior initiatives is that they all faced resistance and inaction.  

These latest EOs will only hold weight if they can compel agencies to act and implement the direction and guidance these Executive Orders direct. Ultimately, actions will always speak louder than words written on paper. 

What Contractors and Small Businesses Need to Do Now 

So, what’s the bottom line for companies wanting to capitalize on this new era of “common sense government”? 

First, if you sell a commercial product or service, even if you haven’t traditionally targeted government, now’s your chance. Look for agencies reviewing or justifying current solicitations, and be proactive in demonstrating where your solution can replace or improve on custom builds. Get familiar with the new reporting and justification requirements. Make your case not just to contracting officers, but to their senior executives who now have veto power over custom procurements. 

Second, for those in the facilities and property management space—or any business that touches government real estate—track agency moves to consolidate, dispose, or upgrade office space. Come to the table with data-driven proposals and a clear understanding of how your services can save money and drive better utilization. 

Third, large and small companies should expect a more dynamic, competitive landscape. Both EOs are designed to lower barriers for non-traditional players and raise performance expectations for the old guard. Be ready to showcase proof of value and real-world impact, not just box-checking compliance. 

For years, agencies and contractors alike have bemoaned the slow pace of federal change. These new Executive Orders are an unmistakable sign that the rules of the game are changing and that, for once, common sense may finally get its day in government procurement and operations. 

For those of us helping small businesses navigate the federal sector, the message couldn’t be clearer: don’t wait. The demand for proven, efficient, and flexible commercial solutions is about to skyrocket. If you’re ready to jump in, the federal government just cleared a path. So, step up, deliver value, and help lead the way into a smarter, more cost-effective future. 

On April 9, 2025, President Donald Trump signed a landmark Executive Order
(EO) titled “Modernizing Defense Acquisitions and Spurring Innovation in the
Defense Industrial Base.” This directive aims to overhaul the Department of
Defense’s (DoD) acquisition processes, addressing inefficiencies and enabling
the military to adapt more rapidly to modern security challenges. By prioritizing
speed, flexibility, and commercial innovation, the EO is designed to revitalize how
the Pentagon procures weapons systems, technology, and equipment for
warfighters.

Accelerating Acquisition Processes
The directive to streamline the DoD’s acquisition processes within 60 days is
central to the EO. The goal here is clear: accelerate procurement cycles to match
the speed of technological advancements. Historically, FAR-based processes
have been sluggish, with timelines stretching several years—an unacceptable
pace in today’s fast-evolving battlefield environments.

To address these challenges, the EO emphasizes the use of Other Transaction
Authority (OTA), a flexible contracting mechanism that bypasses many
traditional bureaucratic hurdles. OTAs are especially appealing for non
traditional contractors, startups, and commercial firms, which often avoid
defense contracts due to complex regulations. By enabling faster acquisitions,
this reform encourages greater participation from innovative companies.

Additionally, the EO incorporates the Adaptive Acquisition Framework, which
adapts processes to specific program needs rather than a rigid, one-size-fits-all
approach. Combined with efforts to eliminate redundant approval tasks and
centralize decision-making, these changes are expected to significantly expedite
delivery timelines and reduce the compliance burdens faced by smaller and non
traditional contractors.

Cutting Bureaucratic Red Tape
The EO also tackles the regulatory burdens that have long plagued defense
procurement. The Secretary of Defense is required to review and revise the
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and other internal
guidance, removing outdated or redundant regulations.

A standout feature of the EO is the administration’s “ten-for-one rule,” which
mandates eliminating 10 existing regulations for every new one added. This
approach reduces the complexity of compliance, making it easier for small and
mid-sized companies to compete in the defense market. These efforts are
expected to widen the defense industrial base and boost competition by
lowering barriers for non-traditional contractors.

The EO explicitly calls for breaking away from traditional biases and preferences
in contracting. Historically, many agencies have favored familiar acquisition
methods, often overlooking innovative approaches that better serve the needs
of non-traditional companies. By fostering a mindset of flexibility and openness,
the EO aims to nurture a more inclusive and competitive defense ecosystem.

Workforce Reforms to Support Innovation
Recognizing that policy changes alone won’t transform acquisition culture, the
EO emphasizes reforming the DoD’s acquisition workforce. Within 120 days, the
Secretary of Defense must present a plan to restructure the workforce’s
performance metrics, rethink incentives, and assess staffing levels. The goal is to
empower acquisition professionals to embrace innovative procurement
authorities, such as OTAs and Commercial Solutions Openings (CSOs), while
getting comfortable with taking calculated risks.

To support this cultural shift, field training teams led by senior acquisition
executives will be deployed to educate personnel on best practices for utilizing
tailored acquisition tools. The EO seeks to create a more agile workforce capable
of leveraging modern contracting mechanisms by addressing the longstanding
risk-averse culture. This is expected to make it easier for businesses to propose
alternative acquisition approaches without encountering resistance from
leadership across the board. (Huge win!)

Scrutinizing Legacy Programs
Another defining feature of the EO is a call for accountability in ongoing
acquisition programs. Within 90 days, the Pentagon must review all major
defense acquisition programs (MDAPs). Programs that are more than 15% over
budget, 15% behind schedule, or no longer aligned with mission priorities may
face cancellation.

This marks a significant departure from the traditional Nunn-McCurdy breach
standard, which required a 50% cost overrun to trigger congressional review. By
lowering the threshold for intervention, the EO signals a stricter approach to
underperforming programs. Such reviews could free up funding for higher
priority initiatives and enable the procurement of more agile, cost-effective
systems.

Modernizing Requirements Development
In addition to acquisition reforms, the EO mandates a review of the Joint
Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS), the process by which
the military defines capability requirements. Within 180 days, the DoD must
streamline this system to reduce the time it takes for emerging technologies to
reach warfighters. The current requirements development process has lagged
behind rapidly changing technological advances and has been a sticking point for
program budgets and contractors competing for them.

Implications for Industry
The EO has far-reaching implications for the defense industry. For small
businesses and non-traditional contractors, the focus on commercial solutions,
faster acquisitions, and simplified compliance requirements represents a unique
opportunity to break into a market traditionally dominated by large, established
players. By fostering a more inclusive industrial base, the DoD hopes to bring
cutting-edge technologies into the fold more rapidly.

For legacy contractors, the increased scrutiny on program performance and cost
overruns may mean reevaluating timelines and budgets. Underperforming
programs could face cancellations, signaling a shift toward higher accountability
and more efficient use of resources. These are changes that American taxpayers
and non-traditional industry members should welcome.

A Dynamic Future for Defense Procurement
This Executive Order marks one of the most ambitious attempts to modernize
the defense acquisition system in recent history. By combining process
improvements, regulatory relief, workforce reforms, and heightened
accountability, the directive sets a bold vision for the Pentagon’s future.
As the DoD begins implementing these changes, industry stakeholders should be
watching closely to evaluate their impact. If successful, the reforms could set a
new standard for defense procurement—one that prioritizes speed, adaptability,
and innovation. The EO holds the potential to empower a new generation of
defense industrial base competitors that could reshape the defense industry for
the better.

For businesses navigating the defense market, the message is clear: The time has
come to embrace non-traditional acquisition strategies and align with the
Pentagon’s evolving priorities. With the administration committed to
modernization, opportunities are ripe for companies ready to innovate and help
reshape the future of defense procurement.