New! BD Essentials: Turn your team into growth advocates

PRESS

BLOG

CONTACT

SUPPORT

LOGIN

LOGIN
GET STARTED

Polite relationships won’t save you in this PAE era.

Is your team ready? This executive audit will help you expose your execution risk, delivery intelligence gaps, and portfolio credibility issues in the new PAE environment.

We use this to only send relevant content. Unsubscribe any time.

PAE Readiness Audit

HI-Q GROUP POWERS GROWTH FOR TOP GOVCON LEADERS

RATED 5.0 ON GOOGLE

Serco Hi-Q Group
Crowley Hi-Q Group
ManTech
American Systems
Beta Hi-Q Group Client
Arcpoint Forensics
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Avian
FYFE
Crest Industries Hi-Q Group Client

What makes this a must read resource

Uncover Hidden Readiness Gaps Before They Cost You Relevance

Self-audit your organization’s alignment with the six PAEs, portfolio interoperability demands, speed-to-fielding pressures, and stakeholder influence requirements. Identify exactly where polite relationships, technical excellence, or past experience fall short in the PAE environment.

Actionable Checklists Across Strategy, Capture, Teams & Leadership

Practical, checklist-driven audits covering portfolio mapping, pipeline transformation, intelligence-gathering skills, cross-functional integration, executive signaling, and operational trust-building—giving you a clear roadmap to operate credibly under ambiguity and pressure.

Score Your PAE Readiness and Review Action Steps

Get an executive snapshot of your preparedness plus three high-impact actions: map touchpoints, audit conversations for trust & intelligence, and reinforce the right leadership behaviors. Start closing critical gaps today.

Position Your Organization to Thrive in the PAE Model

Move beyond tactical reorganizations to build the workforce capability PAEs assume—opportunity recognition, transparent trade-off discussions, and trust that enables speed without friction. Avoid being deprioritized or outpaced by competitors who master portfolio-level influence.

CLIENT TESTIMONIALS

Hi-Q can be a game changer for your sales and account management teams. The content is sensible and easily applied in everyday business in any industry!

R.W.
Vice President

This workshop had meaning and numerous things that can be applied to all areas of life, both personally and professionally.

A.B.
BD Manager

The session was very informative and made me question the ‘status quo’ of how we relate to clients.

J.S.
Director
LET’S GET STARTED

Ready for a New Kind of Business Development?

Contact Us
HI-Q GROUP

About Us

About

We transform BD and Sales teams to connect deeply and solidify trust with game-changing intel.

The Hi-Q Difference


FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

How do defense contractors win under Portfolio Acquisition Executives (PAEs)?

PAEs replaced 12 Program Executive Offices (PEOs) with six portfolio-focused executives who own entire capability lifecycles—not just individual programs. Unlike PEOs rewarding program performance, PAEs prioritize portfolio outcomes, speed, and trade-offs. The Warfighting Acquisition System rewards three capabilities: portfolio context (understanding PAE trade-off priorities), speed-to-delivery proof (working prototypes, not PowerPoint), and intelligence-gathering capability (delivery teams capturing what customers actually need). Defense contractors building these capabilities now—before PAE outcomes become measurable—will capture disproportionate advantage. Organizations waiting for formal guidance will lose to competitors already training their Program Managers for the PAE era.

Which PAE controls our programs, and how do we influence Army acquisition decisions?

Six PAEs (Fires, C2, Maneuver Ground, Maneuver Air, Agile Sustainment & Ammunition, Layered Protection) replaced 12 PEOs. PAEs can shift funding, deprioritize underperformers, and defund programs mid-execution. The question isn’t organizational charts—it’s proving portfolio value before trade-offs happen. Your delivery teams need intelligence on portfolio pressure, stakeholder pain points, and evaluation priorities. Government contractors that gather this intelligence daily will shape decisions. Those waiting for RFPs will react to decisions already locked.

What does “speed over perfection” mean for defense contract execution?

Army acquisition reform expects industry to prototype at industry cost before contract award. PAEs prioritize 6-month fielding timelines over 10% cost reductions. Defense contractors need Program Managers who can explain why delays preserve portfolio value (maintaining trust) and capture intelligence about urgency drivers (fiscal pressure vs. operational need). Speed without trust compresses margins. Speed with intelligence protects them. Organizations demonstrating this through Transformation in Contact soldier feedback will win.

Why isn’t technical excellence enough for defense contractors under the Warfighting Acquisition System?

PAEs shift funding toward programs demonstrating speed, interoperability, and reduced uncertainty. Program Managers need capabilities beyond technical delivery: operating under ambiguity, communicating trade-offs, and gathering competitive intelligence from customer conversations. When Army PMs mention “aggressive timelines,” trained contractors ask “What’s driving urgency?” and discover fiscal year-end pressure—revealing phased delivery scores better. Same meeting. Different questions. One leaves with action items. The other leaves with intelligence that shapes capture strategy.

How do defense contractors avoid getting deprioritized by Portfolio Acquisition Executives?

PAEs defund programs not delivering speed or interoperability. Defense contractors with superior customer intelligence know which programs gain momentum and where trade-offs tilt—before announcements. That intelligence comes from delivery teams asking questions that reveal political context, recognizing stakeholder stress signals, and sharing insights systematically. Most government contractors lack this. Their Program Managers hear intelligence but don’t recognize it. Organizations developing intelligence-gathering capability systematically will avoid becoming the underperformers PAEs deprioritize.

What internal changes do defense contractors need for Army acquisition reform success?

Three shifts separate winners from losers under the Warfighting Acquisition System:

Leadership rewards intelligence and credibility—not just flawless execution. Promote Program Managers who surface risks early and capture portfolio intelligence.

Engagement becomes operational discipline—develop capabilities systematically. PMs who clarify intent before proposing solutions, translate technical risk into decision-maker language, and maintain confidence during pivots.

Intelligence flows through systems—not heroics. Build mechanisms for delivery teams to share customer insights with capture. Pre-brief meetings. Debrief for intelligence. Whether intelligence flows systematically or accidentally determines competitive advantage.

Organizations treating these as optional will lose relevance slowly through missed conversations, reduced access, and intelligence blind spots.

What contracting vehicles and authorities should defense contractors prioritize under PAEs?

Portfolio Acquisition Executives leverage embedded Senior Contracting Officials (SCOs) for rapid awards, Other Transaction Authorities (OTAs) for non-traditional approaches, and commercial baselines over bespoke development. Army Open Solicitation enables continuous procurement for goods-centric solutions. Services-heavy work flows through FAR transformation and GSA vehicles (OASIS+, Multiple Award Schedules). Defense contractors relying on traditional FAR-heavy approaches risk irrelevance. PAEs expect “try before buy”—prototypes at industry expense, not proposals. Organizations aligning capture strategies with these pathways now will win. Those waiting for solicitations will miss the window.

What’s the PAE rollout status, and when should defense contractors act?

Initial Operating Capability: January 2026. PAEs have trade-off authority now—but full contracting pathways and portfolio funding flexibility are ramping. This window creates opportunity: old PEO habits linger while new PAE priorities emerge. Defense contractors investing in intelligence-gathering capability and delivery team readiness now will enter the mature Warfighting Acquisition System with relationship advantages competitors need years to replicate. PAEs haven’t yet produced measurable win rate differentiation. That makes this moment critical.

How do government contractors defend program value under reduced congressional visibility?

Portfolio Acquisition Executives obscure individual programs from congressional line-item oversight. When lawmakers demand justification, defense contractors must articulate portfolio value—not just program performance. This requires delivery teams who understand solution interoperability, portfolio screening criteria, and stakeholder pain points driving evaluation priorities. Trust matters more when visibility decreases. Army acquisition reform increases scrutiny while reducing transparency. Contractors maintaining stakeholder confidence through portfolio context will weather congressional pressure. Those retreating into technical detail will not.

What early signals are Portfolio Acquisition Executives sending that defense contractors should act on now?

PAE Deputies are signaling priorities through industry days, informal conversations, and initial awards—but most defense contractors aren’t capturing this intelligence. Early indicators show preference for speed demonstrations over cost promises, commercial technology over bespoke development, and interoperability proof over standalone capabilities. Organizations whose delivery teams recognize these signals in daily customer interactions gain bid/no-bid clarity competitors miss. When a PAE Deputy mentions “portfolio synergies,” trained Program Managers ask “Which programs are you considering for integration?” and discover specific systems where interoperability gets evaluated. Untrained PMs nod and return to technical topics. The intelligence gap is already separating winners from losers.

How does the PAE model fit into the U.S. Army’s overall army transformation and broader Department of Defense acquisition reforms?

The shift from program executive offices to six portfolio-based PAEs is a core element of the Army’s 2025-2026 acquisition reforms, designed to streamline the defense acquisition system and accelerate delivery of warfighting capabilities. Directed under the Warfighting Acquisition System, it consolidates authority over the entire acquisition process—from requirements generation to sustainment—under single leaders for each capability area, enabling faster trade-offs and reducing fragmentation that plagued the old structure.

How are PAEs accelerating the integration of emerging technologies and technology development into key capabilities?

By owning full portfolio oversight, PAEs prioritize rapid insertion of emerging technologies through embedded contracting officials, commercial baselines, and pathways like OTAs that shorten procurement timelines. This marks a deliberate break from the slower procurement cycle of individual program executive offices, forcing technology development to align directly with portfolio-level capability gaps rather than isolated efforts.

What changes to requirements generation and closing capability gaps should contractors expect under PAEs?

PAEs dual-report to acquisition and transformation commands, giving them unified control over requirements generation and the ability to rapidly identify and prioritize capability gaps across their capability areas. Contractors must now frame solutions in terms of portfolio interoperability and speed-to-fielding, as PAEs can reallocate resources to address urgent gaps—deprioritizing programs that don’t contribute to broader warfighting capabilities.

How do PAEs alter contracting processes, procurement timelines, and the overall procurement cycle?

Each PAE includes senior contracting officials with expanded authority for rapid awards, bypassing traditional bottlenecks in contracting processes and compressing the procurement cycle dramatically. This supports “try before buy” approaches and commercial modifications, but it demands contractors adapt to shorter procurement timelines and demonstrate value against portfolio trade-offs rather than standalone program merits.

What role do PAEs play in budgetary decisions, performance metrics, and resource allocation across the acquisition structure?

PAEs have unprecedented flexibility to make budgetary decisions, moving funds between programs based on performance metrics, urgency, and contribution to key capabilities—something rarely possible under the fragmented program executive offices model. This portfolio-centric acquisition structure rewards speed and outcomes over compliance, but it also heightens risk for underperformers who can be quietly defunded to close critical capability gaps elsewhere.

get started
GET STARTED
LOGIN
LOGIN
704.486.2200