Version	Word Count	Changes From Previous Version	Percent Change
Introduced in Senate	5,549	n/a	n/a
Reported in Senate	12,362	96	29%
Engrossed in Senate	9,342	40	60%
Engrossed Amendment House	7,730	336	90%
Enrolled Bill	12,868	458 Show Changes Hide Changes	82%

Display Version Introduced in Senate Reported in Senate Engrossed in Senate Engrossed Amendment House Enrolled Bill

S 454 EAH

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

May 13, 2009.

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 454) entitled ‘An Act t454CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

To improve the organization and procedures of the Department of Defense for the acquisition of major weapon systems, and for other purposes.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

’, do pass with the following

AMENDMENT:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the ‘Weapons Acquisition System Systems Acquisition Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and Oversight Act of 2009’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2. Definitions.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

TITLE I--ACQUISITION ORGANIZATION

Sec. 101. Independent performance of acquisition oversight functionsCost assessment and program evaluation.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 102. Oversight of cost estimationDirectors of Developmental Test and Evaluation and Systems Engineering.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 103. Oversight of systems engineering.Sec. 104. Oversight of performance assessmentPerformance assessments and root cause analyses for major defense acquisition programs.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 1054. Assessment of technological maturity of critical technologies of major defense acquisition programs by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 1065. Role of the commanders of the combatant commands in identifying joint military requirements.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

TITLE II--ACQUISITION POLICY

Sec. 201. Acquisition strategies ensuringConsideration of trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives in Department of Defense acquisition programs.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 202. Acquisition strategies to ensure competition throughout the lifecycle of major defense acquisition programs.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 202. Additional requirements for certain3. Prototyping requirements for major defense acquisition programs.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 203. Requirement for certification of major systems4. Actions to identify and address systemic problems in major defense acquisition programs prior to Milestone B approval.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2045. Additional requirements for certain major defense acquisition programs.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 206. Critical cost growth in major defense acquisition programs.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 2057. Organizational conflicts of interest in the acquisition of major weapon systems.Sec. 206major defense acquisition programs.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

Sec. 301. Awards for Department of Defense personnel for excellence in the acquisition of products and services.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 207. Consideration of trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance in the acquisition of major weapon systems302. Earned value management.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 303. Expansion of national security objectives of the national technology and industrial base.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Sec. 304. Comptroller General of the United States reports on costs and financial information regarding major defense acquisition programs.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

In this Act:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) The term ‘congressional defense committees’ has the meaning given that term in section 101(a)(16) of title 10, United States Code.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) The term ‘major defense acquisition program’ has the meaning given that term in section 2430 of title 10, United States Code.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) The term ‘major weapon system’ has the meaning given that term in section 2379(d) of title 10, United States Code.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

TITLE I--ACQUISITION ORGANIZATIONCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 101. INDEPENDENT PERFORMANCE OF ACQUISITION OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS.(a) In GeneralCOST ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM EVALUATION.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(a) Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) IN GENERAL- Chapter 4 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:‘Sec. 145. Principal advisors for acquisition oversight functions‘(a) Assignment of Acquisition Oversight Functions- The Secretary of Defense shall designate an official within the Office of the Secretary of Defense ainserting after section 139b the following new section:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(a) Appointment- There is a Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation in the Department of Defense, appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(b) Independent Advice to Secretary of Defense- (1) The Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation is the principal advisor to the Secretary for each acquisition oversight function specified in subsection (c). An officialof Defense and other senior officials of the Department of Defense, and shall provide independent analysis and advice to such officials, on the following matters:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(A) Matters assigned to the Director pursuant to this section and section 2334 of this title.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(B) Matters assigned to the Director by the Secretary pursuant to section 113 of this title.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(2) The Director may be designated to perform one or more of such functions. The performancecommunicate views on matters within the responsibility of the Director directly to the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense without obtaining the approval or concurrence of any other official within the Department of Defense.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(c) Deputy Directors- There are two Deputy Directors within the Office of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, as follows:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(1) The Deputy Director for Cost Assessment.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(2) The Deputy Director for Program Evaluation.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(d) Responsibilities- The Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shall serve as the principal official within the senior management of the Department of Defense for the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(1) Cost estimation and cost analysis for acquisition programs of the Department of duties pursuant to a designation under this section shall not limit or otherwise affect the performance of any otherDefense, and carrying out the duties assigned to such official by the Secretary or by other officers of the Department responsible for the management and direction of such official except as necessary to satisfy the requirements of subsection (b).

‘(b) Qualifications- In designating an official for a function pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary shall ensure that the official reports directly to the Secretary in the performance of such function and is--

‘(1) highly expert ipursuant to section 2334 of this title.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink




‘(2) Analysis and advice on matters relating to the function;

‘(2) assigned the appropriate staff and resources necessary to carry out the function;

‘(3) independent from those engaged in the execution of acquisition programs;

‘(4) free of any undue political influence; and

‘(5) free of any personal conflict of interest.

‘(c) Acquisitionplanning and programming phases of the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution system, and the preparation of materials and guidance for such system, as directed by the Secretary of Defense, working in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink




‘(3) Analysis and advice for resource discussions relating to requirements under consideration in the Joint Requirements Oversight Functions- (1) The acquisition oversight functions to be performed by officials designated pursuant to subsection (a) are as follows:

‘(A) Cost estimation.

‘(B) Systems engineering.

‘(C) Performance assessment.

‘(D) Such other acquisition functions as the Secretary considers appropriate.

‘(2) Each acquisition oversight function specified in paragraph (1) shall cover all phases of an acquisition program, including setting of requirements, formulation and execution of budgets, and program executionCouncil pursuant to section 181 of this title.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink




‘(4) Formulation of study guidance for analyses of alternatives for major defense acquisition programs and performance of such analyses, as directed by the Secretary of DefenseCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(5) Review, analysis, and evaluation of programs for executing approved strategies and policies, ensuring that information on programs is presented accurately and completely, and assessing the effect of spending by the Department of Defense on the United States economy.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(6) Assessments of special access and compartmented intelligence programs, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and in accordance with applicable policies.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(7) Assessments of alternative plans, programs, and policies with respect to the acquisition programs of the Department of Defense.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(8) Leading the development of improved analytical skills and competencies within the cost assessment and program evaluation workforce of the Department of Defense and improved tools, data, and methods to promote performance, economy, and efficiency in analyzing national security planning and the allocation of defense resources.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(b) Clerical Amendment2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:‘145. Principal advisors for acquisition oversight functionschapter 4 of such title is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 139b the following new item:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘139c. Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE LEVEL IV- Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, Department of Defense the following new item:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, Department of Defense.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





SEC. 102. OVERSIGHT OF COST ESTIMATION.(a) In General (b) Independent Cost Estimation and Cost Analysis- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) IN GENERAL- Chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘Sec. 2334. Acquisition oversight: oversight of cost estimation

‘(a) Issuance of Policies, Procedures, Guidance, and Cost Estimates- The official assigned oversight of cost estimation pursuant to section 145 of this title shall issue the following:

‘(1) Policies and procedures governing the conduct of -‘Sec. 2334. Independent cost estimation and cost analysis CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(a) In General- The Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shall ensure that the cost estimation and cost analysis generallyprocesses of the Department of Defense provide accurate information and realistic estimates of cost for the acquisition programs of the Department of Defense. In carrying out that responsibility, the Director shall--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(1) prescribe, by authority of the Secretary of Defense, policies and procedures for the conduct of cost estimation and cost analysis for the acquisition programs of the Department of Defense.‘(2) Guidance relating to;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(2) provide guidance to and consult with the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the Secretaries of the military departments, and the heads of the Defense Agencies with respect to cost estimation in the Department of Defense in general and with respect to specific cost estimates and cost analyses to be conducted in connection with major defense acquisition programsa major defense acquisition program under chapter 144 of this title or major automated information system programsa major automated information system program under chapter 144A of this title.‘(3) G;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(3) issue guidance relating to the proper selection of confidence levels forin cost estimates generally, and specifically, for the proper selection of confidence levels forin cost estimates for major defense acquisition programs under chapter 144 of this title or major automated information system program under chapter 144A of this title.‘(4) Gand major automated information system programs;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(4) issue guidance relating to full consideration of life-cycle management and sustainability costs of major defense acquisition programs under chapter 144 of this title or major automated information system programs under chapter 144A of this title.‘(5) Iin major defense acquisition programs and major automated information system programs;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(5) review all cost estimates and cost analyses conducted in connection with major defense acquisition programs and major automated information system programs;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(6) conduct independent cost estimates and cost analyses for major defense acquisition programs and major automated information system programs for which the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics is the Milestone Decision Authority--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(A) in advance of--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(i) any certification under section 2366a or 2366b of title 10, United States Codhis title;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(ii) any decision to enter into low-rate initial production or full-rate production;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(iii) any certification under section 2433(e)(2)a of this title; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(iv) any report under section 2445c(f) of this title; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(B) at any other time considered necessary by such officialappropriate by the Director or upon the request of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(7) periodically assess and update the cost indexes used by the Department to ensure that such indexes have a sound basis and meet the Department’s needs for realistic cost estimation.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(b) Review of Cost Estimates, Cost Analyses, Cost Indexes, and Records of the Military Departments- The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the official designated for oversight of cost estimation pursuant to section 145 of this title and Defense Agencies- The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(1) promptly receives the results of all cost estimates and cost analyses conducted by the military departments and Defense Agencies, and all studies conducted by the military departments and Defense Agencies in connection with such cost estimates and cost analyses, for major defense acquisition programs and major automated information systems of the military departments, and is authorized to comment on such estimates, analyses, and stud programs of the military departments and Defense Agencies; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(2) has timely access to any records and data in the Department of Defense (including the records and data of each military department and Defense Agency and including classified and proprietary information as appropriate) that the official) that the Director considers necessary to review in order to carry out any duties under this section.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(c) Participation, Concurrence, and Approval in Cost Estimation- The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the official designated for oversight of cost estimation pursuant to section 145 of this title is involved in all discussions relating to cost estimation and the estimation of resource levels required for major defense acquisition programs and major automated information systems of the Department of Defense generally at all stages of such programs andDirector of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation may--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(1) participate in the formulation of study guidance for analyses of alternatives for major defense acquisition programs;

‘(2) participate in discussion of resources associated with requirements;

‘(3) participate in the discussion of any discrepancies between an independent cost estimate and the cost estimate of a military department or Defense Agency for a major defense acquisition program or major automated information system of the Department program of the Department of Defense;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink




‘(4) approve or disapprove, at such official’s sole discretion, the confidence level used in establishing a baseline description or budget estimate2) comment on deficiencies in the methodology or execution of any cost estimate or cost analysis developed by a military department or Defense Agency for a major defense acquisition program or major automated information system of the Department of Defense at any of the events specified in paragraph (5) of subsection (a) of this section;‘(5) program;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(3) concur in the choice of a cost estimate within the baseline description or budget estimate for use at any of the events specified in paragraph (5) of subsection (a) of this section; and‘(6) participate inany other cost estimate (including the confidence level for any such cost estimate) for use at any event specified in subsection (a)(6); andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(4) participate in the consideration of any decision to request authorization of a multiyear procurement contract for a major defense acquisition program.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(d) Disclosure of Confidence Levels for Baseline Estimates of Major Defense Acquisition Programs- The official designated to perform oversight of cost estimation pursuant to section 145 of this title, in approving a confidence level for use in a major defense acquisition program pursuant to subsection (c)(4), shallDirector of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, and the Secretary of the military department concerned or the head of the Defense Agency concerned (as applicable), shall each--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(1) disclose in accordance with paragraph (2) the confidence level used in establishing a baseline estimate for the major defense acquisition cost estimate for a major defense acquisition program or major automated information system program, the rationale for selecting such confidence level, and, if such confidence level is less than 80 percent, the justification for selecting a confidence level of less than 80 percent; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(2) include the disclosure required by paragraph (1)--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(A) in any decision documentation approving a cost estimate within the baseline estimate for the major defense acquisition program,description or any other cost estimate for use at any event specified in subsection (a)(6); andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(B) in the next Selected Acquisition Report pursuant to section 2432 of this title for the major defense acquisition program, and inin the case of a major defense acquisition program, or the next annual report submitted under subsection (f).

‘(e) Relationship to Cost Analysis Improvement Group- The official designated to perform oversight of cost estimation pursuant to section 145 of this title shall be assigned responsibility for the management and oversight of the Cost Analysis Improvement Group of the Department of Defense.

‘(fquarterly report pursuant to section 2445c of this title in the case of a major automated information system program.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink




‘(e) Annual Report- Not later than March 1 of each year, beginning on March 1, 2010, the official designated to perform oversight of cost estimation pursuant to section 145 of this title shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the activities undertaken pursuant to this section on Cost Assessment Activities- (1) The Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shall prepare an annual report summarizing the cost estimation and cost analysis activities of the Department of Defense during the preceding year. The report shall be in avious year and assessing the progress of the Department in improving the accuracy of its cost estimates and analyses. Each report shall include, for the year covered by such report, an assessment of--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(A) the extent to which each of the military departments and Defense Agencies have complied with policies, procedures, and guidance issued by the Director with regard to the preparation of cost estimates for major defense acquisition programs and major automated information systems;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(B) the overall quality of cost estimates prepared by each of the military departments and Defense Agencies for major defense acquisition programs and major automated information system programs; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(C) any consistent differences in methodology or approach among the cost estimates prepared by the military departments, the Defense Agencies, and the Director.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(2) Each report under this subsection shall be submitted concurrently to the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), and the congressional defense committees not later than 10 days after the transmittal to Congress of the budget of the President for the next fiscal year (as submitted pursuant to section 1105 of title 31).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(3)(A) Each report submitted to the congressional defense committees under this subsection shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(B) The Director shall ensure that a report submitted under this subsection does not include any information, such as proprietary or source selection sensitive information, that could undermine the integrity of the acquisition process.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(C) The unclassified version of each report submitted to the congressional defense committees under this subsection shall be posted on an Internet website of the Department of Defense that is available to the public.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(4) The Secretary of Defense may comment on any report of the Director to the congressional defense committees under this subsection.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(f) Staff- The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation has sufficient professional staff of military and civilian personnel to enable the Director to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the Director under this section.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(b) Clerical Amendment2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapterchapter 137 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new item:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘2334. Acquisition oversight: oversight of cost estimationIndependent cost estimation and cost analysis.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(c) Transfer of Personnel and Functions-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS- The functions of the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation of the Department of Defense, including the functions of the Cost Analysis Improvement Group, are hereby transferred to the Office of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) TRANSFER OF PERSONNEL TO DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR INDEPENDENT COST ASSESSMENT- The personnel of the Cost Analysis Improvement Group are hereby transferred to the Deputy Director for Cost Assessment in the Office of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) TRANSFER OF PERSONNEL TO DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION- The personnel (other than the personnel transferred under paragraph (2)) of the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation are hereby transferred to the Deputy Director for Program Evaluation in the Office of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(d) Conforming Amendments-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) Section 181(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘Director of the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation’ and inserting ‘Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) Section 2306b(i)(1)(B) of such title is amended by striking ‘Cost Analysis Improvement Group of the Department of Defense’ and inserting ‘Director of Cost Assessment and Program Analysis’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) Section 2366a(a)(4) of such title is amended by inserting ‘, with the concurrence of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation,’ after ‘has been submitted’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(4) Section 2366b(a)(1)(C) of such title is amended by inserting ‘, with the concurrence of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation,’ after ‘have been developed to execute’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(5) Subparagraph (A) of section 2434(b)(1) of such title is amended to read as follows:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(A) be prepared or approved by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation; and’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(6) Section 2445c(f)(3) of such title is amended by striking ‘are reasonable’ and inserting ‘have been determined, with the concurrence of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, to be reasonable’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(e) Report on Monitoring of Operating and Support Costs for Major Defense Acquisition Programs-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) REPORT TO SECRETARY OF DEFENSE- Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation under section 139c of title 10 United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), shall review existing systems and methods of the Department of Defense for tracking and assessing operating and support costs on major defense acquisition programs and submit to the Secretary of Defense a report on the finding and recommendations of the Director as a result of the review, including an assessment by the Director of the feasibility and advisability of establishing baselines for operating and support costs under section 2435 of title 10, United States Code.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) TRANSMITTAL TO CONGRESS- Not later than 30 days after receiving the report required by paragraph (1), the Secretary shall transmit the report to the congressional defense committees, together with any comments on the report the Secretary considers appropriate.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 103. OVERSIGHT OF2. DIRECTORS OF DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(a) In General-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF POSITIONS- Chapter 1374 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 102, is further amended by adding at the end the following new section:‘Sec. 2334a. Acquisition oversight: oversight of systems engineering‘(a) Issuance of Policies, Procedures, and Guidance- The official designated to perform oversight of systems engineering pursuant to section 145 of this title shall-1(a) of this Act, is further amended by inserting after section 139c the following new section:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(a) Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(1) issue policies, procedures, and guidance forAPPOINTMENT- There is a Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation, who shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense from among individuals with an expertise in test and evaluation.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(2) PRINCIPAL ADVISOR FOR DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION- The Director shall be the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics on developmental test and evaluation in the Department of Defense.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(3) SUPERVISION- The Director shall be subject to the supervision of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and shall report to the Under Secretary.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(4) COORDINATION WITH DIRECTOR OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING- The Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation shall closely coordinate with the Director of Systems Engineering to ensure that the developmental test and evaluation activities of the Department of Defense are fully integrated into and consistent with the systems engineering and development planning processes of the Department.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(5) DUTIES- The Director shall--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(A) develop policies and guidance for--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(i) the conduct of developmental test and evaluation in the Department of Defense (including integration and developmental testing of software);CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(ii) in coordination with the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the integration of developmental test and evaluation with operational test and evaluation;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(iii) the conduct of developmental test and evaluation conducted jointly by more than one military department or Defense Agency;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(B) review and approve the developmental test and evaluation plan within the test and evaluation master plan for each major defense acquisition program of the Department of Defense;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(C) monitor and review the developmental test and evaluation activities of the major defense acquisition programs;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(D) provide advocacy, oversight, and guidance to elements of the acquisition workforce responsible for developmental test and evaluation;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(E) periodically review the organizations and capabilities of the military departments with respect to developmental test and evaluation and identify needed changes or improvements to such organizations and capabilities, and provide input regarding needed changes or improvements for the test and evaluation strategic plan developed in accordance with section 196(d) of this title; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(F) perform such other activities relating to the developmental test and evaluation activities of the Department of Defense as the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics may prescribe.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(6) ACCESS TO RECORDS- The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Director has access to all elements of the Departmentrecords and data of the Department of Defense (including the records and data of each military department and including classified and propriety information, as appropriate) that the Director considers necessary in order to carry out the Director’s duties under this subsection.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(7) CONCURRENT SERVICE AS DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TEST RESOURCES MANAGEMENT CENTER- The individual serving as the Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation may also serve concurrently as the Director of the Department of Defense Test Resource Management Center under section 196 of this title.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(b) Director of Systems Engineering-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(1) APPOINTMENT- There is a Director of Systems Engineering, who shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense concerning--‘(Afrom among individuals with an expertise in systems engineering and development planning.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(2) PRINCIPAL ADVISOR FOR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING- The Director shall be the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics on systems engineering and development planning in the Department of Defense.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(3) SUPERVISION- The Director shall be subject to the supervision of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and shall report to the Under Secretary.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(4) COORDINATION WITH DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION- The Director of Systems Engineering shall closely coordinate with the Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation to ensure that the developmental test and evaluation activities of the Department of Defense are fully integrated into and consistent with the systems engineering and development planning processes of the Department.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(5) DUTIES- The Director shall--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(A) develop policies and guidance for--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(i) the use of systems engineering principles and best practices, generally;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(Bii) the use of systems engineering approaches to enhance reliability, availability, and maintainability on major defense acquisition programs;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(C) the development of systems engineeringiii) the development of systems engineering master plans for major defense acquisition programs, including systems engineering including systems engineering considerations in support of life-cycle management and sustainability;‘(D andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(iv) the inclusion of provisions relating to systems engineering and reliability growth in requests for proposals;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(E) the appropriate use of development planning to reduce the time from system development to deployment, to reduce development risk and cost growth, and to provide future benchmarks against which to trade requirements, cost, and schedule;

‘(F) developmental test and evaluation generally;

‘(G) in coordination with the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the integration of developmental test and evaluation with operational test and evaluation;

‘(H) in coordination with the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the development of test and evaluation B) review and approve the systems engineering master plans for major defense acquisition programs; and

‘(I) the use of developmental test and evaluation as part of a coordinated systems engineering approach to system development; and

‘(2 for each major defense acquisition program;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink




‘(C) monitor and review the systems engineering and development planning activities of the major defense acquisition programs;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(D) provide advocacy, oversight, and directionguidance to elements of the acquisition workforce responsible for functions relating to systems engineering, developmental test and evaluation, and life-systems engineering, development planning, and lifecycle management and sustainability.‘(b) Participation in Requirements Discussions- The official designated to perform oversight of systems engineering pursuant to section 145 of this title shall functions;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(E) provide input on the inclusion of systems engineering requirements in the process for consideration of joint military requirements by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council pursuant tosection 181 of title 10, United States Cod section 181 of this title, including specific input relating to each capabilities development document.‘(c) Access to Records of the Military Departments- The official designated to perform oversight of systems engineering pursuant to section 145 of this title shall ;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(F) periodically review the organizations and capabilities of the military departments with respect to systems engineering, development planning, and lifecycle management and sustainability, and identify needed changes or improvements to such organizations and capabilities; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(G) perform such other activities relating to the systems engineering and development planning activities of the Department of Defense as the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics may prescribe.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(6) ACCESS TO RECORDS- The Director shall have access to any records or data of the Department of Defense (including the records and data of each military department and including classified and proprietary information as appropriate) that the officialDirector considers necessary to review in order to carry out any duties under this section.

‘(d) Assessment of Military Department Capabilities for Systems Engineering and Developmental Test and Evaluation- The official designated to perform oversight of systems engineering pursuant to section 145 of this title shall--

‘(1) periodically assess the capabilities of the military departments for systems engineering (including development planning) and developmental test and evaluation;

‘(2) provide such assessment, along with such recommendations for improvement as the official considers necessary, to the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and

‘(3) include such assessment and recommendations in the annual report required by subsection (g).

‘(e) Review and Approval of Plans for Major Defense Acquisition Programs- The official designated to perform oversight of systems engineering pursuant to section 145 of this title shall review and approve the following plans with respect to any major defense acquisition program:

‘(1) The systems engineering master plan.

‘(2) The developmental test and evaluation plan within the test and evaluation master plan.

‘(f) Reporting Through Under Secretary- The official designated to perform oversight of systems engineering pursuant to section 145 of this title shall report to the Secretary of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.

‘(g)the Director’s duties under this subsection.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink




‘(c) Joint Annual Report- Not later than March 1 of31 each year, beginning on March 1, 2010, the official designated to perform oversight of systems engineering pursuant to section 145 of this title shallin 2010, the Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation and the Director of Systems Engineering shall jointly submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the activities undertaken pursuant to this section subsections (a) and (b) during the preceding year. The report shall be in unclassified form but may include a classified annexEach report shall include a section on activities relating to the major defense acquisition programs which shall set forth, at a minimum, the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(1) A discussion of the extent to which the major defense acquisition programs are fulfilling the objectives of their systems engineering master plans and developmental test and evaluation plans.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(2) A discussion of the waivers of and deviations from requirements in test and evaluation master plans, systems engineering master plans, and other testing requirements that occurred during the preceding year with respect to such programs, any concerns raised by such waivers or deviations, and the actions that have been taken or are planned to be taken to address such concerns.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(3) An assessment of the organization and capabilities of the Department of Defense for systems engineering, development planning, and developmental test and evaluation with respect to such programs.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(4) Any comments on such report that the Secretary of Defense considers appropriate.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(d) Joint Guidance- The Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation and the Director of Systems Engineering shall jointly, in coordination with the official designated by the Secretary of Defense under section 103 of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, issue guidance on the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(1) The development and tracking of detailed measurable performance criteria as part of the systems engineering master plans and the developmental test and evaluation plans within the test and evaluation master plans of major defense acquisition programs.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(2) The use of developmental test and evaluation to measure the achievement of specific performance objectives within a systems engineering master plan.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(3) A system for storing and tracking information relating to the achievement of the performance criteria and objectives specified pursuant to this subsection.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(e) Major Defense Acquisition Program Defined- In this section, the term ‘major defense acquisition program’ has the meaning given that term in section 2430 of this title.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(b) Clerical Amendment2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter, as amended by section 102, is further amended by adding at the end the following new item:‘2334a. Acquisition oversight: oversight of systems engineeringchapter 4 of such title, as amended by section 101(a) of this Act, is further amended by inserting after the item relating to section 139c the following new item:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘139d. Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation; Director of Systems Engineering: joint guidance.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





SEC. 104. OVERSIGHT OF (b) Developmental Test and Evaluation and Systems Engineering in the Military Departments and Defense Agencies- CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) PLANS- The service acquisition executive of each military department and each Defense Agency with responsibility for a major defense acquisition program shall develop and implement plans to ensure the military department or Defense Agency concerned has provided appropriate resources for each of the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) Developmental testing organizations with adequate numbers of trained personnel in order to--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(i) ensure that developmental testing requirements are appropriately addressed in the translation of operational requirements into contract specifications, in the source selection process, and in the preparation of requests for proposals on all major defense acquisition programs;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(ii) participate in the planning of developmental test and evaluation activities, including the preparation and approval of a developmental test and evaluation plan within the test and evaluation master plan for each major defense acquisition program; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(iii) participate in and oversee the conduct of developmental testing, the analysis of data, and the preparation of evaluations and reports based on such testing.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) Development planning and systems engineering organizations with adequate numbers of trained personnel in order to--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(i) support key requirements, acquisition, and budget decisions made for each major defense acquisition program prior to Milestone A approval and Milestone B approval through a rigorous systems analysis and systems engineering process;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(ii) include a robust program for improving reliability, availability, maintainability, and sustainability as an integral part of design and development within the systems engineering master plan for each major defense acquisition program; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(iii) identify systems engineering requirements, including reliability, availability, maintainability, and lifecycle management and sustainability requirements, during the Joint Capabilities Integration Development System process, and incorporate such systems engineering requirements into contract requirements for each major defense acquisition program.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) REPORTS BY SERVICE ACQUISITION EXECUTIVES- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the service acquisition executive of each military department and each Defense Agency with responsibility for a major defense acquisition program shall submit to the Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation and the Director of Systems Engineering a report on the extent to which--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) such military department or Defense Agency has implemented, or is implementing, the plan required by paragraph (1); andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) additional authorities or resources are needed to attract, develop, retain, and reward developmental test and evaluation personnel and systems engineers with appropriate levels of hands-on experience and technical expertise to meet the needs of such military department or Defense Agency.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) ASSESSMENT OF REPORTS BY DIRECTORS OF DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING- The first annual report submitted to Congress by the Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation and the Director of Systems Engineering under section 139d(c) of title 10, United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), shall include an assessment by the Directors of the reports submitted by the service acquisition executives to the Directors under paragraph (2).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 103. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS AND ROOT CAUSE ANALYSES FOR MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(a) In General- Chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 103, is further amended by adding at the end the following new section:‘Sec. 2334b. Acquisition oversight: oversight of performance assessment‘(a) Issuance of Policies, Procedures, and GuidanceDesignation of Senior Official Responsibility for Performance Assessments- The official designated to perform oversight of performance assessment pursuant to section 145 of this title and Root Cause Analyses-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Defense shall designate a senior official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense as the principal official of the Department of Defense responsible for conducting and overseeing performance assessments and root cause analyses for major defense acquisition programs.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) NO PROGRAM EXECUTION RESPONSIBILITY- The Secretary shall ensure that the senior official designated under paragraph (1) is not responsible for program execution.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) STAFF AND RESOURCES- The Secretary shall assign to the senior official designated under paragraph (1) appropriate staff and resources necessary to carry out official’s function under this section.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(b) Responsibilities- The senior official designated under subsection (a) shall be responsible for the issuance offollowing:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) Carrying out performance assessments of major defense acquisition programs in accordance with the requirements of subsection (c) periodically or when requested by the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, the Secretary of a military department, or the head of a Defense Agency.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) Conducting root cause analyses for major defense acquisition programs in accordance with the requirements of subsection (d) when required by section 2433a(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code (as added by section 206(a) of this Act), or when requested by the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, the Secretary of a military department, or the head of a Defense Agency.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) Issuing policies, procedures, and guidance governing the conduct of performance assessments for the acquisition programs of the Department of Defense, including assessment of the extent to which acquisition programs--

‘(1) deliver sufficient capability to the warfighter;

‘(2) achieve timely delivery of such capability; and

‘(3) deliver a level of value consistent with resources expended.

‘(b) Assessment of Baseline Quality- The official designated to perform oversight of performance assessment pursuant to section 145 of this title shall periodically assess the suitability of the baseline descriptions required bysection 2435 of title 10, United States Code, of major defense acquisition programs for providing a basis for performance assessment and makeand root cause analyses by the military departments and the Defense Agencies.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink




(4) Evaluating the utility of performance metrics used to measure the cost, schedule, and performance of major defense acquisition programs, and making such recommendations to the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics as the officials the official considers necessary to improve the suitability of baseline descriptions for such purpose.

‘(c) Earned Value Management System- The official designated to perform oversight of performance assessment pursuant to section 145 of this title shall be responsible for the management and oversight of the records of the earned value management system of the Department of Defense.

‘(d) Participation in Certain Program Reviews- The official designated to perform oversight of performance assessment pursuant to section 145 of this title is authorized to present an assessment of the performance of a major defense acquisition program during--

‘(1) any discussions prior to certification under section 2433(e)(2) of this title;

‘(2) any discussionsappropriate to improve such metrics.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink




(5) Advising acquisition officials on performance issues regarding a major defense acquisition program that may arise--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) prior to certification under section 2433a of title 10, United States Code (as so added);CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) prior to entry into full-rate production; and‘(3)orCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(C) in the course of consideration of any decision to request authorization of a multiyear procurement contract for a major defense acquisition program.‘(ethe program.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(c) Performance Assessments- For purposes of this section, a performance assessment with respect to a major defense acquisition program is an evaluation of the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) The cost, schedule, and performance of the program, relative to current metrics, including performance requirements and baseline descriptions.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) The extent to which the level of program cost, schedule, and performance predicted relative to such metrics is likely to result in the timely delivery of a level of capability to the warfighter that is consistent with the level of resources to be expended and provides superior value to alternative approaches that may be available to meet the same military requirement.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(d) Root Cause Analyses- For purposes of this section and section 2433a of title 10, United States Code (as so added), a root cause analysis with respect to a major defense acquisition program is an assessment of the underlying cause or causes of shortcomings in cost, schedule, or performance of the program, including the role, if any, of--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) unrealistic performance expectations;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) unrealistic baseline estimates for cost or schedule;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) immature technologies or excessive manufacturing or integration risk;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(4) unanticipated design, engineering, manufacturing, or technology integration issues arising during program performance;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(5) changes in procurement quantities;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(6) inadequate program funding or funding instability;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(7) poor performance by government or contractor personnel responsible for program management; orCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(8) any other matters.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(e) Support of Applicable Capabilities and Expertise- The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the senior official designated under subsection (a) has the support of other Department of Defense officials with relevant capabilities and expertise needed to carry out the requirements of this section.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(f) Annual Report- Not later than March 1 of each year, beginning on March 1, 2010, the official designated to perform oversight of performance assessment pursuant to section 145 of this title shall in 2010, the official responsible for conducting and overseeing performance assessments and root cause analyses for major defense acquisition programs shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the activities undertaken pursuant to this section under this section during the preceding year.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 1054. ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGICAL MATURITY OF CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES OF MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS BY THE DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(a) Assessment by Director of Defense Research and Engineering-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) IN GENERAL- Section 139a of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(c)(1) The Director of Defense Research and Engineering, in consultation with the Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation, shall periodically review and assess the technological maturity and integration risk of critical technologies of the major defense acquisition programs of the Department of Defense and report on the findings of such reviews and assessments to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(2) The Director shall submit to the Secretary of Defense and to the congressional defense committees by JanuaryMarch 1 of each year a report on the technological maturity and integration risk of critical technologies of the major defense acquisition programs of the Department of Defense.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) FIRST ANNUAL REPORT- The first annual report under subsection (c)(2) of section 139a of title 10, United States Code (as added by paragraph (1)), shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees not later than March 1, 20110, and shall address the results of reviews and assessments conducted by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering pursuant to subsection (c)(1) of such section (as so added) during the preceding calendar year.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(b) Report on Resources for Implementation- Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report describing any additional resources that may be required by the Director, and by other research and engineering elements of the Department of Defense, to carry out the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) The requirements under the amendment made by subsection (a)(1).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) The technological maturity assessments required by section 2366b(a) of title 10, United States Code.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) The requirements of Department of Defense Instruction 5000, as revised.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(c) Technological Maturity Standards- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, in consultation with the Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation, shall develop knowledge-based standards against which to measure the technological maturity and integration risk of critical technologies at key stages in the acquisition process for purposes of conducting the reviews and assessments of major defense acquisition programs required by subsection (c) of section 139a of title 10, United States Code (as so added).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 1065. ROLE OF THE COMMANDERS OF THE COMBATANT COMMANDS IN IDENTIFYING JOINT MILITARY REQUIREMENTS.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(a) In General- Section 181(d) of title 10, United States Code, isas amended by section 101(d) of this Act, is further amended--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) by inserting ‘(1)’ before ‘The Under Secretary’; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(2) The Council shall seek and consider input from the commanders of the combatant commands in carrying out its mission under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) and in conducting periodic reviews in accordance with the requirements of subsection (e).’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(b) Input From Commanders of Combatant Commands- The Joint Requirements Oversight Council in the Department of Defense shall seek and consider input from the commanders of combatant commands, in accordance with section 181(d) of title 10, United States Code (as amended by subsection (a)). Such input may include, but is not limited to, an assessment of the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(A(1) Any current or projected missions or threats in the theater of operations of the commander of a combatant command that would inform the assessment of a new joint military requirement.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(B(2) The necessity and sufficiency of a proposed joint military requirement in terms of current and projected missions or threats.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(C(3) The relative priority of a proposed joint military requirement in comparison with other joint military requirements within the theater of operations of athe commander of a combatant command.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(D(4) The ability of partner nations in the theater of operations of the commander of a combatant command to assist in meeting the joint military requirement or the benefit, if any, of a partner nation assisting in development or use of technologies developed to meet the joint military requirement.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





’.(b(c) Comptroller General of the United States Review of Implementation-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) REQUIREMENT- Not later than two years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the implementation of the requirements of (1) subsection (d)(2) of--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) subsection (d)(2) of section 181 of title 10, United States Code (as amended by subsection (a)), for the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to solicit and consider input from the commanders of the combatant commands, and (2);CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) the amendments to subsection (b) of section 181 of title 10, United States Code (as amended, made by section 942 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 287)). The report shall and by section 201(b) of this Act; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(C) the requirements of section 201(c) of this Act.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) MATTERS COVERED- The report shall include, at a minimum, an assessment of--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) the extent to which the Council has effectively sought, and the commanders of the combatant commands have provided, meaningful input on proposed joint military requirements;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) the quality and effectiveness of efforts to estimate the level of resources needed to fulfill joint military requirements; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(C) the extent to which the Council has considered trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

TITLE II--ACQUISITION POLICYCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 201. CONSIDERATION OF TRADE-OFFS AMONG COST, SCHEDULE, AND PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES IN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 202. ACQUISITION STRATEGIES ENSURINGTO ENSURE COMPETITION THROUGHOUT THE LIFECYCLE OF MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(a) Acquisition Strategy Ensuringies To Ensure Competition- The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the acquisition strategy for each major defense acquisition program includes--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) measures to ensure competition, or the option of competition, at both the prime contract level and the subcontract level (at such tier or tiers as are appropriate) of such program throughout the life-cycle of such program as a means to improve contractor performance; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) adequate documentation of the rationale for the selection of the subcontract tier or tiers under paragraph (1).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(b) Measures To Ensure Competition- The measures to ensure competition, or the option of competition, for purposes of subsection (a)(1) may include measures to achieve the following, in appropriate cases if such measures are cost-effective:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) Competitive prototyping.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) Dual-sourcing.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) Unbundling of contracts.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(4) Funding of a second source for interchangeable, next-generation prototype systems or subsystems.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(5) Use of modular, open architectures to enable competition for upgrades.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(6) Use of build-to-print approaches to enable production through multiple sources.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(7) Acquisition of complete technical data packages.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(8) Periodic competitions for subsystem upgrades.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(9) Licensing of additional suppliers.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(10) Periodic system or program reviews to address long-term competitive effects of program decisions.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(c) Additional Measures To Ensure Competition at Subcontract Level- The Secretary shall take actions to ensure fair and objective ‘make-buy’ decisions by prime contractors on major defense acquisition programs by--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) requiring prime contractors to give full and fair consideration to qualified sources other than the prime contractor for the development or construction of major subsystems and components of major weapon systems;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) providing for government surveillance of the process by which prime contractors consider such sources and determine whether to conduct such development or construction in-house or through a subcontract; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) providing for the assessment of the extent to which a contractor has given full and fair consideration to qualified sources other than the contractor in sourcing decisions as a part of past performance evaluations.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(d) Consideration of Competition Throughout Operation and Sustainment of Major Defense Acquisition Programs- In carrying out this section, the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that,Weapon Systems- Whenever a decision regarding source of repair results in a plan to award a contract for performance of maintenance and sustainment of a major weapon system, the Secretary shall take actions to ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with statutory requirements, contracts for such maintenance and sustainment are awarded on a competitive basis and give full consideration to all sources (including sources that partner or subcontract with public or private sector repair activities).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(e) Applicability-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) STRATEGY AND MEASURES TO ENSURE COMPETITION- The requirements of subsections (a) and (b) shall apply to any acquisition plan for a major defense acquisition program that is developed or revised on or after the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) ADDITIONAL ACTIONS- The actions required by subsections (c) and (d) shall be taken within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(a) Competitive Prototyping- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall modify the guidance of the Department of Defense relating to the operation of the acquisition system with respect to maintenance ofcompetitive prototyping for major defense acquisition programs to ensure the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) That the acquisition strategy for each major defense acquisition program provides for competitive prototypes before Milestone B approval (or Key Decision Point B approval in the case of a space program) unless the Milestone Decision Authority for such program waives the requirement pursuant to paragraph (2).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) That the Milestone Decision Authority may waive the requirement in paragraph (1) only--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) on the basis that the cost of producing competitive prototypes exceeds the expected life-cycle benefits (in constant dollars) of producing such prototypes, including the benefits of improved performance and increased technological and design maturity that may be achieved through competitive prototyping; orCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) on the basis that, but for such waiver, the Department would be unable to meet critical national security objectives.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) That whenever a Milestone Decision Authority authorizes a waiver pursuant to paragraph (2), the Milestone Decision Authority--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) shall require that the program produce a prototype before Milestone B approval (or Key Decision Point B approval in the case of a space program) if the expected life-cycle benefits (in constant dollars) of producing such prototype exceed its cost and its production is consistent with achieving critical national security objectives; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) shall notify the congressional defense committees in writing not later than 30 days after the waiver is authorized and include in such notification the rationale for the waiver and the plan, if any, for producing a prototype.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(4) That prototypes may be required under paragraph (1) or (3) for the system to be acquired or, if prototyping of the system is not feasible, for critical subsystems of the system.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(b) Comptroller General Review of Certain Waivers-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) NOTICE TO COMPTROLLER GENERAL- Whenever a Milestone Decision Authority authorizes a waiver of the requirement for prototypes pursuant to paragraph (2) of subsection (a) on the basis of excessive cost, the Milestone Decision Authority shall submit the notification of the waiver, together with the rationale, to the Comptroller General of the United States at the same time it is submitted to the congressional defense committees.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW- Not later than 60 days after receipt of a notification of a waiver under paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) review the rationale for the waiver; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) submit to the congressional defense committees a written assessment of the rationale for the waiver.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(a) Modification to Certification Requirement- Subsection (a) of section 2366a of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘may not receive Milestone A approval, or Key Decision Point A approval in the case of a space program,’ and inserting ‘may not receive Milestone A approval, or Key Decision Point A approval in the case of a space program, or otherwise be initiated prior to Milestone B approval, or Key Decision Point B approval in the case of a space program,’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(b) Modification to Notification Requirement- Subsection (b) of such section is amended--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) by inserting ‘(1)’ before ‘With respect to’;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) in paragraph (1), as so designated, by striking ‘by at least 25 percent,’ and inserting ‘by at least 25 percent, or the program manager determines that the period of time required for the delivery of an initial operational capability is likely to exceed the schedule objective established pursuant to section 181(b)(5) of this title by more than 25 percent,’; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(2) Not later than 30 days after a program manager submits a notification to the Milestone Decision Authority pursuant to paragraph (1) with respect to a major defense acquisition program, the Milestone Decision Authority shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report that--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(A) identifies the root causes of the cost or schedule growth in accordance with applicable policies, procedures, and guidance;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(B) identifies appropriate acquisition performance measures for the remainder of the development of the program; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(C) includes one of the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(i) A written certification (with a supporting explanation) stating that--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(I) the program is essential to national security;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(II) there are no alternatives to the program that will provide acceptable military capability at less cost;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(III) new estimates of the development cost or schedule, as appropriate, are reasonable; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(IV) the management structure for the program is adequate to manage and control program development cost and schedule.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(ii) A plan for terminating the development of the program or withdrawal of Milestone A approval, or Key Decision Point A approval in the case of a space program, consideration is given to capabilities within the Department of Defense to perform maintenance functionsif the Milestone Decision Authority determines that such action is in the interest of national defense.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(c) Application to Ongoing Programs-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) IN GENERAL- Each major defense acquisition program described in paragraph (2) shall be certified in accordance with the requirements of section 2366a of title 10, United States Code (as amended by this section), within one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) COVERED PROGRAMS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any major defense acquisition program that--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) was initiated before the date of the enactment of this Act; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) as of the date of certification under paragraph (1) has not otherwise been certified pursuant to either section 2366a (as so amended) or 2366b of title 10, United States Code.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 2025. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(a) Additional Requirements Relating to Milestone B Approval- Section 2366b of title 10, United States Code, is amended--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) in subsection (d)--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) by inserting ‘(1)’ before ‘The milestone decision authority may’; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) by striking the second sentence and inserting the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(2) Whenever the milestone decision authority makes such a determination and authorizes such a waiver--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(A) the waiver, the determination, and the reasons for the determination shall be submitted in writing to the congressional defense committees within 30 days after the waiver is authorized; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(B) the milestone decision authority shall review the program not less often than annually to determine the extent to which such program currently satisfies the certification components specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) until such time as the milestone decision authority determines that the program satisfies all such certification components.’;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections (f) and (g), respectively, and inserting after subsection (d) the following new subsection (e):CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(e) Designation of Certification Status in Budget Documentation- Any budget request, budget justification material, budget display, reprogramming request, Selected Acquisition Report, or other budget documentation or performance report submitted by the Secretary of Defense to the President regarding a major defense acquisition program receiving a waiver pursuant to subsection (d) shall prominently and clearly indicate that such program has not fully satisfied the certification requirements of this section until such time as the milestone decision authority makes the determination that such program has satisfied all certification components pursuant to subsection (d)(2)(B).’;such certification components.’; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) in subsection (a)--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘and’ at the end;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph (2):CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(2) has received a preliminary design review and conducted a formal post-preliminary design review assessment, and certifies on the basis of such assessment that the program demonstrates a high likelihood of accomplishing its intended mission or that no preliminary design review is necessary for such program to demonstrate a high likelihood of accomplishing its intended mission; and’; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(D) in paragraph (3), as redesignated by subparagraph (B) of this paragraph--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(i) in subparagraph (D), by striking the semicolon and inserting ‘, as determined by the Milestone Decision Authority on the basis of an independent review and assessment by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering; and’;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(ii) by striking subparagraph (E); andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(iii) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (E).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(b) Certification and Review of Programs Entering Development Prior to Enactment of Section 2366b of Title 10-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) DETERMINATION- (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), beginning nNot later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, for each major defense acquisition program that has not received areceived Milestone B approval before January 6, 2006, and has not received Milestone C approval, orand for each space program that received Key Decision Point B approval before January 6, 2006, and has not received Key Decision Point C approval in the case of a space program, the Milestone Decision Authority shall determine whether or not the program satisfiessuch program satisfies all of the certification components specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) ofsection 2366b of title 10, United States Code.(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a major defense acquisition program that has been reviewed pursuant to section 2366b of title 10, United States Code, prior to the date that is 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, or a major defense acquisition program that has not yet received Milestone B approval (as amended by subsection (a) of this section).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) ANNUAL REVIEW- The Milestone Decision Authority shall review any program determined pursuant to paragraph (1) not to satisfy the certification any of the certification components of subsection (a) of section 2366b of title 10, United States Code (as so amended), not less often than annually thereafter to determine the extent to which such program currently satisfies the certification such certification components specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) of such section until such time as the Milestone Decision Authority determines that thesuch program satisfies all such certification components.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) DESIGNATION OF CERTIFICATION STATUS IN BUDGET DOCUMENTATION- Any budget request, budget justification material, budget display, reprogramming request, Selected Acquisition Report, or other budget documentation or performance report submitted by the Secretary of Defense to the President regarding a major defense acquisition program which the Milestone Decision Authority determines under paragraph (1) does not satisfy the certification components specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) ofall of the certification components of subsection (a) of section 2366b of title 10, United States Code, (as so amended) shall prominently and clearly indicate that such program has not fully satisfied such certification components until such time as the Milestone Decision Authority makes the determination that such program has satisfied all certification components pursuant to paragraph (2).(c)such certification components.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(c) Reviews of Programs Restructured After Experiencing Critical Cost Growth- The official designated to perform oversight of performance assessment pursuant tosection 145 of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 103 of this Act, shall annually review ssess the performance of each major defense acquisition program that has exceeded critical cost growth thresholds established pursuant to section 2433(e) of title 10, United States Code, but has not been considered pursuant to paragraph (2) of section 2433(e) of title 10, United States Code, and which has been certified as necessary to continue pursuant to such paragraph, to assess the success of the program in achieving adequate program performance after the completion of such considerationterminated in accordance with section 2433a of such title (as added by section 206(a) of this Act) not less often than semi-annually until one year after the date on which such program receives a new milestone approval, in accordance with section 2433a(c)(3) of such title (as so added). The results of reviews performed pursuant to this subsection shall be includunder this subsection shall be reported to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and summarized in the next annual report of such official.SEC. 203. REQUIREMENT FOR CERTIFICATION OF MAJOR SYSTEMS PRIOR TO MILESTONE B.

(a) Certification- Except as provided in subsection (b), beginning not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, for each major defense acquisition program that has not received Milestone B approval, or Key Decision Point B approval in the case of a space program, the Milestone Decision Authority shall certify, after consultation with the Joint Requirements Oversight Council on matters relating to program requirements and military needs--

(1) that the program fulfills an approved initial capabilities document;

(2) that the program is being executed by an entity with a relevant core competency as identified by the Secretary of Defense undersection 118b of title 10, United States Code;

(3) if the program duplicates a capability already provided by an existing program, the duplication provided by such program is necessary and appropriate;

(4) that a cost estimate for such program has been submitted to the Milestone Decision Authority and that the concurrence of the official designated to perform oversight of cost estimation pursuant tosection 145 of title 10, United States Code, has been obtained regarding the choice of a cost estimate; and

(5) that a schedule identifying the time and major activities required to reach Milestone B approval, or Key Decision Point B approval in the case of a space program, has been submitted to the Milestone Decision Authority.

(b) Exception- Subsection (a) shall not apply to a major defense acquisition program that has received a certification as required by section 2366a, title 10, United States Code.

(c) Reports-

(1) RELATING TO COST GROWTH OR SCHEDULE DELAY OF PROGRAMS CERTIFIED UNDER SUBSECTION (A)- With respect to a major defense acquisition program certified by the Milestone Decision Authority under subsection (a), the Milestone Decision Authority shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report in accordance with this subsection if, prior to Milestone B approval--

(A) the projected cost of the program exceeds the cost estimate for the program submitted to the Milestone Decision Authority in accordance with subsection (a)(4) by more than 25 percent; or

(B) the schedule submitted to the Milestone Decision Authority in accordance with subsection (a)(5) is delayed by more than 25 percent.

(2) RELATING TO COST GROWTH OF PROGRAMS CERTIFIED UNDER SECTION 2366A- With respect to a major defense acquisition program certified by the Milestone Decision Authority undersection 2366a of title 10, United States Code, the Milestone Decision Authority shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report in accordance with this subsection if the program manager submits a notification to the Milestone Decision Authority pursuant to section 2366a(b).

(3) MATTERS COVERED- Any report submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) shall--

(A) identify the root causes of the cost or schedule growth;

(B) identify appropriate acquisition performance measures for the remainder of the program; and

(C) include one of the following:

(i) A written certification (with a supporting explanation) stating that--

(I) such program is essential to national security;

(II) there are no alternatives to such program that will provide acceptable military capability at less cost;

(III) new estimates of the cost or schedule, as appropriate, are reasonable; and

(IV) the management structure for the program is adequate to manage and control program cost and schedule.

(ii) A plan for terminating the development of the program or withdrawal of Milestone A approval (or Key Decision Point A approval in the case of a space program) if the Milestone Decision Authority determines that such action is in the interest of national defense.

(4) TIME OF SUBMISSION- A report required by this subsection shall be submitted--

(A) in the case of a report required by paragraph (1), not later than 30 days after the Milestone Decision Authority determines the cost growth or schedule delay described in that paragraph; and

(B) in the case of a report required by paragraph (2), not later than 30 days after the Milestone Decision Authority receives the notification from the program manager described in that paragraph.

(d) Definitions- In this section:

(1) MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAM- The term ‘major defense acquisition program’ means the following:

(A) A major defense acquisition program as that term is defined insection 2430 of title 10, United States Code.

(B) An acquisition program of the Department of Defense that the Secretary of Defense expects to become a major defense acquisition program (as defined in such section 2430) upon Milestone B approval, on the basis of the cost estimate submitted in accordance with subsection (a)(4) of this section or subsection (a)(4) ofsection 2366a of title 10, United States Code.

(2) INITIAL CAPABILITIES DOCUMENT- The term ‘initial capabilities document’ has the meaning provided by section 2366a (c)(2) of such title.

(3) ENTITY- The term ‘entity’ has the meaning provided by section 2366a(c)(4) of such title.

(4) MILESTONE B APPROVAL- The term ‘Milestone B approval’ has the meaning provided by section 2366(e)(7) of such titledesignated official.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 2046. CRITICAL COST GROWTH IN MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(a) Authorized Actions in Event ofctions Following Critical Cost Growth-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





Paragraph (2) ofsection 2433(e) of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:‘(2)(A) (1) IN GENERAL- Chapter 144 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2433 the following new section: CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘Sec. 2433a. Critical cost growth in major defense acquisition programsCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(a) Reassessment of Program- If the program acquisition unit cost or procurement unit cost of a major defense acquisition program or designated major subprogram (as determined by the Secretary under subsection (d)ection 2433(d) of this title) increases by a percentage equal to or greater than the critical cost growth threshold for the program or subprogram, the Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the Joint Requirements Oversight Council regarding program requirements, shall--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(i1) determine the root cause or causes of the critical cost growth including the role, if any, of--‘(I) changes or growth in requirements;

‘(II) unrealistic baseline estimates;

‘(III) any design, engineering, manufacturing, or technology integration issues;

‘(IV) changes in procurement quantities;

‘(V) inadequate program funding or funding instability;

‘(VI) poor performance by government or contractor personnel responsible for program management; or

‘(VII) other causes as identified by the Secretary;

‘(ii) subject to subparagraph (B), determine whether to terminate such program or to restructure such program after assessing--

‘(I) the root causes of cost growth identified pursuant to subparagraph (A);

‘(II) the validity and urgency of the joint military requirement;

‘(III) the viability of the acquisition strategy;

‘(IV) the quality of program management;

‘(V) a broad range of potential material and non-material alternatives to such program; and

‘(VIaccordance with applicable statutory requirements and Department of Defense policies, procedures, and guidance; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink




‘(2) in consultation with the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, carry out an assessment of--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(A) the projected cost of completing the program if current requirements are not modified;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(B) the projected cost of completing the program based on reasonable modification of such requirements;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(C) the rough order of magnitude of the costs of any reasonable alternative system or capability; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(D) the need to reduce funding for other programs due to the cost growth on such program;‘(iii) submit the determination made under clause (ii)growth in cost of the program.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(b) Presumption of Termination- (1) After conducting the reassessment required by subsection (a) with respect to a major defense acquisition program, the Secretary shall terminate the program unless the Secretary submits to Congress, before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the day the Selected Acquisition Report containing the information described in subsection (g)ection 2433(g) of this title is required to be submitted under section 2432(f) of this title; and

‘(iv) if a report under paragraph (1) has been previously submitted to Congress with respect to such program or subprogram for the current fiscal year but was based upon a different unit cost report from the program manager to the service acquisition executive designated by the Secretary concerned, submit a further report containing the information described in subsection (g), determined from the time of the previous report to the time of the current report.

‘(B) A program may be restructured pursuant to a determination under subparagraph (A)(ii) only if--

‘(i) a written certification (with a supporting explanation) is submitted along with the determination stating that--

‘(I) such program is essential to, a written certification in accordance with paragraph (2).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink




‘(2) A certification described by this paragraph with respect to a major defense acquisition program is a written certification that--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(A) the continuation of the program is essential to the national security;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(IIB) there are no alternatives to suchthe program which will provide acceptable military capabilitycapability to meet the joint military requirement (as defined in section 181(g)((1) of this title) at less cost;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(III)C) the new estimates of the program acquisition unit cost or procurement unit cost are reasonable;‘(IVhave been determined by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to be reasonable;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(D) the program is a higher priority than programs whose funding must be reduced to accommodate cost growth on suchthe growth in cost of the program; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(VE) the management structure for the program is adequate to manage and control program acquisition unit cost or procurement unit cost; and‘(ii).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(3) A written certification under paragraph (2) shall be accompanied by a report presenting the root cause analysis and assessment carried out pursuant to subsection (a) and the basis for each determination made in accordance with subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (2), together with supporting documentation.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(c) Actions if Program Not Terminated- (1) If the Secretary elects not to terminate a major defense acquisition program pursuant to subsection (b), the Secretary shall--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(A) restructure the program in a manner that addresses the root cause or causes of the critical cost growth, as identified pursuant to subsection (a), and ensures that the program has an appropriate management structure as set forth in the certification submitted pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(E);CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(B) rescind the most recent milestone decision is revisited and results in the approval of such restructured programMilestone approval, or Key Decision Point approval in the case of a space program, for the program and withdraw any associated certification under section 2366a or 2366b of this title;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(C) require a new Milestone approval, or Key Decision Point approval in the case of a space program, for the program before taking any contract action to enter a new contract, exercise an option under an existing contract, or otherwise extend the scope of an existing contract under the program, except to the extent determined necessary by the Milestone Decision Authority, on a non-delegable basis, to ensure that the program can be restructured as intended by the Secretary without unnecessarily wasting resources;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(D) include in the report specified in paragraph (2) a description of all funding changes made as a result of the growth in cost of the program, including reductions made in funding for other programs to accommodate such cost growth; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(E) conduct regular reviews of the program in accordance with the requirements of section 205 of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)(D), the report specified in this paragraph is the first Selected Acquisition Report for the program submitted pursuant to section 2432 of this title after the President submits a budget pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, in the calendar year following the year in which the program was restructured.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(d) Actions if Program Terminated- If a major defense acquisition program is terminated pursuant to subsection (b), the Secretary shall submit to Congress a written report setting forth--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(1) an explanation of the reasons for terminating the program;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(2) the alternatives considered to address any problems in the program; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(3) the course the Department plans to pursue to meet any continuing joint military requirements otherwise intended to be met by the program.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 144 of such title is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2433 the following new item:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘2433a. Critical cost growth in major defense acquisition programs.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Paragraph (2) of section 2433(e) of such title 10 is amended to read as follows:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(2) If the program acquisition unit cost or procurement unit cost of a major defense acquisition program or designated major subprogram (as determined by the Secretary under subsection (d)) increases by a percentage equal to or greater than the critical cost growth threshold for the program or subprogram, the Secretary of Defense shall take actions consistent with the requirements of section 2433a of this title.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(b) Total Expenditure for Procurement Resulting in Treatment as Major Defense Acquisition ProgramDAP- Section 2430(a)(2) of such title is amended of such title is amended--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting ‘, including all planned increments or spirals,’ after ‘an eventual total expenditure for procurement’.

(c) Requirement To Include Cost Growth Funding Changes in Report- When a program is restructured under paragraph (2) ofsection 2433(e) of title 10, United States Code, the next Selected Acquisition Report for such program submitted pursuant to section 2432 of such title occurring after the submission of the budget for the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the program was restructured shall contain a description of all funding changes included in the budget for that fiscal year as a result of the cost growth on such program, including reductions made in the budgets of other programs to accommodate such cost growth.

(d) Conforming Amendments- Section 2433(e)(3) of such title is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘or (2)(B)’ and inserting ‘or (2)(A)(iii)’; and

(2) in subparagraph (B)--

(A) by striking ‘or (2)(B)’ and inserting ‘or (2)(A)(iii)’; and

(B) by striking ‘paragraph (2)(A)’ and inserting ‘paragraph (2)(B); andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink




(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(c) For purposes of subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall consider, as applicable, the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(1) The estimated level of resources required to fulfill the relevant joint military requirement, as determined by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council pursuant to section 181 of this title.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(2) The cost estimate referred to in section 2366a(a)(4) of this title.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(3) The cost estimate referred to in section 2366b(a)(1)(C) of this title.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(4) The cost estimate within a baseline description as required by section 2435 of this title.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 2057. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN THE ACQUISITION OF MAJOR WEAPON SYSTEDEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(a) Requirement for Panel To Present Recommendations- Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Panel on Contracting Integrity established pursuant to section 813 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364; 120 Stat. 2320) shall present recommendations to the Secretary of Defense on measures to eliminate or mitigate organizational conflicts of interest in the acquisition of major weapons systems.(b) Revised Regulations Required- Not later than 180 days after receiving recommendations pursuant to subsection (a)270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall revise the Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to address provide uniform guidance and tighten existing requirements for organizational conflicts of interest by contractors in the acquisition of major weapon systems.(c) Potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest- Themajor defense acquisition programs.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(b) Elements- The revised regulations required by subsection (a) shall, at a minimum--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) address organizational conflicts of interest considered during the preparation of the recommendations required pursuant to subsection (a) shall include conflicts that could arise as a result of any of the following:(1) L--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) lead system integrator contracts on major defense acquisition programs and contracts that follow lead system integrator contracts on such programs, particularly contracts for production.(2) T;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) the ownership of business units performing systems engineering and technical assistance functions, professional services, or management support services in relation to major defense acquisition programs by contractors who simultaneously own business units competing to perform as either the prime contractor or the supplier of a major subsystem or component for such programs.(3) T;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(C) the award of major subsystem contracts by a prime contractor for a major defense acquisition program to business units or other affiliates of the same parent corporate entity, and particularly the award of subcontracts for software integration or the development of a proprietary software system architecture.(4) T; orCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(D) the performance by, or assistance of, contractors in technical evaluations on major defense acquisition programs.(d) Extension of;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) ensure that the Department of Defense receives advice on systems architecture and systems engineering matters with respect to major defense acquisition programs from federally funded research and development centers or other sources independent of the prime contractor;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) require that a contract for the performance of systems engineering and technical assistance functions for a major defense acquisition program contains a provision prohibiting the contractor or any affiliate of the contractor from participating as a prime contractor or a major subcontractor in the development or construction of a weapon system under the program; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(4) establish such limited exceptions to the requirement in paragraphs (2) and (3) as may be necessary to ensure that the Department of Defense has continued access to advice on systems architecture and systems engineering matters from highly-qualified contractors with domain experience and expertise, while ensuring that such advice comes from sources that are objective and unbiased.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(c) Consultation in Revision of Regulations-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) RECOMMENDATIONS OF PANEL ON CONTRACTING INTEGRITY- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Panel on Contracting Integrity- Subsection (e) of section established pursuant to section 813 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364; 120 Stat. 2321)0) shall present recommendations to the Secretary of Defense on measures to eliminate or mitigate organizational conflicts of interest in major defense acquisition programs.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS- In developing the revised regulations required by subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) The recommendations presented by the Panel on Contracting Integrity pursuant to paragraph (1).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) Any findings and recommendations of the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy and the Director of the Office of Government Ethics pursuant to section 841(b) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417; 122 Stat. 4539).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(d) Extension of Panel on Contracting Integrity- Subsection (e) of section 813 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 is amended to read as follows:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(e) Termination-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) Subject to the restriction in‘(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraph (2), the panel shall continue to serve until the date that is 18 months after the date on which the Secretary of Defense notifies the congressional defense committees of an intention to terminate the panel based on a determination that the activities of the panel no longer justify its continuation and that concerns about contracting integrity have been fully mitigated.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(2) MINIMUM CONTINUING SERVICE- The panel shall continue to serve at least until December 31, 2011.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 206 TITLE III--ADDITIONAL ACQUISITION PROVISIONS CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 301. AWARDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL FOR EXCELLENCE IN THE ACQUISITION OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(a) In General- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall commence carrying out a program to recognize excellent performance by individuals and teams of members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel of the Department of Defense in the acquisition of products and services for the Department of Defense.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(b) Elements- The program required by subsection (a) shall include the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) Procedures for the nomination by the personnel of the military departments and the Defense Agencies of individuals and teams of members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel of the Department of Defense for eligibility for recognition under the program.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) Procedures for the evaluation of nominations for recognition under the program by one or more panels of individuals from the Government, academia, and the private sector who have such expertise, and are appointed in such manner, as the Secretary shall establish for purposes of the program.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(c) Award of Cash Bonuses- As part of the program required by subsection (a), the Secretary may award to any individual recognized pursuant to the program a cash bonus authorized by any other provision of law to the extent that the performance of such individual so recognized warrants the award of such bonus under such provision of law.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

SEC. 207. CONSIDERATION OF TRADE-OFFS AMONG COST, SCHEDULE, AND PERFORMANCE IN THE ACQUISITION OF MAJOR WEAPON SYSTEMS.

(a) Review of Mechanisms for Considering Trade-Offs- The Comptroller General shall review the use by the Department of Defense of certain mechanisms for considering trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance in the acquisition of major weapon systems.

(b) Mechanisms Included- The mechanisms reviewed pursuant to subsection302. EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(a) shall include--

(1) the Tri-Chair Committee, as defined in section 817 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 225);

(2) Configuration Steering Boards as established pursuant to section 814Modification of Elements in Report on Implementation- Subsection (a) of section 887 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417; 122 Stat. 4528);(3) any mechanism that is used or that may potentially be used by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) for considering trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance in the acquisition of major62) is amended by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following new paragraphs:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink




‘(7) A discussion of the methodology used to establish appropriate baselines for earned value management at the award of a contract or commencement of a program, whichever is earlier.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(8) A discussion of the manner in which the Department ensures that personnel responsible for administering and overseeing earned value management systems have the training and qualifications needed to perform that responsibility.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(9) A discussion of mechanisms to ensure that contractors establish and use approved earned value management systems, including mechanisms such as the consideration of the quality of contractor earned value management performance in past performance evaluations.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(10) Recommendations for improving earned value management and its implementation within the Department, including--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(A) a discussion of the merits of possible alternatives; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





‘(B) a plan for implementing any improvements the Secretary determines to be appropriate.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(b) Modification of Report Date- Subsection (b) of such section is amended by striking ‘270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act’ and inserting ‘October 14, 2009’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(a) Review of Operating and Support Costs of Major Weapon Systems-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on growth in operating and support costs for major weapon systems.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) ELEMENTS- In preparing the report required by paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall, at a minimum--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) identify the original estimates for operating and support costs for major weapon systems selected by the Comptroller General for purposes of the report;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) assess the actual operating and support costs for such major weapon systems;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(C) analyze the rate of growth for operating and support costs for such major weapon systems;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(D) for such major weapon systems that have experienced the highest rate of growth in operating and support costs, assess the factors contributing to such growth;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(E) assess measures taken by the Department of Defense to reduce operating and support costs for major weapon systems; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(4) any otherF) make such recommendations as the Comptroller General considers appropriate.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(b) Review of Financial Information Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(1) REVIEW- The Comptroller General of the United States shall perform a review of weaknesses in operations affecting the reliability of financial information on the systems and assets to be acquired under major defense acquisition programs.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(2) ELEMENTS- The review required under paragraph (1) shall--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) identify any weaknesses in operations under major defense acquisition programs that hinder the capacity to assemble reliable financial information on the systems and assets to be acquired under such programs in accordance with applicable accounting standards;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) identify any mechanisms identified as allowing for the consideration of trade-offs in the report on investment strategies fodeveloped by the Department of Defense to address weaknesses in operations under major defense acquisition programs required by section 817 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181).(c) Assessment of Mechanisms- The review shall describe and evaluate the effectivenessidentified pursuant to subparagraph (A); andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(C) assess the implementation of the mechanisms identified in subsection (b).(d) Reportset forth pursuant to subparagraph (B), including--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(i) the actions taken, or planned to be taken, to implement such mechanisms;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(ii) the schedule for carrying out such mechanisms; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(iii) the metrics, if any, instituted to assess progress in carrying out such mechanisms.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(3) CONSULTATION- In performing the review required by paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall seek and consider input from each of the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(A) The Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(B) The Chief Management Officer of the Department of the Army.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(C) The Chief Management Officer of the Department of the Navy.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(D) The Chief Management Officer of the Department of the Air Force.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink





(4) REPORT- Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the review and assessment performed pursuant to this section. The report shall include such recommendations as the Comptroller General considers appropriate on the matters reviewed, including recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the mechanisms included in the report.

Attest:

Clerk.

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 454

AMENDMENT

sults of the review required by paragraph (1).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink