Why federal acquisition must adapt to survive

We carry within us one of the most sophisticated adaptive systems ever created. It operates continuously, without central control, sensing threats, testing responses, learning from exposure, and retaining memory—not by freezing behavior, but by changing it. When it works well, we barely notice it. When it fails, the consequences are immediate and severe.

No one expects an immune system to predict every future disease. We do not design a single, perfect antibody and hope it lasts for decades. We accept—because biology has taught us—that protection in a changing environment comes from continuous learning, rapid feedback, and the ability to adapt without destroying the organism itself.

Federal acquisition now operates in an environment that looks far more like biology than manufacturing. Software evolves in use. AI systems drift as data changes. Supply chains reconfigure under stress. Adversaries adapt deliberately. In this world, insisting on perfect foresight does not reduce risk—it delays learning until failure becomes unavoidable.

The challenge before us is not how to buy faster, but how to govern acquisition as a living system that senses, adapts, and improves capability over time, while at the same time preserving the integrity, fairness, and legitimacy on which public trust depends.

Adapt or Die

Survival in living systems comes from adaptation, not rigidity

We instinctively understand the difference between systems designed to remain unchanged and systems designed to survive change. We expect bridges not to move. We expect living systems to adapt. Confusing those categories is not conservative—it is dangerous.

Living systems that cannot adapt collapse—often suddenly and expensively.

For centuries, the environment in which federal acquisition operated changed slowly enough that static defenses appeared sufficient. Threats evolved on foreseeable timelines. Requirements could be developed in advance. Supply chains were stable. Under those conditions, the system’s emphasis on control and predictability produced acceptable outcomes.

That environment is gone.

Today’s acquisition ecosystem resembles a constantly mutating biological environment. New technologies unlock entire families of capability. Under these conditions, a system optimized for inertia is not vigilant —it is brittle.

Brittleness = Extinction

Learning is the core survival function.

In biology, learning does not mean reflection or explanation. It means something much more concrete: changing behavior in response to feedback.

Immune systems learn by exposure. They try responses. They amplify what works. They suppress what doesn’t. They retain memory—not as static rules, but as altered patterns of response. Crucially, they do this early and locally when failure is survivable.

Federal acquisition has the same choice. It can learn early, when changes are small and reversible, or it can learn late, when consequences are large and public.

Many of the system’s persistent pathologies—late discovery of failure, stalled transitions, brittle programs—are not signs of incompetence. They are symptoms of a system that has made early learning risky and late learning inevitable.

In a living system, that is a recipe for catastrophic failure.

Seven Predictable Patterns

When we view acquisition as a living system embedded in a changing environment, a set of predictive patterns becomes visible, patterns observed repeatedly in biology, ecosystems, and technology markets.

1. As environments become more complex and interconnected, modularity becomes essential. Living systems reduce risk by compartmentalizing—organs, tissues, and cells can fail without killing the organism. In acquisition, modular architectures and separable increments play the same role, allowing adaptation without collapse.

2. When conditions change continuously, ongoing sensing outperforms episodic inspection. Immune systems do not wait for annual reviews. They monitor situations constantly. Acquisition systems that rely on infrequent milestones discover reality too late. 

3. Systems with high switching costs become trapped. In biology, species locked into narrow niches are vulnerable to environmental change. In acquisition, lock-in—technical, contractual, or institutional—prevents change even when better options exist.

4. Faster feedback increases learning rates. The shorter the loop between action and observed result, the faster the system adapts. Slow feedback favors inertia and stable defensive behavior; fast feedback produces signals that enable improvement.

5. Below a threshold of diversity, adaptation collapses. Biological systems without variation cannot evolve. Acquisition ecosystems that suppress diversity of suppliers or solutions, for example, have fewer opportunities to explore alternative adaptations. 

6. Lower verification costs increase trust and speed. Immune systems do not require elaborate proof before responding; they verify continuously through outcomes. Acquisition systems that make verification expensive substitute paperwork for progress.

7. Systems that punish early truth discover failure late. In biology, suppressing early signals allows disease to spread unchecked. In acquisition, discouraging early disclosure ensures that problems surface only when they are most damaging.

These patterns are real properties of adaptive systems operating under uncertainty. 

Permission Needs Protection

Permission alone does not change behavior.

Congress and executive leadership have expanded acquisition authorities, pathways, and flexibilities. On paper, the system has never had more freedom to adapt.

And yet, behavior often remains stuck in the same ruts.

Living systems offer a simple explanation: Adaptation does not occur where it is punished.

An immune system that attacked its own cells for responding incorrectly would quickly fail. Similarly, an acquisition system that punishes professionals when they exercise judgment under uncertainty will train them that the rational response is to avoid exposing themselves.

Permission without protection is not empowerment. It is exposure.

A learning-driven acquisition system must therefore design safe spaces for adaptation: bounded experiments, staged commitments, clear criteria for scaling, stopping or pivoting. And explicit separation between oversight of integrity and evaluation of learning. Integrity is non-negotiable behavior consistent with the ethics and law. Learning in the workplace is the ongoing process of acquiring knowledge and applying it to improve performance. Transgressions of integrity should be punished. Failure to learn brings its own bad consequences.

A learning-driven acquisition system does not relax discipline. It shifts the focus to improvement, while preventing both overreaction and paralysis.

Changing Industry Behavior

Markets, like organisms, respond to their environment.

Living systems adapt not because they are instructed to, but because their environment selects for certain behaviors.

Industry behaves the same way.

When acquisition environments reward compliance and transfer risk to contractors, firms invest in business development expertise and in activities that avoid risk. Neither deliver value to users of a product or service, their value only accrues to the winning firm. Conversely, when continuation, survival, and scale depend on demonstrated performance over time, firms invest in engineering, testing, continuous reporting, and integration. Each of these contributes value to users directly.

Reform is not complete when government changes its rules. It is complete when the market changes its behavior.

That change is already visible where learning is rewarded and verified continuously. The task now is to make those conditions systemic rather than exceptional.

Adaptation That Preserves National Identity

Biology relentlessly teaches that species survive not by resisting change, but by adapting without losing their identity.

For the United States, that identity is not optional. It is rooted in constitutional principles: rule of law, fairness, accountability, and checks on arbitrary power. Any acquisition system that sacrifices legitimacy for speed ultimately undermines national strength.

The good news is that living systems show us another path. Adaptation and legitimacy are not opposites. Properly designed, they reinforce one another.

Legitimacy becomes the immune system’s regulatory layer—the mechanism that allows adaptation without self-destruction.

Outcomes, Not Bureaucratic Choreography

All of this can be anchored in a simple principle—one that requires no jargon and aligns with how living systems actually survive:

The acquisition system must be accountable for outcomes over time, not predictions made in advance. 

That principle does not eliminate oversight. It changes its function—from enforcing frozen expectations to verifying learning and performance continuously.

It does not weaken discipline. It relocates discipline to where it matters most: in how the system responds to reality.

Constant Change

Federal acquisition does not need another static fix. It needs to function as a living system within a world in accelerating motion.

We already trust living systems with our health, our food supply, and our ecosystems. We understand, instinctively, that survival in a constantly changing environment depends on learning, feedback, and adaptation.

The question before us is whether we are willing to extend that same wisdom to the way we acquire the capabilities that defend the nation.

In a world where the only constant is change, failure to adapt equals extinction.

Tim Cooke is the CEO and owner of ASI Government LLC.