Air Force Guidance Threatens to Stifle Software Innovation, Industry Expert Warns
WASHINGTON D.C. – New Air Force guidance intended to streamline software acquisition is rather creating unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and risks hindering innovation, according to Noah Sheinbaum, founder of Frontdoor Defense. The guidance, detailed in a recent post on tnsr.org, focuses on contract structure and aims to increase visibility of existing software-as-a-service products, but Sheinbaum argues it prioritizes rigid processes over delivering value to warfighters.
The core of the concern lies in the guidance’s approach to software licensing and development. While consumption-based pricing for Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) is a positive step – and already implemented – mandating it as the only option for subscription software is seen as detrimental. Sheinbaum points out that some software licenses, like Microsoft Office, retain value precisely because they don’t expire, and forcing early-stage pilots into defining a ”unit of consumption” prematurely could stifle innovation.
Furthermore, the guidance places responsibility for preventing software duplication on requirements owners and program managers, advocating for AI-enabled tools to identify existing government assets. Though, Sheinbaum contends that restricting these officials to a limited set of contracting vehicles undermines their ability to unlock rapid value. He suggests equipping them with the necesary tools and training,rather than adding another layer of mandatory contracts.
A notably contentious element is the prohibition on development within contracts,which Sheinbaum believes should be replaced with a requirement for written approval from the contracting officer’s representative before charging for new features.
“The danger of ‘it’s just [a form]’ is that it shows our lack of respect for our people, their purpose, their passion, and their time,” Sheinbaum writes. He concludes that the Air Force’s actions exemplify a continued prioritization of process over outcomes and calls for an immediate rollback of the guidance, arguing it ultimately harms warfighters, industry, and taxpayers.
