	Introduction

In recent years, a number of observers have suggested that United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is generally more effective at acquisitions than the U.S. military departments, in part because of the perception that SOCOM has unique acquisition authorities. SOCOM possesses unique acquisition authorities when compared with other combatant commands. However, SOCOM's acquisition authority is more expansive. Section 164(c) grants SOCOM authority to 
validate and establish priorities for requirements; ensure combat readiness; develop and acquire special operations-peculiar equipment and acquire special operations-peculiar material, supplies, and services; and ensure the interoperability of equipment and forces. 167), SOCOM has an Acquisition Executive who has the authority to 
negotiate memoranda of agreement with the military departments to carry out the acquisition of equipment, material, and supplies; supervise the acquisition of equipment, material, supplies, and services; represent the command in discussions with the military departments regarding acquisition programs for which the command is a customer; and work with the military departments to ensure that the command is appropriately represented in any joint working group or integrated product team regarding acquisition programs for which the command is a customer. However, there are also significant differences, many of which relate to the size and scope of SOCOM and its authorities. SOCOM acquisition authority is restricted to Special Operations-specific items, while the military services have the authority to acquire any necessary goods and services. When SOCOM does exercise its authority, it adheres to the same oversight and documentation requirements as the services. There are no unique authorities granting SOCOM exemptions or waivers from acquisition requirements. The current SOCOM Acquisition Executive also reiterated this point when he reportedly stated that "[SOCOM's] ability to move relatively fast is a function of scale." Some analysts believe that these lower dollar thresholds allow SOCOM to operate below the radar, thus enabling a more nimble acquisition process and a culture that promotes "failing fast." In some instances SOCOM has fewer acquisition authorities than the military departments.
United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is the Unified Combatant Command responsible for training, doctrine, and equipping all special operations forces of the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. SOCOM has been granted acquisition authority by Congress to procure special operations forces-peculiar equipment and services.
There is a perception among some observers and officials that SOCOM possesses unique acquisition authorities that allow it to operate faster and more efficiently than the military departments.
SOCOM possesses unique acquisition authorities when compared with other combatant commands. However, SOCOM is generally held to the same statutory and regulatory acquisition requirements as the military departments and, in some instances, has less acquisition authority. There are no unique authorities granting SOCOM exemptions or waivers from acquisition requirements. But when it comes to acquisition, SOCOM is different than the military services.
SOCOM's acquisition performance is influenced by the size of the organization, focus of its acquisitions (which are limited to special operations-specific goods and services), and smaller size of its programs in terms of both scope of development and dollars. The current SOCOM Acquisition Executive reiterated these points when he reportedly stated that "[SOCOM's] ability to move relatively fast is a function of scale."
These factors allow SOCOM to maintain the majority of its procurement programs at Category III levels, thereby reducing the oversight and bureaucratic burden, and allowing critical Milestone Decision Authority to remain at lower levels within the Command. As a result, some observers have argued that the SOCOM acquisition process is often capable of executing faster (and failing faster), maintaining closer communication between leadership and users, being more nimble, and fostering a culture willing to assume more risk.