Better Buying PowerEdit
Better Buying Power is a framework of defense acquisition reforms aimed at getting more capability for every dollar spent. Introduced by the Department of Defense to curb cost growth, improve program outcomes, and strengthen the industrial base, BBP emphasizes affordability, competition where feasible, disciplined program management, and the alignment of incentives for both government and industry. The effort emerged as a response to long-standing challenges in defense procurement—namely, cost overruns, schedule slips, and frequent changes in requirements that inflated total life-cycle costs. By stressing clear tradeoffs and accountable governance, BBP seeks to deliver valuable, timely capabilities while respecting taxpayers’ dollars and maintaining readiness for the force.
BBP rests on several pillars that guide decision-making across the acquisition lifecycle. The most visible objective is to achieve affordable program objectives through cost discipline and realistic budgeting. This means setting clear, stable requirements and resisting the urge to chase new technologies or features that would complicate development and inflate total ownership costs. It also means emphasizing mature technologies early, reducing procurement risk, and avoiding expensive, late-stage engineering fixes. A second pillar is competition—expanding competition where practical to reduce procurement costs and foster innovation, while also recognizing that certain programs require specialized, sole-source arrangements to meet critical national-security needs. A third pillar focuses on technical excellence and strong program management, including disciplined systems engineering, incremental development, and robust risk management to prevent capability gaps. Taken together, these principles are intended to lower the price of capability, not to degrade it.
The BBP program has evolved through several iterations since its inception in the early 2010s. The approach began with a set of initiatives intended to instill affordability and accountability into major programs and to improve governance over complex weapon systems. Over time, updates refined the emphasis on data-driven decision-making, better use of earned value management, and clearer incentives for industry to reduce cost growth while preserving schedule and performance. The ongoing aim is to balance speed and discipline in a way that preserves military effectiveness without unwarranted spending growth. Throughout its history, BBP has been discussed in connection with high-profile programs such as the F-35 Lightning II and related efforts to align acquisition practices with a changing security environment and tightening budgets. For a broader look at how the approach fits into the defense industrial base and long-term affordability, see the related literature on acquisition reform and defense procurement.
Implementation of BBP has also reflected partisan and strategic debates about how best to fund, design, and acquire advanced capabilities. Proponents argue that a more disciplined, market-friendly approach can deliver higher value and improve readiness without needing open-ended spending. By focusing on milestones, cost caps, and predictable delivery, BBP aims to prevent the kind of cost escalation that erodes confidence in defense programs and crowds out other essential national-security investments. Critics, however, worry that an aggressive emphasis on cost-cutting can squeeze essential capabilities, delay technology maturation, or erode readiness in pursuit of efficiency. In practice, the balance must be struck between affordability and the technical risk that comes with rapid procurement and aggressive simplifications. Supporters insist that the reforms are about value-for-money and risk-aware risk management, not penny-pinching at the expense of national power; they argue that careful competition, early-stage technology maturation, and strong program management reduce waste and preserve capability.
From a systems perspective, BBP is concerned with how life-cycle cost and risk management interact with fielding schedules and modern warfare demands. The approach often connects to broader debates about the proper role of government in supervising and incentivizing the private sector to innovate while preventing wasteful spending. In this sense, BBP can be viewed as an attempt to reconcile the need for cutting-edge capability with the reality of finite budgets, and to ensure that military readiness is not sacrificed in the name of abstract efficiency. The discussion around BBP also touches on the structure of the defense contracting environment, including the role of large primes, the participation of small businesses, and the geographic and industrial diversification that sustains the defense industrial base. See especially discussions around competition in contracting and earned value management as tools for measuring performance against cost and schedule objectives.
Controversies and debates around Better Buying Power commonly center on tensions between cost control and capability, speed and risk, and the appropriate extent of government intervention in defense contracting. Proponents argue that disciplined budgeting, clear requirements, and performance-based incentives lead to more reliable delivery of capability and better return on investment for the taxpayer. They maintain that without such reform, programs drift toward ever-higher price tags and diminishing marginal value. Critics from various viewpoints contend that aggressive cost-cutting can translate into reduced technical maturity, rushed schedules, or diminished resilience in the face of evolving threats. They may argue that defense programs require sustained investment in core capabilities and that some failures to deliver are rooted in planning and scale rather than procurement rigidity. In the public debate, supporters emphasize that BBP is about accountable stewardship—achieving more capability with the resources available—while opponents sometimes frame the reforms as a preference for cheaper—but potentially less robust—solutions. In this respect, defenders of BBP note that many criticisms misinterpret the framework as a simple cost-cutting exercise, when the core aim is to maximize value and reduce waste through disciplined management, better competition, and stronger governance.
Within this framework, certain controversial topics receive particular attention. The cost and schedule performance of major programs such as F-35 remain touchpoints in assessments of BBP-like reforms, highlighting the tension between ambitious capability goals and the discipline required to deliver them on budget. Proponents point out that incentives for cost efficiency do not inherently reject high-end capability; rather, they shift how risk is managed, encouraging earlier access to mature technologies and more realistic assessments of what can be delivered within a given budget. Critics may argue that this creates pressure to slow development or to trade away capability for cost savings, a claim BBP supporters typically rebut by citing stronger governance, better requirement stability, and more robust risk management practices. The debate over how best to structure competition in contracting—and when it is prudent to rely on sole-source arrangements for security-critical systems—continues to be a focal point in discussions of BBP, its reforms, and their consequences for national security and industrial resilience.
See also the broader conversation surrounding defense procurement, acquisition reform, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, F-35 Lightning II, Joint Strike Fighter program, earned value management, and life-cycle cost.