[House Report 111-124]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 111-124
======================================================================
WEAPON SYSTEMS ACQUISTION REFORM ACT OF 2009
_______
May 20, 2009.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Skelton, from the committee on conference,
submitted the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany S. 454]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S.
454), to improve the organization and procedures of the
Department of Defense for the acquisition of major weapon
systems, and for other purposes, having met, after full and
free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to
their respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the House and agree to the same with an amendment
as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the
House amendment, insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Weapon
Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
TITLE I--ACQUISITION ORGANIZATION
Sec. 101. Cost assessment and program evaluation.
Sec. 102. Directors of Developmental Test and Evaluation and Systems
Engineering.
Sec. 103. Performance assessments and root cause analyses for major
defense acquisition programs.
Sec. 104. Assessment of technological maturity of critical technologies
of major defense acquisition programs by the Director of
Defense Research and Engineering.
Sec. 105. Role of the commanders of the combatant commands in
identifying joint military requirements.
TITLE II--ACQUISITION POLICY
Sec. 201. Consideration of trade-offs among cost, schedule, and
performance objectives in Department of Defense acquisition
programs.
Sec. 202. Acquisition strategies to ensure competition throughout the
lifecycle of major defense acquisition programs.
Sec. 203. Prototyping requirements for major defense acquisition
programs.
Sec. 204. Actions to identify and address systemic problems in major
defense acquisition programs prior to Milestone B approval.
Sec. 205. Additional requirements for certain major defense acquisition
programs.
Sec. 206. Critical cost growth in major defense acquisition programs.
Sec. 207. Organizational conflicts of interest in major defense
acquisition programs.
TITLE III--ADDITIONAL ACQUISITION PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Awards for Department of Defense personnel for excellence in
the acquisition of products and services.
Sec. 302. Earned value management.
Sec. 303. Expansion of national security objectives of the national
technology and industrial base.
Sec. 304. Comptroller General of the United States reports on costs and
financial information regarding major defense acquisition
programs.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) The term ``congressional defense committees''
has the meaning given that term in section 101(a)(16)
of title 10, United States Code.
(2) The term ``major defense acquisition program''
has the meaning given that term in section 2430 of
title 10, United States Code.
(3) The term ``major weapon system'' has the
meaning given that term in section 2379(d) of title 10,
United States Code.
TITLE I--ACQUISITION ORGANIZATION
SEC. 101. COST ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM EVALUATION.
(a) Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 4 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after section 139b
the following new section:
``Sec. 139c. Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation
``(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.
``(b) Independent Advice to Secretary of Defense.--(1) The
Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation is the
principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense and other senior
officials of the Department of Defense, and shall provide
independent analysis and advice to such officials, on the
following matters:
``(A) Matters assigned to the Director pursuant to
this section and section 2334 of this title.
``(B) Matters assigned to the Director by the
Secretary pursuant to section 113 of this title.
``(2) The Director may communicate 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.
``(c) Deputy Directors.--There are two Deputy Directors
within the Office of the Director of Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation, as follows:
``(1) The Deputy Director for Cost Assessment.
``(2) The Deputy Director for Program Evaluation.
``(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:
``(1) Cost estimation and cost analysis for
acquisition programs of the Department of Defense, and
carrying out the duties assigned pursuant to section
2334 of this title.
``(2) Analysis and advice on matters relating to
the planning 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).
``(3) Analysis and advice for resource discussions
relating to requirements under consideration in the
Joint Requirements Oversight Council pursuant to
section 181 of this title.
``(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 Defense
``(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.
``(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.
``(7) Assessments of alternative plans, programs,
and policies with respect to the acquisition programs
of the Department of Defense.
``(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.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at
the beginning of chapter 4 of such title is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 139b the
following new item:
``139c. Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation.''.
(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:
``Director of Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation, Department of Defense.''.
(b) Independent Cost Estimation and Cost Analysis.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 137 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 2334. Independent cost estimation and cost analysis
``(a) In General.--The Director of Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation shall ensure that the cost estimation and
cost analysis processes 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--
``(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) 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 a major defense
acquisition program under chapter 144 of this title or
a major automated information system program under
chapter 144A of this title;
``(3) issue guidance relating to the proper
selection of confidence levels in cost estimates
generally, and specifically, for the proper selection
of confidence levels in cost estimates for major
defense acquisition programs and major automated
information system programs;
``(4) issue guidance relating to full consideration
of life-cycle management and sustainability costs in
major defense acquisition programs and major automated
information system programs;
``(5) review all cost estimates and cost analyses
conducted in connection with major defense acquisition
programs and major automated information system
programs;
``(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--
``(A) in advance of--
``(i) any certification under
section 2366a or 2366b of this title;
``(ii) any decision to enter into
low-rate initial production or full-
rate production;
``(iii) any certification under
section 2433a of this title; and
``(iv) any report under section
2445c(f) of this title; and
``(B) at any other time considered
appropriate by the Director or upon the request
of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and
``(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.
``(b) Review of Cost Estimates, Cost Analyses, and Records
of the Military Departments and Defense Agencies.--The
Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Director of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation--
``(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 system programs of the
military departments and Defense Agencies; and
``(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) that
the Director considers necessary to review in order to
carry out any duties under this section.
``(c) Participation, Concurrence, and Approval in Cost
Estimation.--The Director of Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation may--
``(1) 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 program of the Department
of Defense;
``(2) 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 program;
``(3) concur in the choice of a cost estimate
within the baseline description or any other cost
estimate (including the confidence level for any such
cost estimate) for use at any event specified in
subsection (a)(6); and
``(4) participate in the consideration of any
decision to request authorization of a multiyear
procurement contract for a major defense acquisition
program.
``(d) Disclosure of Confidence Levels for Baseline
Estimates of Major Defense Acquisition Programs.--The Director
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--
``(1) disclose in accordance with paragraph (2) the
confidence level used in establishing a 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; and
``(2) include the disclosure required by paragraph
(1)--
``(A) in any decision documentation
approving a cost estimate within the baseline
description or any other cost estimate for use
at any event specified in subsection (a)(6);
and
``(B) in the next Selected Acquisition
Report pursuant to section 2432 of this title
in the case of a major defense acquisition
program, or the next quarterly report pursuant
to section 2445c of this title in the case of a
major automated information system program.
``(e) Annual Report 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 previous 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--
``(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;
``(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; and
``(C) any consistent differences in methodology or
approach among the cost estimates prepared by the
military departments, the Defense Agencies, and the
Director.
``(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).
``(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.
``(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.
``(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.
``(4) The Secretary of Defense may comment on any report of
the Director to the congressional defense committees under this
subsection.
``(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.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at
the beginning of chapter 137 of such title is amended
by adding at the end the following new item:
``2334. Independent cost estimation and cost analysis.''.
(c) Transfer of Personnel and Functions.--
(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.
(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.
(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.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(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''.
(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''.
(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''.
(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''.
(5) Subparagraph (A) of section 2434(b)(1) of such
title is amended to read as follows:
``(A) be prepared or approved by the Director of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation; and''.
(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''.
(e) Report on Monitoring of Operating and Support Costs for
Major Defense Acquisition Programs.--
(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.
(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.
SEC. 102. DIRECTORS OF DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION AND SYSTEMS
ENGINEERING.
(a) In General.--
(1) Establishment of positions.--Chapter 4 of title
10, United States Code, as amended by section 101(a) of
this Act, is further amended by inserting after section
139c the following new section:
``Sec. 139d. Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation; Director of
Systems Engineering: joint guidance
``(a) Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation.--
``(1) Appointment.--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.
``(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.
``(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.
``(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.
``(5) Duties.--The Director shall--
``(A) develop policies and guidance for--
``(i) the conduct of developmental
test and evaluation in the Department
of Defense (including integration and
developmental testing of software);
``(ii) in coordination with the
Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation, the integration of
developmental test and evaluation with
operational test and evaluation;
``(iii) the conduct of
developmental test and evaluation
conducted jointly by more than one
military department or Defense Agency;
``(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;
``(C) monitor and review the developmental
test and evaluation activities of the major
defense acquisition programs;
``(D) provide advocacy, oversight, and
guidance to elements of the acquisition
workforce responsible for developmental test
and evaluation;
``(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;
and
``(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.
``(6) Access to records.--The Secretary of Defense
shall ensure that the Director has access to all
records 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.
``(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.
``(b) Director of Systems Engineering.--
``(1) Appointment.--There is a Director of Systems
Engineering, who shall be appointed by the Secretary of
Defense from among individuals with an expertise in
systems engineering and development planning.
``(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.
``(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.
``(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.
``(5) Duties.--The Director shall--
``(A) develop policies and guidance for--
``(i) the use of systems
engineering principles and best
practices, generally;
``(ii) the use of systems
engineering approaches to enhance
reliability, availability, and
maintainability on major defense
acquisition programs;
``(iii) the development of systems
engineering master plans for major
defense acquisition programs including
systems engineering considerations in
support of lifecycle management and
sustainability; and
``(iv) the inclusion of provisions
relating to systems engineering and
reliability growth in requests for
proposals;
``(B) review and approve the systems
engineering master plan for each major defense
acquisition program;
``(C) monitor and review the systems
engineering and development planning activities
of the major defense acquisition programs;
``(D) provide advocacy, oversight, and
guidance to elements of the acquisition
workforce responsible for systems engineering,
development planning, and lifecycle management
and sustainability functions;
``(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 to section 181 of
this title, including specific input relating
to each capabilities development document;
``(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; and
``(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.
``(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
Director considers necessary to review in order to
carry out the Director's duties under this subsection.
``(c) Joint Annual Report.--Not later than March 31 each
year, beginning in 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 subsections (a) and
(b) during the preceding year. Each report shall include a
section on activities relating to the major defense acquisition
programs which shall set forth, at a minimum, the following:
``(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.
``(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.
``(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.
``(4) Any comments on such report that the
Secretary of Defense considers appropriate.
``(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:
``(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.
``(2) The use of developmental test and evaluation
to measure the achievement of specific performance
objectives within a systems engineering master plan.
``(3) A system for storing and tracking information
relating to the achievement of the performance criteria
and objectives specified pursuant to this subsection.
``(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.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at
the beginning of chapter 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:
``139d. Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation; Director of
Systems Engineering: joint guidance.''.
(b) Developmental Test and Evaluation and Systems
Engineering in the Military Departments and Defense Agencies.--
(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:
(A) Developmental testing organizations
with adequate numbers of trained personnel in
order to--
(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;
(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; and
(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.
(B) Development planning and systems
engineering organizations with adequate numbers
of trained personnel in order to--
(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;
(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; and
(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.
(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--
(A) such military department or Defense
Agency has implemented, or is implementing, the
plan required by paragraph (1); and
(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.
(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).
SEC. 103. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS AND ROOT CAUSE ANALYSES FOR MAJOR
DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.
(a) Designation of Senior Official Responsibility for
Performance Assessments and Root Cause Analyses.--
(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.
(2) No program execution responsibility.--The
Secretary shall ensure that the senior official
designated under paragraph (1) is not responsible for
program execution.
(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.
(b) Responsibilities.--The senior official designated under
subsection (a) shall be responsible for the following:
(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.
(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.
(3) Issuing policies, procedures, and guidance
governing the conduct of performance assessments and
root cause analyses by the military departments and the
Defense Agencies.
(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 as the
official considers appropriate to improve such metrics.
(5) Advising acquisition officials on performance
issues regarding a major defense acquisition program
that may arise--
(A) prior to certification under section
2433a of title 10, United States Code (as so
added);
(B) prior to entry into full-rate
production; or
(C) in the course of consideration of any
decision to request authorization of a
multiyear procurement contract for the program.
(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:
(1) The cost, schedule, and performance of the
program, relative to current metrics, including
performance requirements and baseline descriptions.
(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.
(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--
(1) unrealistic performance expectations;
(2) unrealistic baseline estimates for cost or
schedule;
(3) immature technologies or excessive
manufacturing or integration risk;
(4) unanticipated design, engineering,
manufacturing, or technology integration issues arising
during program performance;
(5) changes in procurement quantities;
(6) inadequate program funding or funding
instability;
(7) poor performance by government or contractor
personnel responsible for program management; or
(8) any other matters.
(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.
(f) Annual Report.--Not later than March 1 each year,
beginning 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 under this section during the preceding year.
SEC. 104. ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGICAL MATURITY OF CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES
OF MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS BY THE
DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING.
(a) Assessment by Director of Defense Research and
Engineering.--
(1) In general.--Section 139a of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(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.
``(2) The Director shall submit to the Secretary of Defense
and to the congressional defense committees by March 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.''.
(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, 2010, 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.
(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:
(1) The requirements under the amendment made by
subsection (a)(1).
(2) The technological maturity assessments required
by section 2366b(a) of title 10, United States Code.
(3) The requirements of Department of Defense
Instruction 5000, as revised.
(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).
SEC. 105. ROLE OF THE COMMANDERS OF THE COMBATANT COMMANDS IN
IDENTIFYING JOINT MILITARY REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 181(d) of title 10, United States
Code, as amended by section 101(d) of this Act, is further
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Under
Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(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).''.
(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:
(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.
(2) The necessity and sufficiency of a proposed
joint military requirement in terms of current and
projected missions or threats.
(3) The relative priority of a proposed joint
military requirement in comparison with other joint
military requirements within the theater of operations
of the commander of a combatant command.
(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.
(c) Comptroller General of the United States Review of
Implementation.--
(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--
(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;
(B) the amendments to subsection (b) of
section 181 of title 10, United States Code,
made by section 942 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public
Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 287) and by section
201(b) of this Act; and
(C) the requirements of section 201(c) of
this Act.
(2) Matters covered.--The report shall include, at
a minimum, an assessment of--
(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;
(B) the quality and effectiveness of
efforts to estimate the level of resources
needed to fulfill joint military requirements;
and
(C) the extent to which the Council has
considered trade-offs among cost, schedule, and
performance objectives.
TITLE II--ACQUISITION POLICY
SEC. 201. CONSIDERATION OF TRADE-OFFS AMONG COST, SCHEDULE, AND
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES IN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.
(a) Consideration of Trade-Offs.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall
ensure that mechanisms are developed and implemented to
require consideration of trade-offs among cost,
schedule, and performance objectives as part of the
process for developing requirements for Department of
Defense acquisition programs.
(2) Elements.--The mechanisms required under this
subsection shall ensure, at a minimum, that--
(A) Department of Defense officials
responsible for acquisition, budget, and cost
estimating functions are provided an
appropriate opportunity to develop estimates
and raise cost and schedule matters before
performance objectives are established for
capabilities for which the Chairman of the
Joint Requirements Oversight Council is the
validation authority; and
(B) the process for developing requirements
is structured to enable incremental,
evolutionary, or spiral acquisition approaches,
including the deferral of technologies that are
not yet mature and capabilities that are likely
to significantly increase costs or delay
production until later increments or spirals.
(b) Duties of Joint Requirements Oversight Council.--
Section 181(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of
subparagraph (A);
(B) by inserting ``and'' at the end of
subparagraph (B) after the semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) in ensuring the consideration of
trade-offs among cost, schedule, and
performance objectives for joint military
requirements in consultation with the advisors
specified in subsection (d);''.
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by inserting ``, in consultation with
the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller),
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics, and the Director of
Cost Assessment and Performance Evaluation,''
after ``assist the Chairman''; and
(B) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon
at the end;
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(5) assist the Chairman, in consultation with the
commanders of the combatant commands and the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, in establishing an objective for the overall
period of time within which an initial operational
capability should be delivered to meet each joint
military requirement.''.
(c) Review of Joint Military Requirements.--The Secretary
of Defense shall ensure that each new joint military
requirement recommended by the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council is reviewed to ensure that the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council has, in making such recommendation--
(1) taken appropriate action to seek and consider
input from the commanders of the combatant commands, in
accordance with the requirements of section 181(d) of
title 10, United States Code (as amended by section
105(a) of this Act);
(2) engaged in consideration of trade-offs among
cost, schedule, and performance objectives in
accordance with the requirements of section
181(b)(1)(C) of title 10, United States Code (as added
by subsection (b)); and
(3) engaged in consideration of issues of joint
portfolio management, including alternative material
and non-material solutions, as provided in Department
of Defense instructions for the development of joint
military requirements.
(d) Study Guidance for Analyses of Alternatives.--The
Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shall take
the lead in the development of study guidance for an analysis
of alternatives for each joint military requirement for which
the Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council is the
validation authority. In developing the guidance, the Director
shall solicit the advice of appropriate officials within the
Department of Defense and ensure that the guidance requires, at
a minimum--
(1) full consideration of possible trade-offs among
cost, schedule, and performance objectives for each
alternative considered; and
(2) an assessment of whether or not the joint
military requirement can be met in a manner that is
consistent with the cost and schedule objectives
recommended by the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council.
(e) Analysis of Alternatives in Certification for Milestone
A.--Section 2366a(a) of title 10, United States Code, as
amended by section 101(d)(3) of this Act, is further amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph
(3);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph
(5); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following
new paragraph (4):
``(4) that an analysis of alternatives has been
performed consistent with study guidance developed by
the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation;
and''.
(f) Duties of Milestone Decision Authority.--Section
2366b(a)(1)(B) of such title is amended by inserting
``appropriate trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance
objectives have been made to ensure that'' before ``the program
is affordable''.
SEC. 202. ACQUISITION STRATEGIES TO ENSURE COMPETITION THROUGHOUT THE
LIFECYCLE OF MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.
(a) Acquisition Strategies To Ensure Competition.--The
Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the acquisition strategy
for each major defense acquisition program includes--
(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; and
(2) adequate documentation of the rationale for the
selection of the subcontract tier or tiers under
paragraph (1).
(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:
(1) Competitive prototyping.
(2) Dual-sourcing.
(3) Unbundling of contracts.
(4) Funding of next-generation prototype systems or
subsystems.
(5) Use of modular, open architectures to enable
competition for upgrades.
(6) Use of build-to-print approaches to enable
production through multiple sources.
(7) Acquisition of complete technical data
packages.
(8) Periodic competitions for subsystem upgrades.
(9) Licensing of additional suppliers.
(10) Periodic system or program reviews to address
long-term competitive effects of program decisions.
(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--
(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;
(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; and
(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.
(d) Consideration of Competition Throughout Operation and
Sustainment of Major 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).
(e) Applicability.--
(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.
(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.
SEC. 203. PROTOTYPING REQUIREMENTS FOR MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION
PROGRAMS.
(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
competitive prototyping for major defense acquisition programs
to ensure the following:
(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).
(2) That the Milestone Decision Authority may waive
the requirement in paragraph (1) only--
(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; or
(B) on the basis that, but for such waiver,
the Department would be unable to meet critical
national security objectives.
(3) That whenever a Milestone Decision Authority
authorizes a waiver pursuant to paragraph (2), the
Milestone Decision Authority--
(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; and
(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.
(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.
(b) Comptroller General Review of Certain Waivers.--
(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.
(2) Comptroller general review.--Not later than 60
days after receipt of a notification of a waiver under
paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall--
(A) review the rationale for the waiver;
and
(B) submit to the congressional defense
committees a written assessment of the
rationale for the waiver.
SEC. 204. ACTIONS TO IDENTIFY AND ADDRESS SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS IN MAJOR
DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS PRIOR TO MILESTONE B
APPROVAL.
(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,''.
(b) Modification to Notification Requirement.--Subsection
(b) of such section is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``With respect
to'';
(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,''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(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--
``(A) identifies the root causes of the cost or
schedule growth in accordance with applicable policies,
procedures, and guidance;
``(B) identifies appropriate acquisition
performance measures for the remainder of the
development of the program; and
``(C) includes one of the following:
``(i) A written certification (with a
supporting explanation) stating that--
``(I) the program is essential to
national security;
``(II) there are no alternatives to
the program that will provide
acceptable military capability at less
cost;
``(III) new estimates of the
development cost or schedule, as
appropriate, are reasonable; and
``(IV) the management structure for
the program is adequate to manage and
control program development 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.''.
(c) Application to Ongoing Programs.--
(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.
(2) Covered programs.--The requirement in paragraph
(1) shall apply to any major defense acquisition
program that--
(A) was initiated before the date of the
enactment of this Act; and
(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.
SEC. 205. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION
PROGRAMS.
(a) Additional Requirements Relating to Milestone B
Approval.--Section 2366b of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subsection (d)--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The
milestone decision authority may''; and
(B) by striking the second sentence and
inserting the following:
``(2) Whenever the milestone decision authority makes such
a determination and authorizes such a waiver--
``(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; and
``(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.'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as
subsections (f) and (g), respectively, and inserting
after subsection (d) the following new subsection (e):
``(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 such certification
components.''; and
(3) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and''
at the end;
(B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as
paragraph (3);
(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the
following new paragraph (2):
``(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;
and''; and
(D) in paragraph (3), as redesignated by
subparagraph (B) of this paragraph--
(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'';
(ii) by striking subparagraph (E);
and
(iii) by redesignating subparagraph
(F) as subparagraph (E).
(b) Certification and Review of Programs Entering
Development Prior To Enactment of Section 2366b of Title 10.--
(1) Determination.--Not later than 270 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, for each major
defense acquisition program that received Milestone B
approval before January 6, 2006, and has not received
Milestone C approval, and for each space program that
received Key Decision Point B approval before January
6, 2006, and has not received Key Decision Point C
approval, the Milestone Decision Authority shall
determine whether or not such program satisfies all of
the certification components specified in paragraphs
(1) and (2) of subsection (a) of section 2366b of title
10, United States Code (as amended by subsection (a) of
this section).
(2) Annual review.--The Milestone Decision
Authority shall review any program determined pursuant
to paragraph (1) not to satisfy 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
such certification components until such time as the
Milestone Decision Authority determines that such
program satisfies all such certification components.
(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 all 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 such
certification components.
(c) Reviews of Programs Restructured After Experiencing
Critical Cost Growth.--The official designated to perform
oversight of performance assessment pursuant to section 103 of
this Act, shall assess 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 terminated 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 under 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 designated official.
SEC. 206. CRITICAL COST GROWTH IN MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.
(a) Actions Following Critical Cost Growth.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 144 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2433
the following new section:
``Sec. 2433a. Critical cost growth in major defense acquisition
programs
``(a) Reassessment of Program.--If the program acquisition
unit cost or procurement unit cost of a major defense
acquisition program or designated subprogram (as determined by
the Secretary under section 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--
``(1) determine the root cause or causes of the
critical cost growth in accordance with applicable
statutory requirements and Department of Defense
policies, procedures, and guidance; and
``(2) in consultation with the Director of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation, carry out an
assessment of--
``(A) the projected cost of completing the
program if current requirements are not
modified;
``(B) the projected cost of completing the
program based on reasonable modification of
such requirements;
``(C) the rough order of magnitude of the
costs of any reasonable alternative system or
capability; and
``(D) the need to reduce funding for other
programs due to the growth in cost of the
program.
``(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
section 2433(g) of this title is required to be submitted under
section 2432(f) of this title, a written certification in
accordance with paragraph (2).
``(2) A certification described by this paragraph with
respect to a major defense acquisition program is a written
certification that--
``(A) the continuation of the program is essential
to the national security;
``(B) there are no alternatives to the program
which will provide acceptable capability to meet the
joint military requirement (as defined in section
181(g)((1) of this title) at less cost;
``(C) the new estimates of the program acquisition
unit cost or procurement unit cost have been determined
by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation to be reasonable;
``(D) the program is a higher priority than
programs whose funding must be reduced to accommodate
the growth in cost of the program; and
``(E) the management structure for the program is
adequate to manage and control program acquisition unit
cost or procurement unit cost.
``(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.
``(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--
``(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);
``(B) rescind the most recent Milestone 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;
``(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;
``(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; and
``(E) conduct regular reviews of the program in
accordance with the requirements of section 205 of the
Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009.
``(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.
``(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--
``(1) an explanation of the reasons for terminating
the program;
``(2) the alternatives considered to address any
problems in the program; and
``(3) the course the Department plans to pursue to
meet any continuing joint military requirements
otherwise intended to be met by the program.''.
(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:
``2433a. Critical cost growth in major defense acquisition programs.''.
(3) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (2) of section
2433(e) of such title 10 is amended to read as follows:
``(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.''.
(b) Treatment as MDAP.--Section 2430 of such title is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting ``,
including all planned increments or spirals,'' after
``an eventual total expenditure for procurement''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(c) For purposes of subsection (a)(2), the Secretary
shall consider, as applicable, the following:
``(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.
``(2) The cost estimate referred to in section
2366a(a)(4) of this title.
``(3) The cost estimate referred to in section
2366b(a)(1)(C) of this title.
``(4) The cost estimate within a baseline
description as required by section 2435 of this
title.''.
SEC. 207. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN MAJOR DEFENSE
ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.
(a) Revised Regulations Required.--Not later than 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 provide uniform guidance and tighten
existing requirements for organizational conflicts of interest
by contractors in major defense acquisition programs.
(b) Elements.--The revised regulations required by
subsection (a) shall, at a minimum--
(1) address organizational conflicts of interest
that could arise as a result of--
(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;
(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;
(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; or
(D) the performance by, or assistance of,
contractors in technical evaluations on major
defense acquisition programs;
(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;
(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;
and
(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.
(c) Consultation in Revision of Regulations.--
(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 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 major defense
acquisition programs.
(2) Consideration of recommendations.--In
developing the revised regulations required by
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider the
following:
(A) The recommendations presented by the
Panel on Contracting Integrity pursuant to
paragraph (1).
(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).
(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:
``(e) Termination.--
``(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 mitigated.
``(2) Minimum continuing service.--The panel shall
continue to serve at least until December 31, 2011.''.
TITLE III--ADDITIONAL ACQUISITION PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. AWARDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL FOR EXCELLENCE IN
THE ACQUISITION OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.
(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.
(b) Elements.--The program required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(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.
(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.
(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.
SEC. 302. EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT.
(a) Modification 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. 4562) is amended by striking paragraph (7) and
inserting the following new paragraphs:
``(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.
``(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.
``(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.
``(10) Recommendations for improving earned value
management and its implementation within the
Department, including--
``(A) a discussion of the merits of
possible alternatives; and
``(B) a plan for implementing any
improvements the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.''.
(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''.
SEC. 303. EXPANSION OF NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES OF THE NATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL BASE.
(a) In General.--Section 2501(a) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(6) Maintaining critical design skills to ensure
that the armed forces are provided with systems capable
of ensuring technological superiority over potential
adversaries.''.
(b) Assessment of Effect of Termination of Major Defense
Acquisition Programs on Technology and Industrial
Capabilities.--Section 2505(b) of such title is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the
end;
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(4) consider the effects of the termination of
major defense acquisition programs (as the term is
defined in section 2430 of this title) in the previous
fiscal year on the sectors and capabilities in the
assessment.''.
SEC. 304. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES REPORTS ON COSTS AND
FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING MAJOR DEFENSE
ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.
(a) Review of Operating and Support Costs of Major Weapon
Systems.--
(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.
(2) Elements.--In preparing the report required by
paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall, at a
minimum--
(A) identify the original estimates for
operating and support costs for major weapon
systems selected by the Comptroller General for
purposes of the report;
(B) assess the actual operating and support
costs for such major weapon systems;
(C) analyze the rate of growth for
operating and support costs for such major
weapon systems;
(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;
(E) assess measures taken by the Department
of Defense to reduce operating and support
costs for major weapon systems; and
(F) make such recommendations as the
Comptroller General considers appropriate.
(b) Review of Financial Information Relating to Major
Defense Acquisition Programs.--
(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.
(2) Elements.--The review required under paragraph
(1) shall--
(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;
(B) identify any mechanisms developed by
the Department of Defense to address weaknesses
in operations under major defense acquisition
programs identified pursuant to subparagraph
(A); and
(C) assess the implementation of the
mechanisms set forth pursuant to subparagraph
(B), including--
(i) the actions taken, or planned
to be taken, to implement such
mechanisms;
(ii) the schedule for carrying out
such mechanisms; and
(iii) the metrics, if any,
instituted to assess progress in
carrying out such mechanisms.
(3) Consultation.--In performing the review
required by paragraph (1), the Comptroller General
shall seek and consider input from each of the
following:
(A) The Chief Management Officer of the
Department of Defense.
(B) The Chief Management Officer of the
Department of the Army.
(C) The Chief Management Officer of the
Department of the Navy.
(D) The Chief Management Officer of the
Department of the Air Force.
(4) Report.--Not later than one year after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a report
on the results of the review required by paragraph (1).
And the House agree to the same.
Ike Skelton,
John M. Spratt,
Solomon P. Ortiz,
Gene Taylor,
Neil Abercrombie,
Silvestre Reyes,
Vic Snyder,
Adam Smith,
Loretta Sanchez,
Mike McIntyre,
Ellen O. Tauscher,
Robert E. Andrews,
Susan A. Davis,
James R. Langevin,
Jim Cooper,
Brad Ellsworth,
Joe Sestak,
John M. McHugh,
Roscoe G. Bartlett,
Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,
Mac Thornberry,
Walter B. Jones,
W. Todd Akin,
J. Randy Forbes,
Jeff Miller,
Joe Wilson,
K. Michael Conaway,
Duncan Hunter,
Mike Coffman,
Managers on the Part of the House.
Carl Levin,
Edward M. Kennedy,
Robert C. Byrd,
Joseph Lieberman,
Jack Reed,
Daniel K. Akaka,
Bill Nelson,
Ben Nelson,
Evan Bayh,
Jim Webb,
Claire McCaskill,
Mark Udall,
Kay R. Hagan,
Mark Begich,
Roland W. Burris,
John McCain,
James M. Inhofe,
Jeff Sessions,
Saxby Chambliss,
Lindsey Graham,
John Thune,
Mel Martinez,
Roger F. Wicker,
Richard Burr,
David Vitter,
Susan Collins,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at
the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 454), to improve the
organization and procedures of the Department of Defense for
the acquisition of major weapon systems, and for other
purposes, submit the following joint statement to the House and
the Senate in explanation of the effect of the action agreed
upon by the managers and recommended in the accompanying
conference report:
The House amendment struck all of the Senate bill after
the enacting clause and inserted a substitute text.
The Senate recedes from its disagreement to the amendment
of the House with an amendment that is a substitute for the
Senate bill and the House amendment. The differences between
the Senate bill, the House amendment, and the substitute agreed
to in conference are noted below, except for clerical
corrections, conforming changes made necessary by agreements
reached by the conferees, and minor drafting and clarifying
changes.
TITLE I--ACQUISITION ORGANIZATION
Cost assessment and program evaluation (sec. 101)
The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 104) that
would establish a Director of Independent Cost Assessment in
the Department of Defense (DOD) to ensure that cost estimates
for major defense acquisition programs and major automated
information system programs are fair, reliable, and unbiased.
The House amendment contained a provision (sec. 102) that
would require the Secretary of Defense to designate an official
within the Office of the Secretary of Defense to perform this
function.
The House recedes with an amendment that would establish
a Director of Cost Assessment and Performance Evaluation, who
would be responsible for ensuring that cost estimates are fair,
reliable, and unbiased, and for performing program analysis and
evaluation functions currently performed by the Director of
Program Analysis and Evaluation. The provision would also
codify the cost estimating requirements from the Senate bill
and the House amendment in a new section 2334 of title 10,
United States Code.
Directors of Developmental Test and Evaluation and Systems Engineering
(sec. 102)
The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 101) that
would require certain reports on systems engineering
capabilities of the Department of Defense. The Senate bill also
contained a provision (sec. 102) that would establish the
position of Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation.
The House amendment contained provisions (sec. 101 and
103) that would require the Secretary of Defense to appoint
senior officials to carry out acquisition oversight functions,
including systems engineering and developmental testing.
The Senate recedes with an amendment that would establish
the positions of Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation
and Director of Systems Engineering and establish requirements
on the issuance of guidance and reports on systems engineering
and developmental testing. The amendment would further require
the service acquisition executive of each military department
and defense agency to implement and report on plans to ensure
that the military departments and defense agencies have
appropriate developmental test, systems engineering, and
development planning resources.
The Defense Science Board Task Force on Developmental
Test and Evaluation reported in May 2008 that the Army has
essentially eliminated its developmental testing component,
while the Navy and the Air Force have cut their testing
workforce by up to 60 percent in some organizations. As a
result, ``(a) significant amount of developmental testing is
currently performed without a needed degree of government
involvement or oversight and in some cases, with limited
government access to contractor data.''
Similarly, the Committee on Pre-Milestone A and Early-
Phase Systems Engineering of Air Force Studies Board of the
National Research Council reported that ``in recent years the
depth of systems engineering (SE) talent in the Air Force has
declined owing to policies within the Department of Defense
(DOD) that shifted the oversight of SE functions increasingly
to outside contractors, as well as to the decline of in-house
development planning capabilities in the Air Force . . . . The
result is that there are no longer enough experienced systems
engineers to fill the positions in programs that need them,
particularly within the government.''
The conferees expect the Director of Developmental Test
and Evaluation and the Director of Systems Engineering to work
with the military departments and defense agencies to ensure
that they rebuild these capabilities and perform the
developmental testing and systems engineering functions
necessary to ensure the successful execution of major defense
acquisition programs. In particular, the conferees expect the
military departments to conduct developmental testing early in
the execution of a major defense acquisition program, to
validate that a system's design is demonstrating appropriate
progress toward technological maturity and toward meeting
system performance requirements.
Performance assessments and root cause analyses for major defense
acquisition programs (sec. 103)
The House amendment contained a provision (sec. 104) that
would require the Secretary of Defense to designate a senior
official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense as the
principal Department of Defense official responsible for
issuing policies, procedures, and guidance governing the
conduct of performance assessments for major defense
acquisition programs.
The Senate bill contained no similar provision.
The Senate recedes with an amendment that would require
the Secretary to designate a senior official responsible for
conducting and overseeing performance assessments and root
cause analyses for major defense acquisition programs.
Assessment of technological maturity of critical technologies of major
defense acquisition programs by the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering (sec. 104)
The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 103) that
would require the Director of Defense Research and Engineering,
in consultation with the Director of Developmental Test and
Evaluation, to periodically review and assess the technological
maturity and integration risk of critical technologies on major
defense acquisition programs.
The House amendment contained a similar provision (sec.
105).
The Senate recedes with an amendment that would combine
the two provisions. The conferees note that the technological
maturity standard for major defense acquisition programs at the
time of Milestone B approval (or Key Decision Point B approval
in the case of space programs) is established by statute in
section 2366b of title 10, United States Code. The conferees
expect the Director of Defense Research and Engineering to
establish appropriate knowledge-based standards for
technological maturity at other key points in the acquisition
process, as well as appropriate standards for integration risk.
Role of the commanders of the combatant commands in identifying joint
military requirements (sec. 105)
The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 105) that
would clarify the role of the commanders of the combatant
commands in identifying joint military requirements.
The House amendment contained a similar provision (sec.
106).
The Senate recedes with an amendment to ensure that the
Comptroller General review required by the provision would
address the full range of issues raised by recent legislative
changes to the process for the identification of joint military
requirements.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISION NOT ADOPTED
Clarification of submittal of certification of adequacy of budgets by
the Director of the Department of Defense Test Resource
Management Center
The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 106) that
would clarify the impact of organizational changes made in the
Senate bill on the requirement for the Director of the
Department of Defense Test Resource Management Center to
certify the adequacy of budgets to the Secretary of Defense.
The House amendment contained no similar provision.
The Senate recedes. The provision is unnecessary, because
the organizational changes to the Defense Test Resource
Management Center that required the clarification are not
included in the conference report.
TITLE II--ACQUISITION POLICY
Consideration of trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance
objectives in Department of Defense acquisition programs (sec.
201)
The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 201) that
would require the Department of Defense to implement mechanisms
to ensure that trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance
objectives are considered early in the process of developing
requirements for major weapon systems.
The House amendment contained a provision (sec. 207) that
would require the Comptroller General to review and report to
Congress on mechanisms used by the Department to make such
trade-offs.
The House recedes with an amendment clarifying the
required mechanisms. The conference amendment includes a
requirement for the Secretary of Defense to review proposed
joint military requirements to ensure that the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council has given appropriate
consideration to trade-offs between cost, schedule, and
performance objectives. The Secretary would have flexibility to
determine how best to conduct the required review.
Acquisition strategies to ensure competition throughout the lifecycle
of major defense acquisition programs (sec. 202)
The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 203) that
would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the
acquisition strategy for each major defense acquisition program
includes measures to ensure competition, or the option of
competition, at both the prime contract level and the
subcontract level. The Senate provision would also establish
certain requirements for the use of prototypes on major defense
acquisition programs.
The House amendment contained a similar provision (sec.
201), but did not include requirements for the use of
prototypes.
The House recedes with an amendment combining elements
from the Senate bill and the House amendment. The Senate
language on prototypes is addressed in a separate section.
Prototyping requirements for major defense acquisition programs (sec.
203)
The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 203(c) and
(d)) that would establish prototyping requirements for major
defense acquisition programs.
The House amendment contained no similar provision.
The House recedes with an amendment that would simplify
the requirement.
Actions to identify and address systemic problems in major defense
acquisition programs prior to Milestone B approval (sec. 204)
The House amendment contained a provision (sec. 203) that
would enhance requirements for the Department of Defense to
identify and address systemic problems in major defense
acquisition programs before Milestone B approval, while such
programs are still in the technology development phase.
The Senate bill contained no similar provision.
The Senate recedes with a clarifying amendment. The
conferees agree that greater investment of time and resources
in the technology development phase is likely to result in
better overall program performance and lower overall program
costs. For this reason, increased time or expenditures for
early testing and development should not alone be taken as an
indication that a program is troubled and needs to be
terminated or restructured.
Additional requirements for certain major defense acquisition programs
(sec. 205)
The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 202) that
would establish certain requirements relating to preliminary
design review and critical design review for major defense
acquisition programs.
The House amendment contained a provision (sec. 202) that
would establish new procedures for programs that fail to meet
all of the requirements for Milestone B certification under
section 2366b of title 10, United States Code, and would
establish requirements relating to preliminary design review
for major defense acquisition programs.
The Senate recedes with a clarifying amendment. The
conference amendment does not include the Senate provision
regarding critical design review, because this requirement is
already addressed in Department of Defense Instruction 5000.02
(December 2008 revision). The conferees view this requirement
as a key step in a knowledge-based approach to acquisition, and
expect to revisit this issue if the current requirement for
critical design review is discontinued or is not enforced.
Critical cost growth in major defense acquisition programs (sec. 206)
The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 204) that
would strengthen the so-called ``Nunn-McCurdy'' requirements in
section 2433(e)(2) of title 10, United States Code, for major
defense acquisition programs that experience excessive cost
growth.
The House amendment contained a similar provision (sec.
204).
The House recedes with an amendment combining elements
from the Senate bill and the House amendment. The conference
amendment would also recodify these requirements in a new
section 2433a of title 10, United States Code.
Organizational conflicts of interest in major defense acquisition
programs (sec. 207)
The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 205) that
would require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics to issue regulations addressing
organizational conflicts of interest by contractors in the
acquisition of major weapon systems.
The House amendment contained a similar provision (sec.
205).
The House recedes with an amendment combining elements
from the Senate bill and the House amendment. Existing
Department of Defense regulations leave it up to individual
elements of the Department to determine on a case-by-case basis
whether or not organizational conflicts of interest can be
mitigated, and if so, what mitigation measures are required.
The conferees agree that additional guidance is required to
tighten existing requirements, provide consistency throughout
the Department, and ensure that advice provided by contractors
is objective and unbiased. In developing the regulations
required by this section for cases in which mitigation is
determined to be appropriate, the conferees expect the
Secretary to give consideration to strengthened measures of
organizational separation of the type included in the Senate
bill.
TITLE III--ADDITIONAL ACQUISITION PROVISIONS
Awards for Department of Defense personnel for excellence in the
acquisition of products and services (sec. 301)
The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 206) that
would direct the Secretary of Defense to establish a program to
recognize excellent performance by individuals and teams in the
acquisition of products and services for the Department of
Defense.
The House amendment contained an identical provision
(sec. 206). The conference report includes this provision.
Earned value management (sec. 302)
The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 207) that
would require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics to review and improve guidance
governing the implementation of Earned Value Management (EVM)
systems for Department of Defense (DOD) contracts.
The House amendment contained no similar provision.
The House recedes with an amendment that would
incorporate the requirements of the Senate provision into
section 887 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), which requires
the Secretary of Defense to identify and address shortcomings
in EVM systems for DOD contracts.
Expansion of national security objectives of the national technology
and industrial base (sec. 303)
The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 208) that
would amend section 2501 of title 10, United States Code, to
address critical design skills in the national technology and
industrial base and require reports on the termination of major
defense acquisition programs.
The House amendment contained no similar provision.
The House recedes with an amendment requiring that
defense capability assessments performed pursuant to section
2505 of title 10, United States Code, consider the effects of
the termination of major defense acquisition programs. The
outcome of this assessment would be incorporated into the
annual reports required by section 2504 of title 10, United
States Code.
Comptroller General of the United States reports on costs and financial
information regarding major defense acquisition programs (sec.
304)
The Senate bill contained two provisions (sec. 104(b) and
sec. 209) that would require reports by the Government
Accountability Office on: (1) operating and support costs of
major weapon systems; and (2) financial information relating to
major defense acquisition programs.
The House amendment contained no similar provision.
The House recedes with an amendment incorporating the two
reporting requirements into a single provision.
COMPLIANCE WITH SENATE AND HOUSE RULES
Compliance with rules of the Senate and the House of Representatives
regarding earmarks and congressionally directed spending items
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives and Rule XLIV(3) of the Standing Rules
of the Senate, neither this conference report nor the
accompanying joint statement of managers contains any
congressional earmarks, congressionally directed spending
items, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits, as
defined in such rules.
Ike Skelton,
John M. Spratt,
Solomon P. Ortiz,
Gene Taylor,
Neil Abercrombie,
Silvestre Reyes,
Vic Snyder,
Adam Smith,
Loretta Sanchez,
Mike McIntyre,
Ellen O. Tauscher,
Robert E. Andrews,
Susan A. Davis,
James R. Langevin,
Jim Cooper,
Brad Ellsworth,
Joe Sestak,
John M. McHugh,
Roscoe G. Bartlett,
Howard ``Buck'' McKeon,
Mac Thornberry,
Walter B. Jones,
W. Todd Akin,
J. Randy Forbes,
Jeff Miller,
Joe Wilson,
K. Michael Conaway,
Duncan Hunter,
Mike Coffman,
Managers on the Part of the House.
Carl Levin,
Edward M. Kennedy,
Robert C. Byrd,
Joseph Lieberman,
Jack Reed,
Daniel K. Akaka,
Bill Nelson,
Ben Nelson,
Evan Bayh,
Jim Webb,
Claire McCaskill,
Mark Udall,
Kay R. Hagan,
Mark Begich,
Roland W. Burris,
John McCain,
James M. Inhofe,
Jeff Sessions,
Saxby Chambliss,
Lindsey Graham,
John Thune,
Mel Martinez,
Roger F. Wicker,
Richard Burr,
David Vitter,
Susan Collins,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.