The U.S. Army established six portfolio acquisition executives, or PAEs, as part of a restructuring effort in November, providing the service’s acquisition workforce with greater authority, clearer responsibilities and faster decision-making ability to accelerate the delivery of new technologies to soldiers.

The Army’s acquisition reforms reflect broader, ongoing discussions about modernization and readiness across the service. Those issues will continue to frame dialogue among defense leaders and industry stakeholders, including at the Potomac Officers Club’s 2026 Army Summit on June 18. Registration is now open.

What Is the Role of the Army Acquisition Workforce in the Reform?

The service said Wednesday the new PAE structure as part of the Army’s acquisition reform will enable acquisition professionals to strengthen collaboration and serve as key drivers of Army readiness and innovation.

The new construct will also allow them to manage capabilities from concept to full-scale implementation. 

“Under the current fragmented process, accountability is distributed across multiple organizations and functions, creating misalignment between critical stakeholders,” said Brent Ingraham, assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, or ASA(ALT), and Army acquisition executive. “Aligning this reform with operational concepts better postures the Army to deliver capabilities our Soldiers need without delay.” 

What Are the Army PAEs?

The Army created the PAEs to replace its program executive offices to ensure that priorities, resources and outcomes are aligned with the service’s modernization efforts.

The six PAE organizations are Fires; Maneuver Ground; Maneuver Air; Command and Control and Counter C2; Agile Sustainment and Ammo; and Layered Protection and Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense.

What Is the Army PIT Office?

In November, the Army also introduced the Pathway for Innovation and Technology, or PIT, office to quickly develop new technologies and scale successful ones across the service. 

The office operates under the ASA(ALT)’s deputy assistant secretary of the Army for research and technology. It supports nontraditional vendors and aims to accelerate the adoption of emerging technologies by adopting a venture capitalist approach.

According to Ingraham, the PIT office will consolidate work from a range of organizations inside and outside the Army that focus on scaling new capabilities. He added that the effort is intended to address longstanding bureaucratic challenges, including limited fielding plans and extended budget cycles that have slowed innovation.

The Government Accountability Office has found that continuing resolutions, or CRs, have repeatedly disrupted the Department of War’s ability to carry out acquisition programs on schedule.

Recent GAO findings highlight the complex budget environment facing defense programs. Those broader issues will frame discussions at the Potomac Officers Club’s 2026 Defense R&D Summit on Jan. 29. Reserve your seat now!

In a report published Wednesday, GAO said about half of the 74 acquisition programs reported experiencing schedule disruptions due to CRs. 

Officials told GAO that these delays affected contract awards, production timelines and the deployment of weapons systems at DOW.

According to the report, five of nine Air Force aircraft acquisition programs reviewed reported delays linked to CR constraints. In one case, officials said a stopgap measure in fiscal year 2022 delayed the award of a contract for the F-15 Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System, a modernization effort for the aircraft’s electronic warfare capabilities. The delay contributed to likely parts shortages for the F-15 fleet.

What Does a Continuing Resolution Do?

According to GAO, a CR is a temporary funding measure Congress uses when regular appropriations bills are not enacted by the start of the fiscal year. CRs generally fund agencies at prior-year levels for a limited period of time.

In 45 of the last 49 fiscal years, the Pentagon operated under continuing resolutions. GAO found that these stopgap funding measures have had measurable effects on defense acquisition programs, particularly by delaying contract awards and slowing the delivery of critical military equipment.

In a separate review, the DOW Office of Inspector General released an audit in July 2025 examining the impact of continuing resolutions on the department’s acquisition programs and recommended that the Pentagon develop a method to track the impacts of CRs on acquisition programs and establish parameters for anomaly requests.

How Do CRs Disrupt Defense Spending?

GAO’s analysis of the department’s obligation data from FY 2013 through FY 2023 shows that longer CR periods lasting more than three months are associated with slower spending early in the fiscal year, particularly in procurement and research, development, test and evaluation accounts. 

Once full appropriations are enacted, acquisition programs often face compressed timelines to obligate funds before the end of the fiscal year. Military service officials told GAO this can create bottlenecks in contracting offices and strain vendor capacity, making it more difficult to execute defense contracts.

Defense contractors that fail to deliver at sufficient speed risk financial and contractual penalties as federal acquisition priorities shift toward production throughput and industrial readiness, according to The Chertoff Group, which analyzed recent changes in Pentagon contracting expectations.

In an opinion piece the company published Tuesday, senior directors Davi Hayes and Geoffrey Kintzer said production delays — even when compliant with legacy contract requirements — could expose companies to heightened scrutiny, remediation demands and restrictions on capital distribution.

The 2026 Defense R&D Summit on Jan. 29 will examine how research, innovation and acquisition priorities are shaping expectations for delivery, readiness and industrial capacity across the defense enterprise. Hosted by the Potomac Officers Club, the event features senior defense leaders and expert discussions focused on translating R&D into operational capability while strengthening the defense industrial base. Register now.

Why Is Production Speed Becoming a Compliance Issue for Contractors?

Hayes and Kintzer argue that federal acquisition policy is increasingly treating production capacity and delivery velocity as core performance requirements rather than secondary program objectives. Under this approach, contractors may be identified as underperforming if throughput is deemed insufficient to meet current operational demand, regardless of historical contract benchmarks.

What Penalties Could Firms Face if Delivery Falls Short?

According to the executives, firms flagged for inadequate production speed could be required to submit board-approved remediation plans on compressed timelines. Failure to demonstrate corrective action may lead to restrictions on dividends and stock buybacks, as well as increased scrutiny of executive compensation tied to delivery performance.

They added that government authorities could take additional steps to prioritize production for federal needs if delays persist.

How Is Capital Reinvestment Tied to Production Performance?

Hayes and Kintzer said reinvestment in domestic manufacturing capacity is becoming a central measure of contractor readiness. Firms that continue directing significant capital toward shareholder distributions rather than production infrastructure may face limits on access to future contracts or capital markets under the evolving acquisition framework.

The authors described the shift as a move toward treating the defense industrial base as a national asset managed for readiness rather than financial optimization.

What Risks Accompany Rapid Production Scaling?

While emphasizing speed, the executives cautioned that accelerated production increases exposure to supply chain and cybersecurity vulnerabilities. They said contractors are expected to harden digital production environments and maintain security controls as output scales to prevent adversaries from exploiting them.

According to the authors, production speed without corresponding cybersecurity controls could introduce new performance and compliance risks.

What Steps Could Help Contractors Stay Compliant Under the Oversight Model?

Hayes and Kintzer said defense contractors should proactively assess whether their production capacity, capital investment and governance structures align with the government’s heightened emphasis on delivery speed and readiness. They recommended internal audits of production throughput to identify bottlenecks before federal performance reviews occur and emphasized the need to document capital expenditures tied directly to capacity expansion.

The senior directors also said boards and executive teams should prepare for scenarios in which dividends, buybacks or incentive compensation are curtailed if production expectations are not met.