Providing Acquisition Authority
to Combatant Commands in the DoD
The pace of need for combatant commands (CCMDs)
often exceeds the pace of delivery from the defense
acquisition community. Addressing urgent and dynamic
operational capability gaps requires a more responsive and
flexible approach than the acquisition process typically
accommodates.
The current acquisition system is widely viewed as slow and inefficient, unable
to respond to the pace of change in the operational environment. Delegating
acquisition authority to CCMDs is one way to provide more tailored and timely
responses to theater-specific requirements. CCMDs primary acquisition needs
are typically software intensive capabilities, and Automated Information Systems/
Services that require integration to provide a global or joint capability. These
capabilities typically support the CCMDs in the areas of Planning, Battlespace
Awareness, Command and Control (C2), Combatant Command Planning, Cyber
Security, Fires, Targeting, Logistics and ultimately support advanced decision
making for the Joint Force Commander (JFC) down to the Joint Task Forces (JTF).
This paper presents several options for what this authority might look like and
addresses the challenges and risks of each. It offers a recommended way ahead
that aims to give CCMDs more direct influence in the acquisition process and thus
faster access to the capabilities they need.
Background on DoD Acquisition Authority
Currently, most CCMDs do not possess independent acquisition authority
(USSOCOM and USCYBERCOM are exceptions and discussed as examples below).
Another unique example is US Transportation Command’s Program Executive
Office (PEO-T) responsible for managing acquisition programs and providing
program-related support to USTRANSCOM’s mission. Otherwise, CCMDs, rely on
the military services and acquisition agencies to provide capabilities that address
their operational needs. This structure often results in delays, inefficiencies, and
misalignment between requirements and procurement timelines.
CCMDs operating in dynamic and contested environments, such as the Indo-Pacific
Command (INDOPACOM), require the ability to procure mission-critical capabilities
swiftly. Without the flexibility to acquire the resources they need, CCMDs risk being
outpaced by emerging threats and unable to execute their missions effectively.
Key Questions
Why is the current
defense acquisition
system unable to
meet the needs
of Combatant
Commands (CCMDs)?
How might acquisition
authority be delegated
to CCMDs, and how
might they address
operational capability
gaps?
What lessons can be
learned from existing
precedents, such
as SOCOM, JRAC,
and experimentation
programs, to inform
future acquisition
strategies for CCMDs?
