The signing of the U.S. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 in December 2020 marked yet another turning point in the government’s approach to supply chain security, particularly for defense-related industries. While supply chain resilience has long been a concern for the Department of Defense, the NDAA 2021 codified new priorities that reflect a growing sense of urgency around critical minerals stockpiling, manufacturing self-sufficiency, and the need to shore up vulnerabilities exposed by recent geopolitical tensions. Defense contractors, large and small, find themselves tasked with responding to these shifts, often with limited guidance on what effective implementation should look like in practice. It’s clear that the expectation isn’t just for broad compliance—what policymakers want to see is measurable progress toward a more resilient and transparent defense supply base.
A central feature of the NDAA’s supply chain provisions involves critical minerals. The legislation directs additional funding toward stockpiling key materials essential for defense technologies—rare earth elements, tungsten, cobalt, and others that the U.S. currently imports in substantial volumes, often from countries where supply stability cannot be assured. For contractors, this means there is now both an opportunity and a responsibility to contribute data on mineral sourcing and to support alternative supply development efforts. Yet, engaging with these priorities is not as simple as switching suppliers or adjusting procurement contracts. What is needed is a more sophisticated approach to mapping sub-tier supplier networks and identifying where dependencies on foreign-sourced minerals are most acute.
Here is where leveraging open data resources, such as those provided by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), becomes critical. The DLA maintains extensive performance metrics on suppliers and sub-suppliers across multiple tiers, information that contractors can use to evaluate where their supply chains might be exposed to risk. The data includes records of delivery timeliness, contract fulfillment rates, and other operational indicators that, when aggregated and analyzed, can help companies identify patterns of vulnerability. It is not unusual, for example, to discover that while Tier 1 suppliers appear reliable, significant weaknesses exist further down the chain—among processors, refiners, or component manufacturers that source raw materials from fragile or contested regions.
Contractors should consider developing internal dashboards that draw directly on DLA open data to create a living map of their supply networks. This map need not be perfect or all-encompassing at the outset. In fact, it is better to start with what is available and refine the picture over time. Too often, companies delay these efforts in pursuit of unattainable precision. But the complexity of defense supply chains means that some level of ambiguity is inevitable. The goal should be to illuminate major risk concentrations and begin the process of mitigation, whether that means qualifying alternative suppliers, exploring domestic sourcing options, or working collaboratively with the government on stockpiling strategies.
To support these efforts—and to meet the NDAA’s growing expectations for transparency—defense contractors may find it valuable to adopt a formalized reporting structure. An annual “defense supply chain resilience” scorecard can serve this purpose. While no standard template has yet been mandated by the Department of Defense, companies can take the initiative by defining metrics that reflect both compliance and proactive risk management. Such a scorecard might include data on the percentage of critical materials sourced from domestic versus foreign suppliers, the number of alternative suppliers qualified during the reporting year, and the results of supplier performance reviews drawn from DLA records. Some contractors have also begun to incorporate qualitative elements, such as summaries of lessons learned from supplier disruptions or descriptions of pilot programs designed to test new sourcing strategies.
Designing these scorecards requires careful thought about audience and purpose. They should be detailed enough to provide meaningful insight to government stakeholders but not so dense as to obscure key messages. Striking this balance is harder than it sounds. Contractors often struggle with how much internal data to disclose, particularly when sensitive relationships or proprietary processes are involved. But withholding too much information risks undermining the credibility of the report. It is worth remembering that the goal here is not to demonstrate perfection—few, if any, defense supply chains are free of risk—but to show a thoughtful and systematic approach to addressing vulnerabilities.
One additional challenge is that supply chain resilience is not static. What counts as a robust supply chain today may look fragile tomorrow in light of shifting geopolitical dynamics, technological changes, or unexpected events like natural disasters. This means that scorecards and internal dashboards must be designed for regular review and updating. A once-a-year exercise is unlikely to be sufficient. Instead, contractors should build reporting processes that allow for mid-year updates or issue-specific supplements as needed. These could cover developments such as major supplier changes, new material dependencies, or emerging risks identified through government intelligence channels.
All of this points to a larger cultural shift underway within the defense industrial base. Compliance with supply chain security provisions is no longer a matter of filling out forms or checking boxes. It requires genuine engagement with data, with supplier relationships, and with evolving national security priorities. For many contractors, this is an adjustment—one that demands new capabilities in data analytics, supplier management, and strategic sourcing. But the upside is clear. Those firms that invest early and thoughtfully in these capabilities will not only meet NDAA requirements but also position themselves as preferred partners in a defense ecosystem that values resilience as highly as cost or technical performance.