House subcommittee hearing: DOD acquisition system 'too slow, too rigid,' witnesses say

WASHINGTON — The House Oversight and Reform Committee’s Subcommittee on Military and Foreign Affairs held a hearing to examine the Department of Defense’s procurement system and to hear witnesses’ proposals to accelerate defense innovation.

Committee leaders and witnesses said the existing acquisition process is slow, risk‑averse and discourages new entrants and startups from scaling technologies to the warfighter. "The acquisition system was born in the Cold War and fundamentally designed to eliminate risk," said Miss Boatner, vice president of national security policy at the Aerospace Industries Association. "The result is a rigid and lengthy system, which does not enable the flexibility or speed required by today's evolving threat landscape."

The hearing came as the Government Accountability Office published an annual assessment cited by witnesses showing DOD plans to spend at least $2,400,000,000,000 on its weapons portfolio and that it now takes nearly 12 years on average to deliver capability to the field. "DOD recognizes that the current acquisition system isn't keeping up," said Miss Oakley, a director on GAO's national security acquisitions team. She told the panel that iterative development and commercial practices would allow faster delivery and more adaptable systems.

Witnesses detailed multiple barriers. Boatner said the Federal Acquisition Regulation and DOD's supplement, the DFARS, together exceed thousands of pages and that from 2011 to 2020 "approximately 40% of small businesses decided to leave the DOD market." Mister Snelgrove, a senior fellow with the National Defense Industrial Association, described an entrepreneurial "two‑speed" ecosystem in which startups operate on venture timelines but the defense procurement cycle does not, leaving promising firms stuck in a "valley of death" between prototype and production.

Panelists recommended several overlapping reforms: broadened use of commercial acquisition pathways, clearer and stable funding signals, workforce development for acquisition and technical personnel, modernized IT and audit systems, and use of iterative development. "We do not have an innovation problem. The Department of Defense has an acquisition and adoption problem," said Mister Schwartz, a defense fellow at the Coalition on Government Procurement, urging digitization of acquisition records and better continuity in acquisition careers.

Members of the subcommittee pressed witnesses on specific consequences of current practice. Several lawmakers said continuing resolutions and budget uncertainty drive up per‑unit costs and force contractors to retain cash reserves or reduce workforces. GAO and witnesses linked long timelines and requirements creep to schedule slippage and cost overruns; Oakley noted many programs are not using iterative development even when the adaptive acquisition framework allows it.

The hearing also touched on discrete areas that illustrate broader problems. Witnesses said the Defense Innovation Unit and experimental contracting authorities can help but are often treated as ad hoc workarounds. Lawmakers raised additive manufacturing, noting a Navy case in which a 3D‑printed replacement part beat a traditional supplier's 18‑month lead time. Committee members asked about space programs and a proposed missile defense effort referred to in testimony as "Golden Dome," and heard that public‑private partnerships and steady investment would be critical for such complex programs.

Several members raised larger institutional concerns: post‑administration personnel reductions and a deferred‑resignation program were cited as removing thousands of experienced DOD staff; one witness described roughly 121,000 layoffs since January and another cited 21,000 removed under a deferred‑resignation program. Lawmakers also cited GAO and other reporting of fraud and waste — one member referenced a figure of $10,800,000,000 in documented fraud — and continued DOD inability to pass a department‑wide financial audit.

Witnesses urged congressional and executive action to harmonize regulations, provide predictable funding, expand access to classified facilities for startups, strengthen acquisition career paths and update IT systems that underpin logistics and auditability. "Budget stability, consistent demand signals — that would make a huge difference for the defense industrial base and the procurement system," Boatner said.

The subcommittee did not adopt legislation during the hearing. Members concluded by saying they will pursue additional written questions and follow‑up work as they consider policy and oversight options aimed at faster, more affordable and more competitive acquisition outcomes.