Department of War officials examine acquisition reform, industrial capacity at DMC 25

By Cassidy Mills, Staff Writer

April 14, 2026

Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment, Michael Duffey, and Under Secretary of War for Research & Engineering and Chief Technology Officer for the Department of War, Emil Michael, traveled to the Sunshine State to speak at the 25th Defense Manufacturing Conference (DMC) on March 30.

Held at the Caribe Royale in Orlando, Florida, DMC is the nation’s annual forum for enhancing and leveraging the efforts of engineers, managers, technology leaders, scientists and policymakers across the defense manufacturing industrial base.

Experts from government, industry and academia exchange insights on defense manufacturing policies, strategic direction, best practices and funding opportunities. The conference highlights the latest manufacturing innovations that will benefit the nation’s warfighters.

Moderated by Dean Bartles, Ph.D., president and chief executive officer of the Manufacturing Technology Deployment Group, the fireside chat featuring Duffey and Michael focused on acquisition reform and the condition of the defense industrial base, particularly how both areas affect the speed and scale of delivering capabilities to the warfighter.

Duffey described acquisition reform as an effort to remove bottlenecks and reduce the time between contract award and operational delivery. He outlined a five-pillar framework guiding these changes: industry engagement, workforce empowerment, process streamlining, technical capability and resource management.

“When I think about the joint force that we need and the joint force that we have, I think there are three primary critical paths we must focus on,” Duffey said. “Resources, technology development and industrial capacity development are all essential to closing that gap.”

As part of this effort, the department is reviewing acquisition regulations to simplify requirements and make participation more accessible, particularly for companies that have not traditionally worked with the federal government. Duffey said regulatory complexity has historically created barriers to entry, especially for smaller firms and commercial technology providers.

“As we simplify acquisition regulations, our goal is to make it easier for all companies to compete and contribute to national defense,” Duffey said. “Reducing unnecessary complexity helps smaller firms and nontraditional vendors bring innovative solutions to the warfighter faster.”

The discussion also highlighted the use of more flexible contracting approaches. Duffey pointed to increased reliance on alternative acquisition mechanisms, such as Other Transaction Authorities, to accelerate procurement timelines and reduce administrative burden. He said these tools are intended to allow faster evaluation and adoption of new technologies.

Changes to internal decision-making structures were also addressed. Program leaders are being given greater authority to manage acquisition priorities, with the goal of enabling faster tradeoffs between cost, schedule and performance. This shift is intended to reduce delays caused by fragmented oversight and approval processes.

“We’re giving program leaders more authority to manage priorities and make timely tradeoffs between cost, schedule and performance,” Duffey said. “This change reduces delays caused by fragmented oversight and helps us deliver capabilities to the warfighter faster.”

Both officials emphasized that speed is a central objective of these reforms. Michael described a need to shorten the timeline between identifying operational requirements and delivering usable capabilities, particularly in response to rapidly evolving technological and geopolitical conditions.

“Speed is essential because our adversaries are advancing their capabilities faster than ever,” Michael said. “We have to ensure that innovation moves from the lab to the field quickly, so the warfighter maintains a decisive advantage.”

In parallel, the discussion examined the role of the defense industrial base in supporting these objectives. Duffey described efforts to provide more consistent and predictable demand signals through multi-year contracts, often spanning five to seven years. These agreements are intended to give companies greater confidence to invest in expanding production capacity.

He also noted a shift toward more direct engagement with suppliers across the supply chain, including sub-tier manufacturers. This approach is aimed at improving visibility into production constraints and strengthening coordination beyond prime contractors.

“We’re making it a priority to engage directly with suppliers at every level, not just the prime contractors,” Duffey said. “This helps us identify bottlenecks early and ensures the entire supply chain can meet the demands of the warfighter.”

In some cases, the department is also participating in joint investments with industry to expand production of critical components. These efforts are intended to address bottlenecks in key areas of the supply chain and increase overall output.

Another focus is broadening participation in the defense industrial base. Michael discussed efforts to reduce barriers for smaller companies and commercial firms, with the goal of increasing competition and diversifying the supplier base.

“We want to make it easier for smaller companies and new entrants to contribute to defense production,” Michael said. “Broadening participation strengthens the industrial base and encourages innovation across the supply chain.”

The use of commercial supply chains was also raised as a strategy for improving resilience. Michael noted that incorporating commercially available components and manufacturing practices can help reduce reliance on single-source suppliers and maintain access to up-to-date technology.

“Leveraging commercial supply chains allows us to tap into proven, scalable technologies,” Michael said. “This approach increases resilience and ensures our systems remain current without relying on a single supplier.”

Throughout the discussion, acquisition reform and industrial base development were presented as interconnected challenges. Changes to contracting, regulation and internal processes are intended not only to improve efficiency within the department, but also to enable industry to respond more effectively to defense requirements.