A recurring submission cadence and structured review process enabled subject matter experts and Government Selecting Of- ficials to evaluate solutions within an average of approximately 30 days. To ensure legal and procedural integrity, we structured ERIS to operate under existing flexible authorities, including Other Transactions under 10 U.S.C. § 4021 and § 4022 and Procurement for Experimental Purposes under 10 U.S.C. § 4023. As both Agreements Officer and program lead, I authored the procedural framework to ensure compliance, fairness, and repeatability. Implementation: Building Stakeholder Confidence Creating ERIS addressed only part of the challenge. Implementing it required cultural change and organizational trust. Program Managers needed confidence that technical rigor would be preserved. Agreements Officers needed assurance that authorities were applied appropriately. Industry participants needed confidence that engagement would be meaningful. Transparent evaluation criteria, a standardized two-stage review process, and predictable submission cycles established con- sistency for both government evaluators and performers. Structured feedback mechanisms further reinforced engagement by ensuring participants receive timely responses regardless of selection outcome. Implementation remained iterative. Feedback from Program Managers, contracting professionals, legal advisors, and industry participants informed refinements as the marketplace matured. Critically, we worked to ensure that a lowered barrier to entry did not translate into reduced expectations. Although ERIS replaced lengthy proposal packages with a seven-minute video and four-slide submission, evaluation standards remained consistent with DARPA technical rigor. Submissions were still assessed on understanding of the state of the art, technical credibility, team capability, and executable outcomes. Ultimately, ERIS transitioned rapidly from concept to operational capability. Evaluation timelines averaged approximately 30 days, and selected solutions moved from engagement to award in roughly 31 days, with one award executed in five days. These results were achieved through deliberate process redesign and increased Government stakeholder accountability, not reduced oversight.
Year One Impact The first full year of ERIS operation demonstrated quantifiable impact.
• Industrial Base Expansion: In 2025, 73 percent of ERIS participants were non-traditional defense contractors, and 70 per- cent of awardable solutions came from performers new to DARPA, expanding participation across the innovation ecosystem. • Accelerated Engagement: More than 2,000 submissions were processed with sustained 30-day evaluation cycles. Compared to traditional acquisition timelines of six to eighteen months, ERIS enabled significantly faster access to emerging technologies. • Reduced Performer Cost: Seventy-six percent of participants reported the ERIS process was easier than traditional proposals, and 55 percent incurred no additional out-of-pocket costs beyond internal effort, substantially lowering participation barriers. • Operational Adoption: ERIS facilitated more than 25 awards and planned awards across multiple DARPA Technical Offices in 2025, including one outside the agency. Concluding Thoughts ERIS emerged from a recognition that the primary obstacle to innovation was not technology, but the friction created by processes unable to keep pace with modern development cycles. By rethinking how the government engages with innovators, rather than what it acquires, ERIS demonstrated that acquisition speed and rigor are not competing priorities. Operating within existing authorities, ERIS reduced participation barriers, accelerated engagement timelines, and expanded visibility into emerging capabilities across the defense innovation ecosystem. Perhaps just as importantly, it showed that over- coming acquisition obstacles does not require bypassing oversight, but exploring new avenues and ideas so innovation can move at the speed of relevance. KLINK is the Division Director of the Prototype Division in the Contracts Management Office at DARPA leading teams in solicitations, negotiations, and the awards to develop and deliver next generation capabilities. Prior to this position, he was the Contracting Divi- sion Head for Development, Mission Systems, FMS, and Program Partner Acquisitions for F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Office. The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the Department of War. Reproduction or reposting of articles from Defense Acquisition magazine should credit the author and the magazine.
40 DEFENSE ACQUISITION MAGAZINE | JULY – AUGUST 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker