```

[Senate Report 115-165]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                     Calendar No. 234
115th Congress      }                                  {       Report
                                 SENATE 
 1st Session        }                                  {      115-165
_______________________________________________________________________

                REDUCING DHS ACQUISITION COST GROWTH ACT

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                   COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND

                          GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                              to accompany

                                 S. 906

             TO AMEND THE HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002 TO
  PROVIDE FOR CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION REGARDING MAJOR ACQUISITION 
                PROGRAM BREACHES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                October 5, 2017.--Ordered to be printed
                                  ______

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

79-010                         WASHINGTON : 2017 

        COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona                 CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  JON TESTER, Montana
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming             GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
STEVE DAINES, Montana                KAMALA D. HARRIS, California

                  Christopher R. Hixon, Staff Director
                Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Chief Counsel
   Michelle D. Woods, U.S. Government Accountability Office Detailee
               Margaret E. Daum, Minority Staff Director
               Stacia M. Cardille, Minority Chief Counsel
       Charles A. Moskowitz, Minority Senior Legislative Counsel
        Thomas J.R. Richards, Minority Professional Staff Member
                     Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk

                                                     Calendar No. 234
115th Congress      }                                  {       Report
                                 SENATE 
 1st Session        }                                  {      115-165

======================================================================

 
                REDUCING DHS ACQUISITION COST GROWTH ACT

                                _______
                                

                October 5, 2017.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Johnson, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
                    Affairs, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 906]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 906) to amend the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide for congressional 
notification regarding major acquisition program breaches, and 
for other purposes, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the 
bill, as amended, do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
 II. Background and Need for the Legislation..........................2
III. Legislative History..............................................3
 IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................4
  V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................5
 VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................5
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............6

                         I. Purpose and Summary

    S. 906, the Reducing DHS Acquisition Cost Growth Act, 
amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide for greater 
oversight of major acquisition programs within the Department 
of Homeland Security (DHS or the Department) that fail to meet 
cost, schedule, or performance requirements (i.e., breach). The 
bill assists DHS in its efforts to improve management of its 
major acquisition programs by ensuring that breaches are 
reported in a timely manner to the appropriate Department 
officials. Additionally, S. 906 requires DHS to develop a 
remediation plan and perform a root cause analysis for each 
major acquisition program in breach. Finally, this bill 
requires the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) to conduct a 
comprehensive study on the prevalence and impact of bid 
protests on the DHS acquisition process, particularly those 
protests filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

              II. Background and the Need for Legislation

    DHS spends approximately $18 billion annually on its 
acquisition programs.\1\ From the screening of passengers at 
our nation's airports to the detection of illegal border 
crossings, acquisition programs play critical roles in 
fulfilling the Department's missions and ensuring frontline 
operators have the tools and capabilities necessary to protect 
and secure the homeland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\DHS Management and Acquisition Reform: Hearing Before the S. 
Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. (2016) 
(written testimony of Russell Deyo, Under Sec'y of Mgmt., U.S. Dep't of 
Homeland Sec., and Charles Fulghum, Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Dep't 
of Homeland Sec.), available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/03/16/
written-testimony-mgmt-under-secretary-and-deputy-under-secretary-
senate-committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DHS continues to face scrutiny from independent government 
watchdogs due to improper management and excessive cost growth 
of its major acquisitions programs. For instance, both the GAO 
and the DHS OIG have found that DHS's acquisition programs 
``continue to cost more than expected, take longer to deploy 
than planned, or deliver less capability than promised.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\DHS Management and Acquisition Reform: Hearing Before the S. 
Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. 1 (2016) 
(written testimony of John Roth, Inspector General, U.S. Dep't of 
Homeland Sec.), available at https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/TM/2016/
OIGtm-JR-031616.pdf; see also U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-17-
346SP, Homeland Security Acquisitions: Earlier Requirements Definition 
and Clear Documentation of Key Decisions Could Facilitate Ongoing 
Progress 45 (2017), http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683977.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee held a hearing in March 2016, entitled DHS 
Management and Acquisition Reform.\3\ During the hearing, DHS 
Inspector General John Roth testified that, ``[a]lthough the 
Department has improved its acquisition processes and taken 
steps to strengthen oversight of major acquisition programs, 
challenges to cost effectiveness and efficiency remain.''\4\ 
One of the specific ongoing challenges identified by the OIG 
included that DHS ``lacks acquisition management tools to 
consistently determine whether major acquisitions are on track 
to achieve their cost, schedule, and capability goals.''\5\ The 
Inspector General's testimony highlighted GAO's findings in 
April 2015 that ``about half of DHS's major [acquisition] 
programs lacked an approved baseline, and 77 percent lacked 
approved life cycle cost estimates.''\6\ Without the critical 
tools necessary to evaluate potential shortcomings, major 
acquisition programs can falter, and subsequently breach their 
cost, schedule, and performance requirements.\7\ When a breach 
does occur, it is imperative that DHS act swiftly to mitigate 
potential damage to the program's success and to save taxpayer 
money.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\DHS Management and Acquisition Reform: Hearing Before the S. 
Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong. (2016), 
available at https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/dhs-management-and-
acquisition-reform.
    \4\Id. (testimony of John Roth, Inspector General, U.S. Dep't of 
Homeland Sec.), available at https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/
files/assets/TM/2016/OIGtm-JR-031616.pdf at 1.
    \5\Id. at 12.
    \6\Id.; see also U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-15-171SP, 
Homeland Security Acquisitions: Major Program Assessments Reveal 
Actions Needed to Improve Accountability (2015), http://www.gao.gov/
assets/670/669791.pdf.
    \7\Id. at 7.
    \8\Id. at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another potential impediment to the efficient and effective 
management of acquisition program resources is the bid protest 
process. Under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), a 
private company bidding on a contract with a Federal agency may 
file a bid protest with either the GAO or the U.S. Court of 
Federal Claims on the basis of the criteria set forth in the 
FAR.\9\ The number of bid protests filed by private industry 
has continued to increase in recent years.\10\ This has been 
evidenced by an increase in the GAO's bid protest activity, 
which went from 2,429 cases in fiscal year 2013 to 2,789 cases 
in fiscal year 2016.\11\ The bid protest process may be seen as 
a mechanism for competing for new contracts and maintaining 
existing contracts.\12\ While the bid protest process serves a 
valuable oversight function, constant focus on the likelihood 
of a protest and compliance during the procurement process may 
create a risk-averse culture among Federal acquisitions 
officials that may stymie innovation and contribute to the 
overall inefficiency of the procurement process.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\See Federal Acquisition Regulation, 48 C.F.R. Sec. 33.104-105 
(2005).
    \10\Jason Miller, Bid Protests Continue to Rise as Agencies Take 
Corrective Action More Quickly, Federal News Radio (Nov. 20, 2014), 
https://federalnewsradio.com/congress/2014/11/bid-protests-continue-to-
rise-as-agencies-take-corrective-action-more-quickly; Andy Medici, 
Defense Bill Asks If Contractors Are Gaming Bid Protests, Federal Times 
(May 4, 2015), http://www.federaltimes.com/acquisition/2015/05/04/
defense-bill-asks-if-contractors-are-gaming-bid-protests.
    \11\Letter from Susan A. Poling, General Counsel, U.S. Gov't 
Accountability Office, to Congressional Committees on the GAO Bid 
Protest Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2013 (Jan. 2, 2014), 
available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/659993.pdf; Letter from 
Susan A. Poling, General Counsel, U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, to 
Congressional Committees on the GAO Bid Protest Annual Report to 
Congress for Fiscal Year 2016 (Dec. 15, 2016), available at http://
www.gao.gov/assets/690/681662.pdf.
    \12\Bruce Tsai, Targeting Frivolous Bid Protests by Revisiting the 
Competition in Contracting Act's Automatic Stay Provision (2015), 
http://www.ncmahq.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/
articles/jcm15---article-07.
    \13\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    S. 906 aims to prevent unnecessary cost growth by holding 
DHS accountable when the Department fails to meet program 
baseline requirements. Specifically, this bill requires greater 
Departmental and congressional oversight of major DHS 
acquisition programs when a major acquisition program--defined 
as those with total expenditures of $300 million or more--fails 
to meet any cost, schedule, or performance thresholds specified 
in the program's most recently approved acquisition program 
baseline. Lastly, the bill as amended in Committee requires the 
OIG to study the impact of the bid protest process on, among 
other things, DHS's acquisition management processes, and 
report the findings to this Committee and the House Homeland 
Security Committee. The report would assess the bid protest 
process, including reviewing the number of bid protests filed 
across the Federal Government and Federal courts, the 
effectiveness of each forum, and how the bid protest process 
affects the cost and schedule of major acquisition programs.

                        III. Legislative History

    Senators Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Steve Daines (R-MT) 
introduced S. 906, the Reducing DHS Acquisition Cost Growth 
Act, on April 7, 2017. The bill was referred to the Committee 
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
    The Committee considered S. 906 at a business meeting on 
July 26, 2017. During the business meeting, a McCain substitute 
amendment that required an OIG study and report on bid protests 
was adopted by voice vote en bloc. Senators present for the 
vote were Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Daines, McCaskill, 
Tester, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and Harris.
    The Committee favorably reported the bill, as amended by 
the McCain substitute amendment, by voice vote en bloc. 
Senators present for the vote were Johnson, Portman, Lankford, 
Daines, McCaskill, Tester, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and 
Harris. Consistent with Committee Rule 11, the Committee 
reports the bill with a technical amendment by mutual agreement 
of the Chairman and Ranking Member.

        IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill, as Reported

Section 1. Short title

    This section names the bill the ``Reducing DHS Acquisition 
Cost Growth Act.''

Sec. 2. Congressional notification for major acquisition programs

    Section 2 adds a new section 836 following the end of 
Subtitle D of title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
    New subsection 836(a) provides definitions for the terms 
``acquisition,'' ``acquisition program,'' ``acquisition program 
baseline,'' ``appropriate committees of Congress,'' ``best 
practices,'' ``breach,'' ``component acquisition executive,'' 
and ``major acquisition program.''
    New subsection 836(b) details the steps that DHS must take 
in the event of a breach of a major acquisition program. 
Paragraph (b)(1) requires the program manager of a major 
acquisition program in breach to notify the appropriate DHS 
authorities, such as the Under Secretary for Management (USM), 
no later than 30 days after the breach is identified. If, 
however, the breach results in a cost overrun greater than 15 
percent, a schedule delay greater than 180 days, or a failure 
to meet any of the performance thresholds detailed in the most 
recently approved acquisition program baseline for the program, 
the Component Acquisition Executive for the program is also 
required to notify the Secretary of DHS and the DHS Inspector 
General no later than 5 days after notification of the breach 
is received.
    Paragraph (b)(2) requires a remediation plan and root cause 
analysis to be performed on major acquisition programs in 
breach. Program managers are required to develop a plan to 
remediate the breach, which must, among other things, propose 
corrective actions for addressing the breach and conduct an 
analysis identifying potential root causes behind the breach. 
This plan must be submitted to the head of the relevant DHS 
component, the Department's Program Accountability and Risk 
Management division, and the USM.
    Paragraph (b)(3) requires the USM to review the corrective 
actions and either approve the plan or provide alternative 
corrective actions for addressing the breach. The USM must 
submit a copy of the remediation plan, root cause analysis, and 
a description of actions taken to address the breach to the 
appropriate committees of Congress no later than 30 days after 
completing the review.
    New subsection 836(c) requires the USM to notify Congress 
of a breach in a major acquisition program in the next 
quarterly Comprehensive Acquisition Status Report, and details 
what information must be included in the event the likely cost 
overrun is greater than 20 percent or likely delay is greater 
than 12 months from the acquisition program baseline.

Sec. 3. Report on bid protests

    Section 3 of the bill requires the OIG to conduct a single 
comprehensive study on the prevalence and impact of bid 
protests performed by GAO and the Federal courts on DHS's 
acquisition process. Specifically, this section requires the 
OIG to report on the time DHS spends at each phase of the 
procurement process attempting to prevent a protest, addressing 
a protest, or taking corrective action in response to a 
protest. Additionally, the report is to include information on 
the extent the bid protest process affects or may affect a 
company's decision to offer a bid or proposal.

                   V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact

    Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule 
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has 
considered the regulatory impact of this bill and determined 
that the bill will have no regulatory impact within the meaning 
of the rules. The Committee agrees with the Congressional 
Budget Office's statement that the bill contains no 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs 
on state, local, or tribal governments.

             VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

                                                   August 18, 2017.
Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. 
        Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 906, the Reducing 
DHS Acquisition Cost Growth Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jacob Fabian.
            Sincerely,
                                                        Keith Hall.
    Enclosure.

S. 906--Reducing DHS Acquisition Cost Growth Act

    S. 906 would specify procedures to be followed by the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) if it fails to meet 
certain timelines or other performance standards for its major 
acquisition programs. Additionally, the bill would require an 
Inspector General report to be submitted to the Congress on the 
prevalence and impact of bid protests on the acquisition 
process of DHS. Based on information from DHS, CBO estimates 
that implementing the new administrative procedures would cost 
less than $500,000 annually; such spending would be subject to 
the availability of appropriated funds.
    Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending 
or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 
CBO estimates that enacting S. 906 would not increase net 
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
    S. 906 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    On March 22, 2017, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 
1294, the Reducing DHS Acquisition Cost Growth Act, as passed 
by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 20, 2017. The two 
pieces of legislation are similar and CBO's estimates of their 
costs are the same.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jacob Fabian. 
The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Assistant Director 
for Budget Analysis.

       VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
the bill as reported are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in brackets, new matter is 
printed in italic, and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

TITLE VIII--COORDINATION WITH NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES; INSPECTOR GENERAL; 
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE; COAST GUARD; GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subtitle D--Acquisitions

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 836. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR MAJOR 
                    ACQUISITION PROGRAM BREACH.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) Acquisition.--The term ``acquisition'' has the 
        meaning given the term in section 131 of title 41, 
        United States Code.
          (2) Acquisition program.--The term ``acquisition 
        program'' means the process by which the Department 
        acquires, with any appropriated amounts, by contract 
        for purchase or lease, property or services (including 
        construction) that support the missions and goals of 
        the Department.
          (3) Acquisition program baseline.--The term 
        ``acquisition program baseline'', with respect to an 
        acquisition program, means a summary of the cost, 
        schedule, and performance parameters, expressed in 
        standard, measurable, quantitative terms, which shall 
        be met in order to accomplish the goals of the program.
          (4) Appropriate committees of congress.--The term 
        ``appropriate committees of Congress'' has the meaning 
        given the term in section 226(a).
          (5) Best practices.--The term ``best practices'', 
        with respect to acquisition, means a knowledge-based 
        approach to capability development that includes--
                  (A) identifying and validating needs;
                  (B) assessing alternatives to select the most 
                appropriate solution;
                  (C) clearly establishing well-defined 
                requirements;
                  (D) developing realistic cost assessments and 
                schedules;
                  (E) securing stable funding that matches 
                resources to requirements;
                  (F) demonstrating technology, design, and 
                manufacturing maturity;
                  (G) using milestones and exit criteria or 
                specific accomplishments that demonstrate 
                progress;
                  (H) adopting and executing standardized 
                processes with known success across programs;
                  (I) establishing an adequate workforce that 
                is qualified and sufficient to perform 
                necessary functions; and
                  (J) integrating the capabilities described in 
                subparagraphs (A) through (I) into the mission 
                and business operations of the Department.
          (6) Breach.--The term ``breach'', with respect to a 
        major acquisition program, means a failure to meet any 
        cost, schedule, or performance threshold specified in 
        the most recently approved acquisition program 
        baseline.
          (7) Component acquisition executive.--The term 
        ``Component Acquisition Executive'' means the senior 
        acquisition official within a component who is 
        designated in writing by the Under Secretary for 
        Management, in consultation with the component head, 
        with authority and responsibility for leading a process 
        and staff to provide acquisition and program management 
        oversight, policy, and guidance to ensure that 
        statutory, regulatory, and higher level policy 
        requirements are fulfilled, including compliance with 
        Federal law, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and 
        Department acquisition management directives 
        established by the Under Secretary for Management.
          (8) Major acquisition program.--The term ``major 
        acquisition program'' means an acquisition program of 
        the Department that is estimated by the Secretary to 
        require an eventual total expenditure of at least 
        $300,000,000 (based on fiscal year 2017 constant 
        dollars) over the life cycle cost of the program.
    (b) Requirements Within Department in Event of Breach.--
          (1) Notifications.--
                  (A) Notification of breach.--If a breach 
                occurs in a major acquisition program, the 
                program manager for the program shall notify 
                the Component Acquisition Executive for the 
                program, the head of the component concerned, 
                the Executive Director of the Program 
                Accountability and Risk Management division, 
                the Under Secretary for Management, and the 
                Deputy Secretary not later than 30 calendar 
                days after the date on which the breach is 
                identified.
                  (B) Notification to secretary.--If a breach 
                occurs in a major acquisition program and the 
                breach results in a cost overrun greater than 
                15 percent, a schedule delay greater than 180 
                days, or a failure to meet any of the 
                performance thresholds from the cost, schedule, 
                or performance parameters specified in the most 
                recently approved acquisition program baseline 
                for the program, the Component Acquisition 
                Executive for the program shall notify the 
                Secretary and the Inspector General of the 
                Department not later than 5 business days after 
                the date on which the Component Acquisition 
                Executive for the program, the head of the 
                component concerned, the Executive Director of 
                the Program Accountability and Risk Management 
                Division, the Under Secretary for Management, 
                and the Deputy Secretary are notified of the 
                breach under subparagraph (A).
          (2) Remediation plan and root cause analysis.--
                  (A) In general.--If a breach occurs in a 
                major acquisition program, the program manager 
                for the program shall submit in writing to the 
                head of the component concerned, the Executive 
                Director of the Program Accountability and Risk 
                Management division, and the Under Secretary 
                for Management, at a date established by the 
                Under Secretary for Management, a remediation 
                plan and root cause analysis relating to the 
                breach and program.
                  (B) Remediation plan.--The remediation plan 
                required under subparagraph (A) shall--
                          (i) explain the circumstances of the 
                        breach at issue;
                          (ii) provide prior cost estimating 
                        information;
                          (iii) include a root cause analysis 
                        that determines the underlying cause or 
                        causes of shortcomings in cost, 
                        schedule, or performance of the major 
                        acquisition program with respect to 
                        which the breach has occurred, 
                        including the role, if any, of--
                                  (I) unrealistic performance 
                                expectations;
                                  (II) unrealistic baseline 
                                estimates for cost or schedule 
                                or changes in program 
                                requirements;
                                  (III) immature technologies 
                                or excessive manufacturing or 
                                integration risk;
                                  (IV) unanticipated design, 
                                engineering, manufacturing, or 
                                technology integration issues 
                                arising during program 
                                performance;
                                  (V) changes to the scope of 
                                the program;
                                  (VI) inadequate program 
                                funding or changes in planned 
                                out-year funding from one 5-
                                year funding plan to the next 
                                5-year funding plan as outlined 
                                in the Future Years Homeland 
                                Security Program required under 
                                section 874;
                                  (VII) legislative, legal, or 
                                regulatory changes; or
                                  (VIII) inadequate program 
                                management personnel, including 
                                lack of sufficient number of 
                                staff, training, credentials, 
                                certifications, or use of best 
                                practices;
                          (iv) propose corrective action to 
                        address cost growth, schedule delays, 
                        or performance issues;
                          (v) explain the rationale for why a 
                        proposed corrective action is 
                        recommended; and
                          (vi) in coordination with the 
                        Component Acquisition Executive for the 
                        program, discuss all options 
                        considered, including--
                                  (I) the estimated impact on 
                                cost, schedule, or performance 
                                of the program if no changes 
                                are made to current 
                                requirements;
                                  (II) the estimated cost of 
                                the program if requirements are 
                                modified; and
                                  (III) the extent to which 
                                funding from other programs 
                                will need to be reduced to 
                                cover the cost growth of the 
                                program.
          (3) Review of corrective actions.--
                  (A) In general.--The Under Secretary for 
                Management--
                          (i) shall review each remediation 
                        plan required under paragraph (2); and
                          (ii) not later than 30 days after 
                        submission of a remediation plan under 
                        paragraph (2), may approve the plan or 
                        provide an alternative proposed 
                        corrective action.
                  (B) Submission to congress.--Not later than 
                30 days after the date on which the Under 
                Secretary for Management completes a review of 
                a remediation plan under subparagraph (A), the 
                Under Secretary for Management shall submit to 
                the appropriate committees of Congress--
                          (i) a copy of the remediation plan; 
                        and
                          (ii) a statement describing the 
                        corrective action or actions that have 
                        occurred pursuant to paragraph 
                        (2)(B)(iv) for the major acquisition 
                        program at issue, with a justification 
                        for each action.
    (c) Requirements Relating to Congressional Notification if 
Breach Occurs.--
          (1) Notification to congress.--If a notification to 
        the Secretary is made under subsection (b)(1)(B) 
        relating to a breach in a major acquisition program, 
        the Under Secretary for Management shall notify the 
        appropriate committees of Congress of the breach in the 
        next quarterly Comprehensive Acquisition Status Report, 
        as required in the matter under the heading ``Office of 
        the Under Secretary for Management'' in title I of 
        division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 
        2016 (Public Law 114-113; 129 Stat. 2493), after 
        receipt by the Under Secretary for Management of 
        notification under that subsection.
          (2) Significant variances in costs or schedule.--If a 
        likely cost overrun is greater than 20 percent or a 
        likely delay is greater than 12 months from the costs 
        and schedule specified in the acquisition program 
        baseline for a major acquisition program, the Under 
        Secretary for Management shall include in the 
        notification required in paragraph (1) a written 
        certification, with supporting explanation, that--
                  (A) the program is essential to the 
                accomplishment of the mission of the 
                Department;
                  (B) there are no alternatives to the 
                capability or asset provided by the program 
                that will provide equal or greater capability 
                in a more cost-effective and timely manner;
                  (C) the new acquisition schedule and 
                estimates for total acquisition cost are 
                reasonable; and
                  (D) the management structure for the program 
                is adequate to manage and control cost, 
                schedule, and performance.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                  [all]
```