Eye on Policy

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2026 shows at least one thing: If you live long enough, you might see significant reform in the Defense Department.

Frankly, with all of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s activities since his confirmation, I wondered whether he knew that millions of words of recommendations—and sound ones at that—already existed on how acquisition might improve. He may, but those who have spent years on these matters believe it will be Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg who will push the reforms through.

Specifically, the NDAA enacts most (not all) of the reforms of the SPEED (Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery) and the FoRGED (Fostering Reform and Government Efficiency in Defense) Acts. Several analysts have noted that the reforms are more incremental than radical. 

Experienced operators in the defense and technology domain will note that the NDAA did not reauthorize two long-familiar programs. Namely, SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) and STTR (Small Business Technology Transfer). 

Omission of these programs, I think, sends a message to anyone concerned with the dual issues of small business and next-generation digital government. The administration wants to broaden small business and startup business participation with direct, often other transaction-authority engagement, and not via traditional and often complex methods. Those have resulted in ever fewer companies getting greater shares of the government’s small business spending. 

Other reforms the government side hoped for did not survive the final bill, such as strengthening of right-to-repair, more comprehensive rights to data, and large expansion of OTA (other transaction authority). 

Still, the intended reforms are real. One piece of evidence: Section 811 of the 3,000-page bill repeals eight sections of Title 10 law—and dozens of provisions from earlier NDAAs. 

Among the reform highlights: 

• Statutorily required portfolio acquisition executives, showing a Congressional and departmental desire to move away from a program basis for acquisition.
• Product support managers, again by statute, have equal status as program managers.
• Stronger preference for commercial technologies and services, and for modular, open-source approaches to enable easier systems integration.
• DoD must take a comprehensive look at the curriculum of Defense Acquisition University, so the workforce is presumably up to date on the reforms.
• Greater emphasis on best value as opposed to lowest cost.
• Ratchets up a program for fielding innovative technologies to a minimum award of $10 million. 

Plus, there are many provisions to bolster the defense industrial base. For example, one provision exempts “nontraditional” contractors from certain Defense provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation for things like cost and pricing data. 

The law includes a gigantic number of acquisition-related reforms in its 800 and 1800 sections. Companies will need to study them carefully. A big question is how all this will filter down and result in measurably different practices at the contracting officer and requirements-setting levels. 

Nor is any of the reform effort academic. The United States is seriously and strategically challenged in the Arctic, in South America and in the Western Pacific. Even Colombian drug cartels have developed expertise in swarmed drone attacks, while a half dozen South American nations cozy up to China. New systems simply take too long and cost too much. 

Perhaps War on the Rocks summed it up best when it stated, “While Congress may not have implemented all the reforms that industry and defense leaders have championed, this National Defense Authorization Act offers a meaningful step forward.” 

Whither the Customer Experience Movement? 

I spent an hour over the New Year’s weekend updating the credit card for some of my subscriptions and annual memberships. I want everything on my new super-duper airline credit card, so I am better positioned in the latest iteration of the points collection frenzy. 

I am pretty good at this stuff, and sometimes it is not easy. Just as printer setup and behavior can still be maddening 43 years after the introduction of the personal computer, so too can websites offer fiendish interfaces 30 years since the advent of e-commerce. 

I do not like to name names, because the companies I deal with are honest and earnest in trying to offer good service. But websites too often take intestinal fortitude to interact with. 

But what about the customer experience movement of the Trump 45 and Biden administrations? In December, OMB Director Russ Vought released a new President’s Management Agenda. No more grand visions expressed in multipage, colorful brochures. The one-page document is refreshingly concise, but short on detail. It reads more like a follow-up of initiatives already in place. Things like eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs; reducing the size of the workforce; shrinking federal real estate. A reference in the memo points to the Performance.gov site, but there is no real elaboration there. 

You will find only a passing reference to digital services. Earlier, the administration did put out an initiative to reduce redundant federal websites and institute design standards. Those sorts of efforts go back to the “federal webmaster” days. In 2018 the 21st Century Integrated Digital Experience Act (IDEA) was supposed to launch a new online era. The most recent detailed guidance, though, dates to the Biden administration. 

Let us hope that in 2026, after the layoffs and turmoil, the administration rejuvenates the digital services-customer experience drive. It should not run out of steam. And the private sector mostly does not provide a particularly high bar.