In his conversation with Francis Rose on Fed Gov Today, Jordan Burris, Head of Public Sector at Socure and former Chief of Staff to the Federal Chief Information Officer at the Office of Management and Budget, unpacks one of the most persistent challenges in federal acquisition: the absence of a single, unified buyer. Drawing from his experience in both industry and government, Burris explains why the complexity of the federal procurement process is not rooted in bureaucracy itself, but in the fragmented structure of decision-making that defines how the government buys.
The Real Problem: No Single Buyer
Burris begins by clarifying that government acquisition doesn’t suffer from too much bureaucracy—it suffers from too little unity. In the private sector, he says, a major purchase often goes through a single decision-maker or a small, empowered leadership group. In government, every procurement involves a network of stakeholders: contracting officers, chief financial officers, chief information officers, program managers, and lawyers, each with their own priorities, authorities, and risk perspectives.
He compares the process to a board of directors that must approve every single transaction, noting that each of those stakeholders has “veto authority.” The result is a slow, risk-averse system where well-intentioned people work at cross purposes. This complexity can stall progress, particularly when agencies need to move quickly to adopt new technology or respond to changing mission demands.
When Incentives Don’t Align
Francis Rose asks what happens when those stakeholder priorities collide. Burris explains that, too often, “procurements just don’t happen.” He points to the recent government shutdown as an example: when normal operations pause, the delays and ripple effects compound. Weeks of disruption can turn into months of lost progress because new priorities pile up while old ones wait for resolution.
The core issue, Burris says, is misaligned incentives. Each stakeholder is judged by a different metric—compliance for the contracting office, fiscal responsibility for the CFO, technical soundness for the CIO, and mission delivery for the program manager. When those incentives don’t converge, the system defaults to caution, slowing or halting innovation.
Shifting from Compliance to Performance
Burris believes the path forward lies in shifting the government’s mindset. “We have to move from a culture where compliance leads the conversation and you hope for outcomes afterwards,” he says, “to one that focuses on performance and return on investment.”
That means empowering leaders to make decisions based on mission impact, not just on whether every rule has been followed to 
the letter. Burris acknowledges that compliance is important—it ensures accountability for public funds—but argues that it shouldn’t dominate the conversation at the expense of results. He calls for a balance between accountability and agility, one that gives decision-makers flexibility to act without fear of procedural missteps derailing progress.
The Promise of “OneGov”
Burris sees hope in efforts like the General Services Administration’s OneGov strategy, which seeks to simplify how the government interacts with vendors. Instead of each agency or program office negotiating separately with a company, OneGov aims to create a single, unified buying front. A vendor would “deal with one buyer,” Burris explains, while government would coordinate internally to make technology and services available across agencies.
He notes that this approach has been attempted before but sees encouraging progress now as agencies experiment with enterprise-level strategies. The key, he says, is to ensure that the effort doesn’t just streamline contracts but also aligns decision-making across the many actors involved.
Rethinking the “Color of Money”
Another obstacle Burris highlights is the way government funds are categorized. Agencies receive money in rigid budget lines—procurement, operations, research, and so on—each with restrictions on how it can be spent. Burris calls for a “harder look” at why these categories remain so fixed. In the commercial world, organizations can reallocate resources to meet changing priorities; in government, even if a project could benefit from shifting funds, legal and procedural barriers often prevent it.
He argues that giving agencies more flexibility to manage resources would help them adapt to modern needs and make smarter, faster buying decisions.
Building Collaboration from the Top Down
Throughout the interview, Burris stresses that collaboration is the foundation of better acquisition. The most successful agencies, he says, are those where CIOs, CFOs, and acquisition leaders work closely together to align goals. Each has their own responsibilities, but when they share a common understanding of mission priorities, they can make faster and more strategic choices.
He believes this collaboration has to start from the top. Secretaries, administrators, and agency heads must set the tone that performance and mission outcomes matter as much as compliance. “It’s all about getting them on the same page,” Burris says. That alignment, he adds, is what enables government to meet citizen needs more effectively and respond to challenges with speed and precision.
Incremental Progress, Scaled Broadly
While the idea of a “one door” approach for all federal acquisition may seem ambitious, Burris emphasizes the value of incremental change. He encourages agencies to pilot unified buying models at smaller scales—within a bureau, component, or program office—and then share lessons learned. By testing and refining these efforts, agencies can build confidence and create a foundation for broader reform.
“Not every group has to learn the same painful lessons,” he says. Each success story can help others modernize faster, creating a cumulative effect across government.
A Path Toward a Better Government
Burris concludes that improving federal buying isn’t just about efficiency—it’s about service. When government can buy smarter and faster, it delivers better results for the public. Simplifying acquisition, aligning incentives, and empowering leaders will help agencies fulfill their missions with the speed and effectiveness that citizens deserve.