On August 20, 2025, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) issued a sweeping memo that tears up and rebuilds the way the military decides what new weapons and systems it needs.  The Military Services appear to be wasting no time translating the memo into action.  Acquisition leaders at last week’s Association of the United States Army conference emphasized that “Transforming in Contact” will serve as the framework for redefining requirements and reprioritizing programs—demonstrating that reform is already underway.  For its part, the Air Force has begun reorganizing its A5/7 directorate to assume greater responsibility for requirements generation, while the Chief of Space Operations has publicly outlined the Space Force path to driving requirements and resourcing.  

This “requirements process” is the first step in acquisition—it defines the problem and tells the rest of the system what to buy, build, or develop.  Change the requirements process and you change the entire defense marketplace.  For decades, DoD has used a system called the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (“JCIDS”).  JCIDS was paperwork-heavy and checklist-driven:  the Military Services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force) would write lengthy justifications for new programs, and those proposals would wind their way through layers of approval at the Joint Staff in the Pentagon.  Critics said JCIDS was too slow and too rigid for modern threats, especially as China and other adversaries innovate quickly.

The August 20 memo blows up that model.  In its place, DoD is putting forward a problem-focused approach that aims to:

  • Define the biggest operational challenges first(not just collect Military Service wish lists)
  • Tie priorities to moneyso “important” projects actually get funded
  • Bring industry into the process earlierthrough experiments, not just proposals
  • Cut out layers of low value review

Below we unpack the memo and offer five practical takeaways for industry.

The Memo at a Glance:  Five Pillars of Change

1.  JCIDS is gone; priorities shift to ranked problems.

The memo effectively ended JCIDS, directing its immediate disestablishment.  The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (“JROC”)—a body led by senior generals and admirals—will stop validating most Service-level requirements.  Going forward, Military Service requirements become Military Service business.  Instead, the JROC will focus only on identifying and ranking a short list of the “Key Operational Problems” (“KOPs”) facing U.S. forces, such as contested logistics, missile defense, or drone swarms.  These KOPs will be updated each year, based on the national defense strategy.

The message is simple:  rather than relying on JCIDS’s complex paperwork and multi-tiered approval process, DoD will identify a small number of top operational problems and expect the system—and industry—to rally around solving them.

2.  A new board will link problems to dollars.

Historically, one of the biggest gaps in DoD was between what leaders said was important and what actually got money in the budget.  The memo tries to close that gap by creating a Requirements and Resourcing Alignment Board (“RRAB”), co-chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Each year, the RRAB will take the top ranked KOPs and decide:

  • which problems should get new money
  • which existing programs should be adjusted
  • in rare cases, which programs should be shut down

Those decisions will feed directly into the budget process, so that priorities and funding stay in sync.

3.  A new “mission engineering” hub will connect with industry.

To tap outside innovation faster, the memo creates a Mission Engineering and Integration Activity (“MEIA”), led jointly by DoD’s research and acquisition chiefs.  MEIA will work directly with companies to run experiments, test new ideas against the Department’s top KOPs, and identify the most promising solutions for rapid integration into programs.  Further, MEIA isn’t just about hardware—it will also look at doctrine, tactics, and other “non-materiel” drivers of military capability.

The goal is to create an environment where companies can show what works in realistic tests, not just on PowerPoint slides, and where effective solutions can move quickly toward adoption.

4.  A new reserve fund will back joint priorities.

Starting in the Fiscal Year 2027 budget cycle, DoD will withhold a portion of its topline budget to create a Joint Acceleration Reserve (“JAR”).  This reserve will be controlled by the RRAB and used to fund solutions that emerge from MEIA experiments.  Think of it as a bridge across the “valley of death”—the place where many promising prototypes die while waiting for DoD to fund them.

5.  The Military Services must modernize their own requirements pipelines.

The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Space Force have 90 days to start overhauling their internal requirements processes.  The memo tells them to: 

  • engage industry earlier
  • experiment before committing to large purchases
  • prioritize interoperability across the joint force
  • eliminate unnecessary reviews
  • share data more openly

Meanwhile, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment (“USD(A&S)”) will revise the DoD phalanx of acquisition directives, instructions, and manuals.  Initial findings are due in six months, with detailed reform plans shortly after.

Bottom Line:  The memo ends with a blunt warning:  DoD is not adding new bureaucracy—every organization must prove it is delivering integrated capabilities to the warfighter faster, on the most urgent problems.  Organizations that can’t meet the mark will be realigned.

Five Practical Takeaways for Industry

1.  The demand signal has shifted—from documents to problems.

DoD no longer wants long, bespoke requirements documents.  The new process starts with clearly defined KOPs—the handful of operational challenges that matter most.  These KOPs are ranked each year by the JROC and resourced by the new RRAB.

Under this system, requirements are framed as mission problems to be solved, not as procedural checklists.  The emphasis shifts from paperwork and compliance to outcomes—how well a solution performs in realistic conditions and how easily it integrates with other systems.

DoD wants systems that meet broad, portfolio-level goals, respond to operational realities, and can evolve iteratively through experimentation and feedback.  Companies that can deliver adaptable, cross program solutions will have the advantage.

For industry, this means:

  • Follow the KOP development process closely and look for chances to provide input.
  • Build a KOP crosswalk—map your products to likely problem sets such as contested logistics, maritime kill webs, or integrated air and missile defense, and be ready to demonstrate measurable mission effects for MEIA.
  • Position your offerings as modular, interoperable capabilities that can be scaled or upgraded across multiple programs without rebaselining.

2.  Budget priorities will converge on the RRAB—and the JAR.

In the past, what was “important” in strategy often wasn’t what got funded in the budget.  The new process closes that gap.  The RRAB is designed to connect the dots between priority and payment—turning top ranked KOPs into program starts, realignments, or—when necessary—terminations.

A companion funding pool—the JAR—sets aside money at the start of the budget cycle to move high impact solutions across the “valley of death” between prototype and program.  Because the RRAB will modify or terminate Service programs only in rare cases, those Service-level decisions will carry more weight than ever.

For industry, this means:

  • Learn the rhythm of DoD’s budget cycle and sync your business development roadmaps to it.
  • Track Military Service budget decisions carefully—they will increasingly determine where money actually flows.
  • Focus engagement on programs that align to KOP priorities and are positioned to attract RRAB or JAR support.

3.  Experimentation is now the funding onramp.

The new MEIA will serve as DoD’s “front door” to industry.  MEIA’s job is to translate top KOPs into concrete problem statements, run experiments, and evaluate potential solutions.  Those results will then inform RRAB and JAR funding decisions.

This means DoD wants companies to show, not tell—to bring deployable prototypes, modular payloads, and open interfaces that can be tested in live environments, not just pitched in slides.

For industry, this means:

  • Design Independent Research and Development (“IRAD”) projects to culminate in experiments that can be presented to MEIA and teed up for RRAB or JAR decisions.
  • Link experimentation results to clear transition and sustainment plans showing how a capability moves from demo to deployment.
  • Treat integration as a deliverable:  document interfaces, align data strategies with joint interoperability goals, and form teaming arrangements early to demonstrate system-of-systems effects.
  • Remain vigilant about conflicts of interest.  The memo is explicit:  industry participation in experimentation must comply with all procurement integrity and ethics rules.

4.  The Military Services will move faster—and differently.

With JCIDS gone, most requirement decisions now rest with the individual Military Services.  Joint Staff review will be limited, and the 90-day Service reviews will push faster, experimentation-led approaches and “buy-before-build” practices.

Each Service will move at its own pace and in its own style, emphasizing agility, earlier industry dialogue, and fewer redundant reviews. Parallel reforms to urgent operational needs processes (like JUONs and JEONs) are also expected.

For industry, this means:

  • Update account plans around each Service’s acquisition portfolios and experimentation agenda.
  • Expect shorter timelines from requirement to solicitation—an opportunity for the ready and a risk for the unprepared.
  • Identify a Service-specific need that aligns to a top ranked KOP and propose a joint integration concept through MEIA channels.

5.  Policy cleanup and portfolio governance will ripple through contracts.

DoD’s acquisition rulebook is being rewritten to reflect this new model.  USD(A&S) will revise key directives and instructions to eliminate JCIDS references and provide new guidance for managing capability portfolios.

During the transition, interim rules will apply for any requirement that still requires joint validation. These cases will follow a streamlined 15-day adjudication process.

For industry, this means:

  • Expect updates to solicitation language, evaluation criteria, and milestone documentation—particularly around how “requirement compliance” is demonstrated.
  • Adjust internal proposal templates and gate reviews to account for portfolio-level decision making rather than fixed program baselines.
  • Monitor the interim joint requirement pathway and plan schedules accordingly as the new processes take full effect.

Bottom Line

This reform closes two long standing gaps:  first, the divide between joint priority and funded program, bridged through the new RRAB and JAR; and second, the gap between requirements on paper and capabilities in the field, addressed through MEIA-led mission engineering and experimentation. 

The Military Services are being directed to move faster, engage industry earlier, and cut low value processes, while DoD restructures joint governance around problem-driven priorities and portfolio agility.

One caution remains:  this model is tailored for companies that deliver frontline warfighting capabilities.  How far it will extend to firms developing essential but less kinetic systems—such as enterprise resource planning or personnel management platforms—remains uncertain. For industry, the message is unmistakable.  The process is being rebuilt to reward companies that arrive with solutions ready to solve KOPs, integrate cleanly across systems, and produce verifiable results in experimentation—all timed to the rhythm of the DoD budget.

Photo of Stephanie Barna Stephanie Barna

Stephanie Barna draws on over three decades of U.S. military and government service to provide advisory and advocacy support and counseling to clients facing policy and political challenges in the aerospace and defense sectors.

Prior to joining the firm, Stephanie was a senior…

Stephanie Barna draws on over three decades of U.S. military and government service to provide advisory and advocacy support and counseling to clients facing policy and political challenges in the aerospace and defense sectors.

Prior to joining the firm, Stephanie was a senior leader on Capitol Hill and in the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Most recently, she was General Counsel of the Senate Armed Services Committee, where she was responsible for the annual $740 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Additionally, she managed the Senate confirmation of three- and four-star military officers and civilians nominated by the President for appointment to senior political positions in DoD and the Department of Energy’s national security nuclear enterprise, and was the Committee’s lead for investigations.

Previously, as a senior executive in the Office of the Army General Counsel, Stephanie served as a legal advisor to three Army Secretaries. In 2014, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel appointed her to be the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. In that role, she was a principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense on all matters relating to civilian and military personnel, reserve integration, military community and family policy, and Total Force manpower and resources. Stephanie was later appointed by Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis to perform the duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, responsible for programs and funding of more than $35 billion.

Stephanie was also previously the Deputy General Counsel for Operations and Personnel in the Office of the Army General Counsel. She led a team of senior lawyers in resolving the full spectrum of issues arising from Army wartime operations and the life cycle of Army military and civilian personnel. Stephanie was also a personal advisor to the Army Secretary on his institutional reorganization and business transformation initiatives and acted for the Secretary in investigating irregularities in fielding of the Multiple Launch Rocket System and classified contracts. She also played a key role in a number of high-profile personnel investigations, including the WikiLeaks breach. Prior to her appointment as Deputy, she was Associate Deputy General Counsel (Operations and Personnel) and Acting Deputy General Counsel.

Stephanie is a retired Colonel in the U.S. Army and served in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps as an Assistant to the General Counsel, Office of the Army General Counsel; Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, U.S. Army Special Forces Command (Airborne); Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower & Reserve Affairs); and General Law Attorney, Administrative Law Division.

Stephanie was selected by the National Academy of Public Administration for inclusion in its 2022 Class of Academy Fellows, in recognition of her years of public administration service and expertise.

Photo of Alan Estevez Alan Estevez

Alan Estevez draws on 30+ years of service in senior roles in the U.S. Departments of Commerce and Defense to provide strategic advice to clients on cross-border investment and national security matters, including reviews conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the…

Alan Estevez draws on 30+ years of service in senior roles in the U.S. Departments of Commerce and Defense to provide strategic advice to clients on cross-border investment and national security matters, including reviews conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), and international trade controls.

A non-lawyer, Alan joined the firm after serving as Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. In that role, he led the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) and oversaw U.S. government efforts to protect U.S. and allied technology from being acquired and used against the national security and foreign policy of the United States.

Prior to his role at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Alan was a national security strategy and logistics executive at Deloitte where he led acquisition, contracting, and logistics support for multiple complex operations and worked with a range of clients to help innovate and transform their own capabilities.

Previously, Alan held a number of senior roles at the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) during a distinguished 36-year career, including as Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics. In that role, he oversaw more than 40,000 people, a $20 billion budget, and an annual equipment and services contract spend of $300 billion. Alan also served as DoD’s representative to CFIUS.

Earlier in his tenure at DoD, Alan was the first career federal official ever to hold the Senate confirmed position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness. In that role, he provided world-class military logistics support to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and managed a budget of over $170 billion in logistics operations. Alan also previously served as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Material Readiness.

Alan has been repeatedly honored throughout his career, earning, among numerous other plaudits, three DoD Distinguished Public Service Medals, two Presidential Rank Awards (Meritorious and Distinguished Executive), and the National Security Service to America Medal. Alan was presented with the National Defense Industrial Association Logistician Emeritus Award and the National Defense Transportation Association Distinguished Government Service Award.

Photo of Scott A. Freling Scott A. Freling

Scott Freling co-chairs the firm’s Government Contracts practice and is recognized by Chambers USA as a leading practitioner. He divides his practice between representing civilian and defense contractors in traditional government contracts matters and guiding buyers and sellers—including a number of leading private…

Scott Freling co-chairs the firm’s Government Contracts practice and is recognized by Chambers USA as a leading practitioner. He divides his practice between representing civilian and defense contractors in traditional government contracts matters and guiding buyers and sellers—including a number of leading private equity firms—through the regulatory aspects of complex M&A deals involving government contractors.

Chambers USA ranks Scott as a Band 1 lawyer for Government Contracts M&A. Scott is sought after for his regulatory expertise and his ability to apply that knowledge to the transactional environment. He has extensive experience leading classified and unclassified due diligence reviews of government contractors, negotiating transaction documents, and assisting with integration and other post-closing activities. He has served as the lead government contracts lawyer in dozens of M&A deals, with a combined value of more than $80 billion. Scott’s notable transactions include Warburg Pincus and Berkshire Partners’ take-private acquisition of TRIUMPH for $3 billion, Advent International’s take-private acquisition of Maxar Technologies for $6.4 billion, Aptiv’s acquisition of Wind River for $3.5 billion, and Veritas Capital’s sale of Alion Science and Technology to Huntington Ingalls Industries for $1.65 billion.

Scott also represents contractors at all stages of the procurement process and in their dealings with federal, state, and local government customers. He handles a wide range of government contracts matters, including compliance counseling, contract terminations, claims, disputes, audits, and investigations. Scott frequently advises contractors on organizational conflicts of interest and government intellectual property rights. He also counsels clients on risk mitigation strategies, including obtaining SAFETY Act liability protection for anti-terrorism technologies.

Law360 has recognized Scott as a MVP in Government Contracts. He was a founding co-chair of the Mergers and Acquisitions Committee of the ABA’s Public Contract Law Section.