Pentagon Moves to Install “One Boss” Acquisition Authority to Speed Up Defense Procurement

The Proposed Change: A Single Leader Takes the Helm

According to a recent leaked memo described in a piece by the National Security Journal, the Pentagon is preparing sweeping reforms to its acquisition system that would establish a single senior leader—the “one boss”—to oversee major defense procurement portfolios.

Under the proposal:

• One senior official would be empowered to make acquisition decisions across interconnected program, foregoing multiple overlapping review boards.
• The memo suggests slashing redundant reviews, capping change-orders, penalizing delays by contractors and paying earlier to allow smaller firms to compete.
• The document also calls for embracing more commercial-style acquisition methods (for example, using “other transactions” and “commercial solutions openings”) instead of defaulting to the most onerous federal regulations.

In short: the aim is to shift from a cumbersome, siloed process to one that prizes speed, scale and cost discipline.

Why Now: A Strained Industrial Base & Slow Delivery

The context for this reform is long-standing frustration over the rate at which the U.S. defense industrial base is delivering capabilities. For years defense analysts have pointed out that many major weapons programs arrive late, come in over budget, or both.

Examples cited include multi-billion dollar cost overruns and schedule slippages, such as the delay of the Virginia‑class submarine PCU California, which highlighted the systemic constraints in legacy acquisition processes.

Moreover, smaller firms often struggle to compete because they face long waits and burdensome regulations, providing little incentive for disruptive newcomers to challenge entrenched primes. The reforms aim to revive competition in the industrial base and stimulate innovation.

What the Reform Would Change in Practice

Portfolio Acquisition Executives (PAEs)

The draft memo proposes the creation of portfolio acquisition executives (PAEs) who would oversee groups of programs based on mission or capability areas, rather than each service handling narrowly defined efforts.

PAEs would:

• Be closer to execution and decision-making.
• Have authority to shift resources among programs as needs evolve.
• Be evaluated via “portfolio scorecards” measuring schedule-driven delivery, production ramp-up, dual sourcing, and integration of commercial content.

Commercial-First Contracting

The memo emphasizes using commercial acquisition tools and eschewing defaulting to the most burdensome contracting path. For example:

• Use of Other Transaction Authority (OTA) and Commercial Solutions Openings (CSOs).
• Incentives tied to schedule performance: rewards for early delivery and penalties for delays. +1

Accountability & Oversight

A single accountable leader would replace layered approvals. Each process, board and review must justify its value in accelerating capability delivery.

Analysis: What This Means for U.S. Defense, Global Security and Tech Trends

The reforms signal a significant strategic pivot for U.S. defense procurement. With near-peer competitors advancing rapidly, the U.S. cannot afford protracted delays in fielding capabilities. By consolidating leadership, the Department of Defense (DoD) hopes to reduce bureaucracy and accelerate time-to-field.

From a global perspective, speeding up delivery matters: faster fielding means adversaries have less time to adapt or exploit U.S. delays. It also increases deterrence credibility. Meanwhile, by enabling smaller and more agile firms to compete, the reform taps into commercial technology trends—dual-use, faster iteration, and modular upgrades—that characterise the tech sector.

However, the challenge is substantial. The U.S. defense acquisition system has been resistant to change for decades, with previous reform efforts stalling. The success of this reform will hinge not only on policy changes but on culture, workforce training, and service acceptance. Industry primes may resist schedule-based penalties; services may resist shifting resources across portfolios.

There is also risk: moving too quickly without adequate oversight or incremental testing could lead to capability gaps or integration problems. The emphasis on commercial contracting opens the door for disruptive entrants—but also demands robust cybersecurity and supply-chain controls in a more open defense-industrial base.

Conclusion: Forward-Looking Implications

If implemented, this “one boss” acquisition reform could mark one of the most consequential changes to U.S. defense procurement in decades. For the U.S. to maintain a technological and operational edge, delivering weapons and systems on time and within cost is now a strategic imperative. The proposed model aligns with broader shifts toward agile, commercial-style defense technology development.

Going forward, watchers should focus on whether the DoD issues guidance within the timelines specified, how services reorganize around the PAE concept, and whether contract types shift materially toward OTA/CSO models. Ultimately, the success of the reform will rest on execution: visible early wins in fielding capabilities—and demonstrable savings or schedule improvements—will determine whether this shake-up is a true turning point or another reform that gathers dust.

Source