U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

79–006 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2009

111–101 

WEAPONS ACQUISITION SYSTEM REFORM THROUGH 

ENHANCING TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AND OVERSIGHT ACT OF 2009 

R E P O R T 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON 

H.R. 2101 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

MAY 12, 2009.—Ordered to be printed 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTScongress.#13
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

GLENN NYE, Virginia 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

FRANK M. KRATOVIL, JR., Maryland 

ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York 

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

SCOTT MURPHY, New York 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

ERIN C. CONATON, Staff Director 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Purpose and Background ........................................................................................ 12 

Legislative History .................................................................................................. 13 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 14 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 15 

Section 1—Short Title; Table of Contents ...................................................... 15 

TITLE I—ACQUISITION ORGANIZATION ......................................................... 15 

Section 101—Independent Performance of Acquisition Oversight Functions ................................................................................................................ 15 

Section 102—Oversight of Cost Estimation ................................................... 15 

Section 103—Oversight of Systems Engineering ........................................... 16 

Section 104—Oversight of Performance Assessment ..................................... 16 

Section 105—Assessment of Technological Maturity of Critical Technologies of Major Defense Acquisition Programs by the Director of 

Defense Research and Engineering ............................................................. 17 

Section 106—Role of the Commanders of the Combatant Commands in 

Identifying Joint Military Requirements .................................................... 17 

TITLE II—ACQUISITION POLICY ...................................................................... 18 

Section 201—Acquisition Strategies Ensuring Competition Throughout 

the Lifecycle of Major Defense Acquisition Programs ............................... 18 

Section 202—Additional Requirements for Certain Major Defense Acquisition Programs ................................................................................................ 18 

Section 203—Requirement for Certification of Major Systems Prior to 

Milestone B .................................................................................................... 19 

Section 204—Critical Cost Growth in Major Defense Acquisition Programs ............................................................................................................. 19 

Section 205—Organizational Conflicts of Interest in the Acquisition of 

Major Weapon Systems ................................................................................ 20 

Section 206—Awards for Department of Defense Personnel for Excellence 

in the Acquisition of Products and Services ............................................... 20 

Section 207—Consideration of Trade-Offs Among Cost, Schedule, and 

Performance in the Acquisition of Major Weapon Systems ...................... 20 

Committee Position ................................................................................................. 21 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 21 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 24 

Compliance with House Rule XXI .......................................................................... 24 

Oversight Findings .................................................................................................. 24 

General Performance Goals & Objectives .............................................................. 24 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 25 

Statement of Federal Mandates ............................................................................. 25 

Record Vote .............................................................................................................. 25 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 27 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
79–006 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 111–101 

WEAPONS ACQUISITION SYSTEM REFORM THROUGH ENHANCING TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AND OVERSIGHT 

ACT OF 2009 

MAY 12, 2009.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SKELTON, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 2101] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 2101) to promote reform and independence in the oversight 

of weapons system acquisition by the Department of Defense, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Weapons Acquisition System Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and Oversight Act of 2009’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

TITLE I—ACQUISITION ORGANIZATION 

Sec. 101. Independent performance of acquisition oversight functions. 

Sec. 102. Oversight of cost estimation. 

Sec. 103. Oversight of systems engineering. 

Sec. 104. Oversight of performance assessment. 

Sec. 105. Assessment of technological maturity of critical technologies of major defense acquisition programs 

by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering. 

Sec. 106. Role of the commanders of the combatant commands in identifying joint military requirements. 

TITLE II—ACQUISITION POLICY 

Sec. 201. Acquisition strategies ensuring competition throughout the lifecycle of major defense acquisition pro- grams. Sec. 202. Additional requirements for certain major defense acquisition programs. 

Sec. 203. Requirement for certification of major systems prior to Milestone B. 

Sec. 204. Critical cost growth in major defense acquisition programs. 

Sec. 205. Organizational conflicts of interest in the acquisition of major weapon systems. 

Sec. 206. Awards for Department of Defense personnel for excellence in the acquisition of products and services. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
2 

Sec. 207. Consideration of trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance in the acquisition of major weapon 

systems. 

TITLE I—ACQUISITION ORGANIZATION 

SEC. 101. INDEPENDENT PERFORMANCE OF ACQUISITION OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 4 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding 

at the end the following new section: 

‘‘§ 145. Principal advisors for acquisition oversight functions 

‘‘(a) ASSIGNMENT OF ACQUISITION OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS.—The Secretary of Defense shall designate an official within the Office of the Secretary of Defense as the 

principal advisor to the Secretary for each acquisition oversight function specified 

in subsection (c). An official may be designated to perform one or more of such functions. The performance of duties pursuant to a designation under this section shall 

not limit or otherwise affect the performance of any other duties assigned to such 

official by the Secretary or by other officers of the Department responsible for the 

management and direction of such official except as necessary to satisfy the requirements of subsection (b). 

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

‘‘(1) highly expert in matters relating to the function; 

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

function; 

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

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

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

‘‘(c) ACQUISITION OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS.—(1) The acquisition oversight functions 

to be performed by officials designated pursuant to subsection (a) are as follows: 

‘‘(A) Cost estimation. 

‘‘(B) Systems engineering. 

‘‘(C) Performance assessment. 

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

‘‘(2) Each acquisition oversight function specified in paragraph (1) shall cover all 

phases of an acquisition program, including setting of requirements, formulation 

and execution of budgets, and program execution.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 

is amended by adding at the end the following new item: 

‘‘145. Principal advisors for acquisition oversight functions.’’. 

SEC. 102. OVERSIGHT OF COST ESTIMATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

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

‘‘(a) ISSUANCE OF POLICIES, PROCEDURES, GUIDANCE, AND COST ESTIMATES.—The 

official assigned oversight of cost estimation pursuant to section 145 of this title 

shall issue the following: 

‘‘(1) Policies and procedures governing the conduct of cost estimation and cost 

analysis generally for the acquisition programs of the Department of Defense. 

‘‘(2) Guidance relating to cost estimates and cost analyses conducted in connection with major defense acquisition programs under chapter 144 of this title 

or major automated information system programs under chapter 144A of this 

title. 

‘‘(3) Guidance relating to the proper selection of confidence levels for cost estimates generally, and specifically, for the proper selection of confidence levels for 

cost estimates for major defense acquisition programs under chapter 144 of this 

title or major automated information system program under chapter 144A of 

this title. 

‘‘(4) Guidance relating to full consideration of life-cycle management and sustainability costs of major defense acquisition programs under chapter 144 of 

this title or major automated information system programs under chapter 144A 

of this title. 

‘‘(5) 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— 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
3 

‘‘(i) any certification under section 2366a or 2366b of title 10, United 

States Code; 

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

production; 

‘‘(iii) any certification under section 2433(e)(2) of this title; and 

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

‘‘(B) at any other time considered necessary by such official or upon the 

request of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics. 

‘‘(b) REVIEW OF COST ESTIMATES, COST ANALYSES, COST INDEXES, AND RECORDS

OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS.—The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the official designated for oversight of cost estimation pursuant to section 145 of this 

title— 

‘‘(1) promptly receives the results of all cost estimates and cost analyses conducted by the military departments, and all studies conducted by the military 

departments in connection with such cost estimates and cost analyses, for major 

defense acquisition programs and major automated information systems of the 

military departments, and is authorized to comment on such estimates, analyses, and studies; 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 including classified and proprietary information as appropriate) that the official considers 

necessary to review in order to carry out any duties under this section. 

‘‘(c) PARTICIPATION, CONCURRENCE, AND APPROVAL IN COST ESTIMATION.—The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the official designated for oversight of cost estimation pursuant to section 145 of this title is involved in all discussions relating 

to cost estimation and the estimation of resource levels required for major defense 

acquisition programs and major automated information systems of the Department 

of Defense generally at all stages of such programs and may— 

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

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

‘‘(3) participate in the discussion of any discrepancies between an independent 

cost estimate and the cost estimate of a military department for a major defense 

acquisition program or major automated information system of the Department 

of Defense; 

‘‘(4) approve or disapprove, at such official’s sole discretion, the confidence 

level used in establishing a baseline description or budget estimate for a major 

defense acquisition program or major automated information system of the Department of Defense at any of the events specified in paragraph (5) of subsection (a) of this section; 

‘‘(5) concur in the choice of a baseline description or budget estimate for use 

at any of the events specified in paragraph (5) of subsection (a) of this section; 

and 

‘‘(6) participate in 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 official designated to perform oversight of cost 

estimation pursuant to section 145 of this title, in approving a confidence level for 

use in a major defense acquisition program pursuant to subsection (c)(4), shall— 

‘‘(1) disclose the confidence level used in establishing a baseline estimate for 

the major defense acquisition 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) in any decision documentation approving a baseline estimate for the major defense acquisition program, in the next Selected Acquisition Report pursuant to section 2432 of this 

title for the major defense acquisition program, and in the next annual report 

submitted under subsection (f). 

‘‘(e) RELATIONSHIP TO COST ANALYSIS IMPROVEMENT GROUP.—The official designated to perform oversight of cost estimation pursuant to section 145 of this title 

shall be assigned responsibility for the management and oversight of the Cost Analysis Improvement Group of the Department of Defense. 

‘‘(f) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than March 1 of each year, beginning on March 

1, 2010, the official designated to perform oversight of cost estimation pursuant to 

section 145 of this title shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the activities undertaken pursuant to this section during the preceding year. 

The report shall be in an unclassified form but may include a classified annex.’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
4 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 

is amended by adding at the end the following new item: 

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

SEC. 103. OVERSIGHT OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 102, is further amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

‘‘§ 2334a. Acquisition oversight: oversight of systems engineering 

‘‘(a) ISSUANCE OF POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND GUIDANCE.—The official designated 

to perform oversight of systems engineering pursuant to section 145 of this title 

shall— 

‘‘(1) issue policies, procedures, and guidance for all elements of the Department of Defense concerning— 

‘‘(A) the use of systems engineering principles and best practices, generally; 

‘‘(B) the use of systems engineering approaches to enhance reliability, 

availability, and maintainability on major defense acquisition programs; 

‘‘(C) the development of systems engineering master plans for major defense acquisition programs, including systems engineering considerations in 

support of life-cycle management and sustainability; 

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

‘‘(E) the appropriate use of development planning to reduce the time from 

system development to deployment, to reduce development risk and cost 

growth, and to provide future benchmarks against which to trade requirements, cost, and schedule; 

‘‘(F) developmental test and evaluation generally; 

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

test and evaluation; 

‘‘(H) in coordination with the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the development of test and evaluation master plans for major defense 

acquisition programs; and 

‘‘(I) the use of developmental test and evaluation as part of a coordinated 

systems engineering approach to system development; and 

‘‘(2) provide advocacy, oversight, and direction to elements of the acquisition 

workforce responsible for functions relating to systems engineering, developmental test and evaluation, and life-cycle management and sustainability. 

‘‘(b) PARTICIPATION IN REQUIREMENTS DISCUSSIONS.—The official designated to 

perform oversight of systems engineering pursuant to section 145 of this title shall 

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 title 10, United States Code, including specific input relating to each capabilities development document. 

‘‘(c) ACCESS TO RECORDS OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS.—The official designated 

to perform oversight of systems engineering pursuant to section 145 of this title 

shall 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 official considers necessary to review 

in order to carry out any duties under this section. 

‘‘(d) ASSESSMENT OF MILITARY DEPARTMENT CAPABILITIES FOR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION.—The official designated to perform oversight of systems engineering pursuant to section 145 of this title shall— 

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

evaluation; 

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

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and 

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

‘‘(e) REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.—The official designated to perform oversight of systems engineering pursuant to section 145 of this title shall review and approve the following plans with 

respect to any major defense acquisition program: 

‘‘(1) The systems engineering master plan. 

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


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
5 

‘‘(f) REPORTING THROUGH UNDER SECRETARY.—The official designated to perform 

oversight of systems engineering pursuant to section 145 of this title shall report 

to the Secretary of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics. 

‘‘(g) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than March 1 of each year, beginning on March 

1, 2010, the official designated to perform oversight of systems engineering pursuant 

to section 145 of this title shall submit to the congressional defense committees a 

report on the activities undertaken pursuant to this section during the preceding 

year. The report shall be in unclassified form but may include a classified annex.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter, as amended by section 102, is further amended by adding at the end the following new item: 

‘‘2334a. Acquisition oversight: oversight of systems engineering.’’. 

SEC. 104. OVERSIGHT OF PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 103, is further amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

‘‘§ 2334b. Acquisition oversight: oversight of performance assessment 

‘‘(a) ISSUANCE OF POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND GUIDANCE FOR PERFORMANCE AS- SESSMENTS.—The official designated to perform oversight of performance assessment 

pursuant to section 145 of this title shall be responsible for the issuance of policies, 

procedures, and guidance governing the conduct of performance assessments for the 

acquisition programs of the Department of Defense, including assessment of the extent to which acquisition programs— 

‘‘(1) deliver sufficient capability to the warfighter; 

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

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

‘‘(b) ASSESSMENT OF BASELINE QUALITY.—The official designated to perform oversight of performance assessment pursuant to section 145 of this title shall periodically assess the suitability of the baseline descriptions required by section 2435 of 

title 10, United States Code, of major defense acquisition programs for providing a 

basis for performance assessment and make such recommendations to the Secretary 

of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics as the official considers necessary to improve the suitability of baseline descriptions for such purpose. 

‘‘(c) EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.—The official designated to perform 

oversight of performance assessment pursuant to section 145 of this title shall be 

responsible for the management and oversight of the records of the earned value 

management system of the Department of Defense. 

‘‘(d) PARTICIPATION IN CERTAIN PROGRAM REVIEWS.—The official designated to 

perform oversight of performance assessment pursuant to section 145 of this title 

is authorized to present an assessment of the performance of a major defense acquisition program during— 

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

‘‘(2) any discussions prior to entry into full-rate production; and 

‘‘(3) consideration of any decision to request authorization of a multiyear procurement contract for a major defense acquisition program. 

‘‘(e) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than March 1 of each year, beginning on March 

1, 2010, the official designated to perform oversight of performance assessment pursuant to section 145 of this title shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the activities undertaken pursuant to this section during the preceding year. The report shall be in unclassified form but may include a classified 

annex.’’. 

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter, as amended by section 103, is further amended by adding at the end the following new item: 

‘‘2334b. Acquisition oversight: oversight of performance assessment.’’. 

SEC. 105. 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 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. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
6 

‘‘(2) The Director shall submit to the Secretary of Defense and to the congressional 

defense committees by January 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, 

2011, 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. 

SEC. 106. 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, is 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). Such input may include, but is not limited to, an assessment of 

the following: 

‘‘(A) 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. 

‘‘(B) The necessity and sufficiency of a proposed joint military requirement in 

terms of current and projected missions or threats. 

‘‘(C) The relative priority of a proposed joint military requirement in comparison with other joint military requirements within the theater of operations of 

a commander of a combatant command. 

‘‘(D) 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.’’. 

(b) COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION.—Not later than two years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the implementation of the requirements of (1) subsection (d)(2) of section 181 of title 10, United 

States Code (as amended by subsection (a)), for the Joint Requirements Oversight 

Council to solicit and consider input from the commanders of the combatant commands, and (2) subsection (b) of section 181 of title 10, United States Code (as 

amended by section 942 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (Public Law 110–181; 122 Stat. 287)). The report shall include, at a minimum, 

an assessment of 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. 

TITLE II—ACQUISITION POLICY 

SEC. 201. ACQUISITION STRATEGIES ENSURING COMPETITION THROUGHOUT THE LIFECYCLE 

OF MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 

(a) ACQUISITION STRATEGY ENSURING 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 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
7 

(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) 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 a second source for interchangeable, 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) CONSIDERATION OF COMPETITION THROUGHOUT OPERATION AND SUSTAINMENT

OF MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.—In carrying out this section, the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that, with respect to maintenance of a major defense 

acquisition program, consideration is given to capabilities within the Department of 

Defense to perform maintenance functions. 

SEC. 202. 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 certification components pursuant to subsection (d)(2)(B).’’; 

(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 postpreliminary design review assessment, and certifies on the basis of such assessment that the program demonstrates a high likelihood of accomplishing its intended mission or that no preliminary design review is necessary for such program to demonstrate a high likelihood of accomplishing its intended mission; 

and’’; 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 

(ii) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (E). 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
8 

(b) CERTIFICATION AND REVIEW OF PROGRAMS ENTERING DEVELOPMENT PRIOR TO

ENACTMENT OF SECTION 2366b OF TITLE 10.— 

(1) DETERMINATION.—(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), beginning 

not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, for each 

major defense acquisition program that has not received a Milestone C approval, or Key Decision Point C approval in the case of a space program, the 

Milestone Decision Authority shall determine whether or not the program satisfies the certification components specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) of section 2366b of title 10, United States Code. 

(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a major defense acquisition program 

that has been reviewed pursuant to section 2366b of title 10, United States 

Code, prior to the date that is 270 days after the date of the enactment of this 

Act, or a major defense acquisition program that has not yet received Milestone 

B approval. 

(2) ANNUAL REVIEW.—The Milestone Decision Authority shall review any program determined pursuant to paragraph (1) not to satisfy the certification components of subsection (a) of section 2366b of title 10, United States Code, not 

less often than annually thereafter to determine the extent to which such program currently satisfies the certification components specified in paragraphs (1) 

and (2) of subsection (a) of such section until such time as the Milestone Decision Authority determines that the 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 the certification components specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) of section 2366b of title 10, 

United States Code, shall prominently and clearly indicate that such program 

has not fully satisfied such certification components until such time as the Milestone Decision Authority makes the determination that such program has satisfied all certification components pursuant to paragraph (2). 

(c) REVIEWS OF PROGRAMS RESTRUCTURED AFTER EXPERIENCING CRITICAL COST

GROWTH.—The official designated to perform oversight of performance assessment 

pursuant to section 145 of title 10, United States Code, as added by this Act, shall 

annually review each major defense acquisition program that has been considered 

pursuant to paragraph (2) of section 2433(e) of title 10, United States Code, and 

which has been certified as necessary to continue pursuant to such paragraph, to 

assess the success of the program in achieving adequate program performance after 

the completion of such consideration. The results of reviews performed pursuant to 

this subsection shall be included in the next annual report of such official. 

SEC. 203. REQUIREMENT FOR CERTIFICATION OF MAJOR SYSTEMS PRIOR TO MILESTONE B. 

(a) CERTIFICATION.—Except as provided in subsection (b), beginning not later than 

270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, for each major defense acquisition program that has not received Milestone B approval, or Key Decision Point B 

approval in the case of a space program, the Milestone Decision Authority shall certify, after consultation with the Joint Requirements Oversight Council on matters 

relating to program requirements and military needs— 

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

(2) that the program is being executed by an entity with a relevant core competency as identified by the Secretary of Defense under section 118b of title 10, 

United States Code; 

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

(4) that a cost estimate for such program has been submitted to the Milestone 

Decision Authority and that the concurrence of the official designated to perform oversight of cost estimation pursuant to section 145 of title 10, United 

States Code, has been obtained regarding the choice of a cost estimate; and 

(5) that a schedule identifying the time and major activities required to reach 

Milestone B approval, or Key Decision Point B approval in the case of a space 

program, has been submitted to the Milestone Decision Authority. 

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

States Code. 

(c) REPORTS.— 

(1) RELATING TO COST GROWTH OR SCHEDULE DELAY OF PROGRAMS CERTIFIED

UNDER SUBSECTION (a).—With respect to a major defense acquisition program 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
9 

certified by the Milestone Decision Authority under subsection (a), the Milestone Decision Authority shall submit to the congressional defense committees 

a report in accordance with this subsection if, prior to Milestone B approval— 

(A) the projected cost of the program exceeds the cost estimate for the 

program submitted to the Milestone Decision Authority in accordance with 

subsection (a)(4) by more than 25 percent; or 

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

(2) RELATING TO COST GROWTH OF PROGRAMS CERTIFIED UNDER SECTION

2366a.—With respect to a major defense acquisition program certified by the 

Milestone Decision Authority under section 2366a of title 10, United States 

Code, the Milestone Decision Authority shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report in accordance with this subsection if the program 

manager submits a notification to the Milestone Decision Authority pursuant to 

section 2366a(b). 

(3) MATTERS COVERED.—Any report submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) or 

(2) shall— 

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

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

(C) include one of the following: 

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

that— 

(I) such program is essential to national security; 

(II) there are no alternatives to such program that will provide 

acceptable military capability at less cost; 

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

reasonable; and 

(IV) the management structure for the program is adequate to 

manage and control program cost and schedule. 

(ii) A plan for terminating the development of the program or withdrawal of Milestone A approval (or Key Decision Point A approval in 

the case of a space program) if the Milestone Decision Authority determines that such action is in the interest of national defense. 

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

(A) in the case of a report required by paragraph (1), not later than 30 

days after the Milestone Decision Authority determines the cost growth or 

schedule delay described in that paragraph; and 

(B) in the case of a report required by paragraph (2), not later than 30 

days after the Milestone Decision Authority receives the notification from 

the program manager described in that paragraph. 

(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

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

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

(B) An acquisition program of the Department of Defense that the Secretary of Defense expects to become a major defense acquisition program 

(as defined in such section 2430) upon Milestone B approval, on the basis 

of the cost estimate submitted in accordance with subsection (a)(4) of this 

section or subsection (a)(4) of section 2366a of title 10, United States Code. 

(2) INITIAL CAPABILITIES DOCUMENT.—The term ‘‘initial capabilities document’’ 

has the meaning provided by section 2366a (c)(2) of such title. 

(3) ENTITY.—The term ‘‘entity’’ has the meaning provided by section 

2366a(c)(4) of such title. 

(4) MILESTONE B APPROVAL.—The term ‘‘Milestone B approval’’ has the meaning provided by section 2366(e)(7) of such title. 

SEC. 204. CRITICAL COST GROWTH IN MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 

(a) AUTHORIZED ACTIONS IN EVENT OF CRITICAL COST GROWTH.—Paragraph (2) of 

section 2433(e) of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(2)(A) 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, after consultation with the Joint Requirements Oversight Council regarding program requirements, shall— 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
10 

‘‘(i) determine the root cause or causes of the critical cost growth including 

the role, if any, of— 

‘‘(I) changes or growth in requirements; 

‘‘(II) unrealistic baseline estimates; 

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

issues; 

‘‘(IV) changes in procurement quantities; 

‘‘(V) inadequate program funding or funding instability; 

‘‘(VI) poor performance by government or contractor personnel responsible 

for program management; or 

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

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

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

(A); 

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

‘‘(III) the viability of the acquisition strategy; 

‘‘(IV) the quality of program management; 

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

such program; and 

‘‘(VI) the need to reduce funding for other programs due to the cost 

growth on such program; 

‘‘(iii) submit the determination made under clause (ii) to Congress, before the 

end of the 60-day period beginning on the day the Selected Acquisition Report 

containing the information described in subsection (g) is required to be submitted under section 2432(f) of this title; and 

‘‘(iv) if a report under paragraph (1) has been previously submitted to Congress with respect to such program or subprogram for the current fiscal year 

but was based upon a different unit cost report from the program manager to 

the service acquisition executive designated by the Secretary concerned, submit 

a further report containing the information described in subsection (g), determined from the time of the previous report to the time of the current report. 

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

‘‘(i) a written certification (with a supporting explanation) is submitted along 

with the determination stating that— 

‘‘(I) such program is essential to national security; 

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

‘‘(III) new estimates of the program acquisition unit cost or procurement 

unit cost are reasonable; 

‘‘(IV) the program is a higher priority than programs whose funding must 

be reduced to accommodate cost growth on such program; and 

‘‘(V) the management structure for the program is adequate to manage 

and control program acquisition unit cost or procurement unit cost; and 

‘‘(ii) the most recent milestone decision is revisited and results in the approval 

of such restructured program.’’. 

(b) TOTAL EXPENDITURE FOR PROCUREMENT RESULTING IN TREATMENT AS MAJOR

DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAM.—Section 2430(a)(2) of such title is amended by inserting ‘‘, including all planned increments or spirals,’’ after ‘‘an eventual total expenditure for procurement’’. 

(c) REQUIREMENT TO INCLUDE COST GROWTH FUNDING CHANGES IN REPORT.— When a program is restructured under paragraph (2) of section 2433(e) of title 10, 

United States Code, the next Selected Acquisition Report for such program submitted pursuant to section 2432 of such title occurring after the submission of the 

budget for the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the program was restructured shall contain a description of all funding changes included in the budget for 

that fiscal year as a result of the cost growth on such program, including reductions 

made in the budgets of other programs to accommodate such cost growth. 

(d) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 2433(e)(3) of such title is amended— 

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

and 

(2) in subparagraph (B)— 

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

(B) by striking ‘‘paragraph (2)(A)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (2)(B)’’. 

SEC. 205. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN THE ACQUISITION OF MAJOR WEAPON SYSTEMS. 

(a) REQUIREMENT FOR PANEL TO PRESENT RECOMMENDATIONS.—Not later than 

one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Panel on Contracting IntegVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:13 May 13, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR101.XXX HR101

jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
11 

rity established pursuant to section 813 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364; 120 Stat. 2320) shall 

present recommendations to the Secretary of Defense on measures to eliminate or 

mitigate organizational conflicts of interest in the acquisition of major weapons systems. 

(b) REVISED REGULATIONS REQUIRED.—Not later than 180 days after receiving recommendations pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall revise the 

Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to address organizational 

conflicts of interest by contractors in the acquisition of major weapon systems. 

(c) POTENTIAL ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.—The organizational conflicts of interest considered during the preparation of the recommendations required 

pursuant to subsection (a) shall include conflicts that could arise as a result of any 

of the following: 

(1) Lead system integrator contracts on major defense acquisition programs 

and contracts that follow lead system integrator contracts on such programs, 

particularly contracts for production. 

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

(3) The award of major subsystem contracts by a prime contractor for a major 

defense acquisition program to business units or other affiliates of the same 

parent corporate entity, and particularly the award of subcontracts for software 

integration or the development of a proprietary software system architecture. 

(4) The performance by, or assistance of, contractors in technical evaluations 

on major defense acquisition programs. 

(d) EXTENSION OF PANEL ON CONTRACTING INTEGRITY.—Subsection (e) of section 

813 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 

(Public Law 109–364; 120 Stat. 2321) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(e) TERMINATION.—(1) Subject to the restriction in paragraph (2), the panel shall 

continue to serve until the date that is 18 months after the date on which the Secretary of Defense notifies the congressional defense committees of an intention to 

terminate the panel based on a determination that the activities of the panel no 

longer justify its continuation and that concerns about contracting integrity have 

been fully mitigated. 

‘‘(2) The panel shall continue to serve at least until December 31, 2011.’’. 

SEC. 206. 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. 207. CONSIDERATION OF TRADE-OFFS AMONG COST, SCHEDULE, AND PERFORMANCE IN 

THE ACQUISITION OF MAJOR WEAPON SYSTEMS. 

(a) REVIEW OF MECHANISMS FOR CONSIDERING TRADE-OFFS.—The Comptroller 

General shall review the use by the Department of Defense of certain mechanisms 

for considering trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance in the acquisition 

of major weapon systems. 

(b) MECHANISMS INCLUDED.—The mechanisms reviewed pursuant to subsection (a) 

shall include— 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
12 

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

225); 

(2) Configuration Steering Boards as established pursuant to section 814 of 

the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

(Public Law 110–417; 122 Stat. 4528); 

(3) any mechanism that is used or that may potentially be used by the Office 

of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) for considering trade-offs 

among cost, schedule, and performance in the acquisition of major weapon systems; and 

(4) any other mechanisms identified as allowing for the consideration of tradeoffs in the report on investment strategies for major defense acquisition programs required by section 817 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). 

(c) ASSESSMENT OF MECHANISMS.—The review shall describe and evaluate the effectiveness of the mechanisms identified in subsection (b). 

(d) REPORT.—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

the Comptroller General shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the review and assessment performed pursuant to this section. The report 

shall include such recommendations as the Comptroller General considers appropriate on the matters reviewed, including recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the mechanisms included in the report. 

PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND

The purpose of H.R. 2101, the Weapons Acquisition System Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and Oversight Act 

of 2009, is to amend title 10, United States Code, and to establish 

other new statutory requirements, to improve efficiency and the 

quality of outcomes in the acquisition of major weapons systems of 

the Department of Defense. 

The Government Accountability Office performs an annual assessment of the major defense acquisition programs of the Department. The latest assessment, released on March 30, 2009, reported 

that the Department estimates that its total costs for 96 major defense acquisition programs will exceed initial estimates for those 

programs by $296.0 billion in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars. 

While these expenses will be incurred over an extended period of 

time, the total is greater than two years’ worth of salaries and 

health care expenses incurred for all members of the armed forces 

in fiscal year 2009. The Government Accountability Office’s analysis of the Department’s cost overruns, however, measure only one 

symptom of a larger problem. They measure only the performance 

of the Department in fulfilling its acquisition plans. They do not 

measure the extent to which the Department’s acquisition plans 

will allow it to fulfill the national military strategy, or the extent 

to which they are consistent with the likely level of budgetary resources available to the Department in future fiscal years. While 

there are no clear measures of the Department’s performance 

against these benchmarks, it is the committee’s view that a more 

complete assessment would reveal that the Department’s approach 

to the acquisition and lifecycle sustainability of major weapons systems faces greater challenges than cost growth alone. 

The committee has worked for decades to improve the acquisition 

of major weapons systems. In 1982, the committee created a definition for major defense acquisition programs, and required the Department to submit selected acquisition reports and unit cost reports on these programs. In 1989, the committee established a requirement for the review of major defense acquisition programs experiencing certain levels of cost growth, an event commonly known 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
13 

as a Nunn-McCurdy breach. More recently, beginning in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 

109–163) and continuing in each subsequent fiscal year, the committee has devoted a subtitle of each national defense authorization act to provisions relating to major defense acquisition programs. As part of this subtitle, the committee has enacted legislation reforming the processes by which the Department manages 

major defense acquisition programs including how the Department: 

establishes and maintains program baselines; reviews programs at 

critical points in the acquisition process; manages program contractors; acquires commercial items for use on programs; acquires program technical data; trains and certifies the workforce executing 

programs; and requests authority for multiyear procurement. The 

committee utilized the experience gained in these legislative efforts, along with the hearing testimony received as described in the 

section in this report on hearings, to formulate its recommendations on H.R. 2101. In addition, on March 18, 2009, the committee 

organized a special oversight panel on defense acquisition reform 

to examine the defense acquisition system and possible ways to improve the system’s outcomes. While the panel’s efforts are continuing, the panel’s input contributed greatly to the committee’s 

consideration of the bill. 

This bill seeks to improve the efficiency and quality of outcomes 

in major weapons system acquisition using four primary mechanisms. It focuses additional oversight on the early stages of major 

defense acquisition programs, during which time more than 70 percent of total program costs are determined. It also focuses oversight 

on programs that demonstrate lack of performance: either by failing to satisfy the statutory criteria for entering into development 

for production or by experiencing a Nunn-McCurdy breach. It promotes greater use of competition. And it promotes and enables the 

consideration of trade-offs between cost, schedule, and performance. The bill requires the Secretary of Defense to designate an official or officials to perform three critical oversight functions: cost 

estimation, systems engineering, and performance assessment. 

These officials will assist the Secretary in implementing the mechanisms the bill establishes. The bill makes other organizational improvements in the Department by increasing the role of the combatant commanders in setting requirements for major defense acquisition programs, requiring the Department to address potential 

organizational conflicts of interest of contractors, and rewarding excellence in acquisition. The committee believes that in addition to 

improving the operation of the Department, the bill will result in 

the development and submission of more accurate and more objective information to support the committee’s review of major defense 

acquisition programs. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

H.R. 2101 was introduced on April 27, 2009, and referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services. 

On May 7, 2009, the Committee on Armed Services held a markup session to consider H.R. 2101, as introduced. The committee, a 

quorum being present, ordered reported H.R. 2101, as amended, to 

the House with a favorable recommendation by a record vote of 59– 

0. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
14 

HEARINGS

Committee consideration of the matters contained in H.R. 2101, 

the Weapons Acquisition System Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and Oversight Act of 2009, was informed by multiple committee hearings. Several hearings were held on matters 

that relate to the acquisition of major weapons systems including: 

a hearing with the Honorable Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, on the priorities of the Department of Defense in the new 

Administration conducted on January 27, 2009; a hearing with Mr. 

Gene Dodaro, the Acting Comptroller General, entitled ‘‘The Department of Defense at High Risk: Recommendations of the Comptroller General for Improving Departmental Management’’ on 

March 12, 2009; a hearing of the panel on defense acquisition reform with Mr. David G. Ahern, the Director of Portfolio Systems 

Acquisition, Department of Defense, and Mr. Michael J. Sullivan, 

Director for Acquisitions and Sourcing Management, Government 

Accountability Office, entitled ‘‘Measuring Value and Efficiency: 

How to Assess the Performance of the Defense Acquisition System’’ 

on April 1; a hearing of the panel on defense acquisition reform 

with Ms. Laura Baldwin, Director for the Resource Management 

Program, RAND, Mr. William M. Solis, Director for Defense Capabilities and Management, Government Accountability Office, Mr. 

John P. Hutton, Director for Acquisitions and Sourcing Management, Government Accountability Office, and Mr. Jeffrey P. Parsons, Executive Director, U.S. Army Contracting Command, entitled ‘‘Measuring Value and Risk in Service Contracting’’ on April 

23; and a hearing of the oversight and investigations subcommittee 

with Mr. Shay Assad, Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition and Technology, Lieutenant General Ross Thompson, Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition Logistics, and Technology, Mr. James Thomsen, Principal 

Civilian Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for the Acquisition Workforce, Lieutenant General Mark Shackelford, Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, and Mr. John K. Needham, Director for Acquisition and 

Sourcing Management, Government Accountability Office, entitled 

‘‘Acquisition Workforce: Merely a Business Expense or a Force Multiplier for the Warfighter’’ on April 28, 2009. In addition, two hearings were held on the bill and related matters after its introduction 

including: a hearing with the Honorable Rudy deLeon, Senior Vice 

President, Center for American Progress, former Deputy Secretary 

of Defense, the Honorable David Chu, former Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness and former Director for Program Analysis and Evaluation, Department of Defense, Mr. David 

Berteau, Director of the Defense Industrial Initiatives Group, Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Mr. Paul Francis, 

Director for Acquisitions and Sourcing Management, Government 

Accountability Office, entitled ‘‘Reform of Major Weapons Systems 

Acquisition and Related Legislative Proposals’’ on April 30, 2009; 

and a hearing with the Honorable Bill Lynn, Deputy Secretary of 

Defense, entitled ‘‘Department of Defense at High Risk: the Chief 

Management Officer’s Recommendations for Acquisition Reform 

and Related High Risk Areas’’ on May 6, 2009. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
15 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

The following is a section-by-section analysis of those sections of 

H.R. 2101, as amended, by the Committee on Armed Services. 

Section 1—Short Title; Table of Contents 

This section would establish the short title of the bill as the 

‘‘Weapons Acquisition System Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and Oversight Act of 2009.’’ 

TITLE I—ACQUISITION ORGANIZATION 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 101—Independent Performance of Acquisition Oversight 

Functions 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to designate 

officials within the Office of the Secretary of Defense as the principal advisors to the Secretary for each of the following acquisition 

oversight functions: cost estimation, systems engineering, and performance assessment. This section would allow an official to perform one or more of such functions. This section would require the 

Secretary to select officials for these assignments who are: highly 

expert in the function; assigned the appropriate staff and resources 

to carry out the function; independent; and free of undue political 

influence or personal conflict of interest. The officials designated 

under this section would advise the Secretary on these functions 

during the setting of requirements, formulation and execution of 

budgets, and program execution. 

Section 102—Oversight of Cost Estimation 

This section would require the official responsible for cost estimation to establish policies and procedures governing the conduct 

of cost estimation and cost analysis in general, and in particular 

for major defense acquisition programs (MDAP) and major automated information systems (MAIS). It would require the official to 

issue guidance on the selection of confidence levels for cost estimates and guidance relating to the consideration of lifecycle management and sustainability costs for MDAPs and MAISs. This section would require the official to issue independent cost estimates 

for MDAPs and MAISs at milestone A, milestone B, entry into lowrate initial production, entry into full-rate production, and after a 

breach of the significant or critical cost growth thresholds (NunnMcCurdy breach). 

This section would authorize the official to promptly receive the 

results of all cost estimates for MDAPs and MAISs conducted by 

the military departments and to comment on them. The official 

would also have access to all records of the military departments 

that the official deems necessary. The official would participate in 

formulating study guidance for an analysis of alternatives for a 

MDAP, discussions of resources associated with requirements, and 

discussions regarding a decision to request multi-year procurement 

authority for a MDAP. The official would have the sole authority 

to select the confidence level used in establishing a baseline description or budget estimate for a MDAP. The baseline description 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
16 

or budget estimate used at critical points in the acquisition process 

for a MDAP could be selected only with the official’s concurrence. 

The official would be required to disclose the confidence level selected for a MDAP, the rationale for such confidence level, and justify the decision if the confidence level is less than 80 percent. The 

official would be responsible for the Department’s Cost Analysis 

Improvement Group. This section would require the official to submit an annual activities report to the congressional defense committees by March 1 each year in unclassified form with a classified 

annex if necessary. 

Section 103—Oversight of Systems Engineering 

This section would require the official responsible for systems engineering to issue policies, procedures, and guidance on: the use of 

systems engineering principles and best practices in the Department of Defense; the use of systems engineering to enhance reliability, availability, and maintainability of major defense acquisition programs (MDAP); the development of systems engineering 

master plans (to include consideration of lifecycle management and 

sustainability) and test and evaluation master plans for MDAPs; 

the inclusion of provisions relating to systems engineering and reliability growth in requests for proposals; the appropriate use of development planning; developmental test and evaluation in general; 

the integration of developmental and operational testing; and the 

use of developmental test and evaluation as part of a coordinated 

systems engineering approach. This section would also require the 

official to provide advocacy, oversight, and guidance to the elements of the acquisition workforce responsible for systems engineering, developmental test and evaluation, and lifecycle management and sustainment. This section would require the official to 

provide the congressional defense committees with an annual activities report by March 1 each year in unclassified form with a 

classified annex if necessary. 

This section would authorize the official to participate in requirements discussions and would provide the official access to all 

records of the military departments that the official deems necessary to perform assigned duties. The official would be required to 

periodically assess the capabilities of the military departments for 

systems engineering (including development planning) and developmental test and evaluation and to provide such recommendations 

for improvement in such capabilities as the official deems necessary to the Secretary of Defense. The official would be authorized 

to review and approve the systems engineering master plan and 

the developmental test and evaluation plan within the test and 

evaluation master plans for all MDAPs. The official would report 

to the Secretary of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. 

Section 104—Oversight of Performance Assessment 

This section would require the official responsible for performance assessment to issue policies, procedures, and guidance for assessing the acquisition programs of the Department of Defense including the extent to which they deliver sufficient capability to the 

warfighter, achieve timely delivery of such capability, and deliver 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
17 

a level of value consistent with resources expended. This section 

would require the official to periodically assess the suitability of 

the baseline descriptions of major defense acquisition programs 

(MDAP) for providing a basis for such performance assessment and 

to make recommendations for their improvement to the Secretary 

of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics. 

This section would make the official responsible for the records 

of the Department’s earned value management system. It would 

also authorize the participation of the official in reviews of MDAPs 

at a Nunn-McCurdy breach, entry into full-rate production, or any 

decision to request multi-year procurement authority. This section 

would require the official to provide the congressional defense committees with an annual activities report by March 1 each year in 

unclassified form with a classified annex if necessary. 

Section 105—Assessment of Technological Maturity of Critical 

Technologies of Major Defense Acquisition Programs by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering 

This section would require the Director of Defense Research and 

Engineering to periodically review and assess the technological maturity and integration risk of critical technologies for major defense 

acquisition programs and submit any related findings to the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. 

This section would require the Director to report annually to the 

Secretary of Defense and to the congressional defense committees 

on the maturity and risk of such technologies. It would also require 

the Director to report to the congressional defense committees on 

any additional resources required to implement this section, certain 

requirements applicable at milestone B, and the requirements of 

Department of Defense Instruction 5000. 

Section 106—Role of the Commanders of the Combatant Commands in Identifying Joint Military Requirements 

This section would require the Joint Requirements Oversight 

Council to seek and consider input from the commanders of the 

unified combatant commands in formulating and reviewing joint 

military requirements. The input would include: current or projected missions or threats in the theater of operations of a combatant commander; the necessity and sufficiency of a proposed requirement; the relative priority of a proposed requirement; and the ability of partner nations in the combatant commander’s theater of operations to assist in meeting, developing, or using technologies to 

meet the requirement. This section would also require the Comptroller General, within two years after the date of enactment of this 

Act, to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services 

and the House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services on 

the implementation of the requirements of this section and of the 

requirements established by section 942 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), and 

to include in the report an assessment of the effectiveness of the 

input provided pursuant to such requirements. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
18 

TITLE II—ACQUISITION POLICY 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 201—Acquisition Strategies Ensuring Competition 

Throughout the Lifecycle of Major Defense Acquisition Programs 

This section 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 and subcontract level (at 

certain subcontract tiers) throughout the lifecycle of each program. 

This section would require consideration of such measures as competitive prototyping, dual-sourcing, unbundling of contracts, developing second sources, use of modular open architectures, use of 

build to print approaches, acquisition of complete technical data 

packages, periodic competitions for subsystem upgrades, licensing 

of additional suppliers, and periodic system reviews to address the 

long-term competitive effects of program decisions. This section 

would also require that the Department of Defense’s organic capabilities be considered for the performance of maintenance support 

functions. 

Section 202—Additional Requirements for Certain Major Defense 

Acquisition Programs 

This section would require the milestone decision authority to 

annually review any major defense acquisition program (MDAP) 

that received milestone B approval due to a waiver of one or more 

of the requirements for certification at milestone B required by section 2366b of title 10, United States Code, until such time as the 

program satisfies all of the requirements for such certification. This 

section would require a one-time review of MDAPs that received 

milestone B approval prior to the adoption of the current certification requirements, and that have not yet received milestone C 

approval, to determine the extent to which they currently comply 

with such certification requirements. MDAPs that are determined 

during the one-time review not to satisfy such certification requirements would be subject to annual review by the milestone decision 

authority until such time as they achieve compliance. This section 

would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that any budget 

request, budget justification material, budget display, reprogramming request, selected acquisition report, or other budget documentation or performance report submitted to the President regarding a program that does not yet fully satisfy the certification 

requirements of milestone B clearly indicate the program’s certification status. 

This section would require annual reviews of MDAPs that have 

been restructured after a critical Nunn-McCurdy breach by the official responsible for performance assessment to determine the extent to which the restructured program is achieving adequate cost 

and schedule performance. This section also would amend section 

2366b of title 10, United States Code, to require MDAPs to have 

successfully completed a preliminary design review prior to receiving milestone B approval unless a preliminary design review is determined to be unnecessary. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
19 

Section 203—Requirement for Certification of Major Systems Prior 

to Milestone B 

This section would require the milestone decision authority for 

major defense acquisition programs (MDAP) to review programs 

currently between milestone A and milestone B consistent with the 

requirements of section 2366a of title 10, United States Code, relating to the requirements for milestone A approval, unless the program has already been subject to a review under that section. This 

section would also require the milestone decision authority to submit a report to the congressional defense committees within 30 

days if a MDAP experiences cost growth of 25 percent or more or 

schedule delay of more than 25 percent prior to milestone B approval. The report would: identify the root causes of the cost or 

schedule growth for any such MDAP; identify appropriate metrics 

for the assessment of the program going forward; and certify the 

need to continue the program. The certification would: determine 

that the program is essential to national security; that there are 

no alternatives to the program that will provide acceptable capability at less cost; that new estimates of cost and schedule are reasonable; and that the management of the program is adequate. 

This section would require the milestone decision authority to terminate the program or rescind milestone A approval if the milestone decision authority determined that such action is in the interest of national defense. 

Section 204—Critical Cost Growth in Major Defense Acquisition 

Programs 

This section would amend section 2433 of title 10, United States 

Code, to modify the requirements for review of major defense acquisition programs (MDAP) that experience critical Nunn-McCurdy 

breaches. This section would require the Secretary of Defense, after 

consultation with the Joint Requirements Oversight Council regarding program requirements, to determine the root cause or 

causes of the cost growth experienced by such program and determine whether to terminate or restructure the program. This section 

would require the Secretary to submit such determination to Congress, and if the program is restructured, to certify that: the program as restructured is essential to national security; there are no 

alternatives to such program that will provide acceptable military 

capability at less cost; new cost estimates are reasonable; the program is a higher priority than programs whose funding must be reduced to accommodate the program’s cost growth; and that the 

management structure for the program is adequate. 

This section would require that, after a program is restructured 

under Nunn-McCurdy, the next selected acquisition report for the 

program submitted after a new budget is transmitted to Congress 

contain a description of all funding changes included in the budget 

as a result of the cost growth on the program including reductions 

made in the budgets of other programs. This section would further 

require the milestone decision authority for the program to return 

the program to the last milestone decision point for review of the 

program as restructured. This section would also amend section 

2430 of title 10, United States Code, to require unit cost reports 

under such section to include all planned increments or spirals of 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
20 

the program in the calculation of total expenditure for procurement 

of such program. 

Section 205—Organizational Conflicts of Interest in the Acquisition 

of Major Weapons Systems 

This section would require the Panel on Contracting Integrity of 

the Department of Defense to present recommendations to the Secretary of Defense on measures to eliminate or mitigate organizational conflicts of interest in the acquisition of major weapons systems within one year after the date of enactment of this Act. The 

specific areas that the Panel would be required to review for potential organizational conflicts of interest include: lead system integrator contracts; systems engineering and technical assistance contracts; the award of major subcontracts to a prime’s own business 

units; and contractor performance of technical evaluations. This 

section would further require the Secretary of Defense to revise the 

Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulations to address organizational conflicts of interest by contractors within 180 

days after receiving the recommendations of the Panel. This section 

would also extend the existence of the Panel on Contracting Integrity until December 30, 2011, or a date that is 18 months after the 

Secretary of Defense notifies the congressional defense committees 

of an intention to terminate the Panel, whichever is later. 

Section 206—Awards for Department of Defense Personnel for 

Excellence in the Acquisition of Products and Services 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to carry out 

a program to recognize excellent performance by individuals and 

teams of members of the armed forces and Department of Defense 

civilian personnel in the acquisition of products and services. This 

section would allow the Secretary to award cash bonuses as part 

of the program established under this section if such bonuses are 

authorized under any other provision of law. 

Section 207—Consideration of Trade-Offs Among Cost, Schedule, 

and Performance in the Acquisition of Major Weapon Systems 

This section would require the Comptroller General to review the 

use of certain mechanisms within the Department of Defense to 

consider trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance in the 

acquisition of major weapons systems. This section would require 

the review to consider mechanisms including: the Tri-Chair Committee, a committee consisting of the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Vice Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Director of Program Analysis and 

Evaluation; configuration steering boards; any mechanism that is 

used, or that may potentially be used, by the Under Secretary of 

Defense Comptroller; and any other relevant mechanisms identified 

in the report on investment strategies for major defense acquisition 

programs required by section 817 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). The review 

would assess the effectiveness of these mechanisms and include 

such recommendations as the Comptroller General deems necessary to increase the effectiveness of such mechanisms. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
21 

COMMITTEE POSITION

On May 7, 2009, the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum 

being present, ordered reported H.R. 2101, as amended, to the 

House with a favorable recommendation by a record vote of 59–0. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section 402 of 

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows: 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, May 11, 2009. 

Hon. IKE SKELTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2101, the Weapons Acquisition System Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge 

and Oversight Act of 2009. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Jason Wheelock and 

Kent Christensen. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 2101. Weapons Acquisition System Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and Oversight Act of 2009 

Summary: H.R. 2101 would make several changes to the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) acquisition procedures and regulations 

for Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs). In addition, the 

bill would require the Secretary of Defense to designate officials to 

serve as the principal advisors within the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense (OSD) on the acquisition functions of cost estimation, 

systems engineering, and performance assessment. 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2101 would cost $55 million over the 2010–2014 period, assuming the appropriation of the 

necessary funds. CBO’s estimate reflects the direct costs of implementing H.R. 2101. Although H.R. 2101 might yield improvements 

in the efficiency and effectiveness of DoD’s acquisition system for 

MDAPs over time, CBO has no basis for determining whether such 

improvements would occur or to what extent they might result in 

net savings to the government. Enacting the bill would not affect 

direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 2101 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2101 is shown in the following table. The costs 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
22 

of this legislation fall within budget function 050 (national defense). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010–2014 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Technology Readiness Assessments: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................... 7 7 7 7 8 36 

Estimated Outlays ................................................................. 7 7 7 7 8 36 

Oversight of Cost Estimation: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................... 4 4 4 4 4 20 

Estimated Outlays ................................................................. 3 4 4 4 4 19 

Total Changes:.

Estimated Authorization Level .......................................... 11 11 11 11 12 56 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................. 10 11 11 11 12 55 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 

2101 will be enacted in fiscal year 2009, and that the estimated authorizations will be appropriated starting in fiscal year 2010. 

Title I—Acquisition Organization 

Title I would require the Secretary of Defense to designate officials to serve as the principal advisors on the acquisition functions 

of cost estimation, systems engineering, and performance assessment. The bill would allow such officials to serve other duties that 

they might be assigned. In addition, title I would encourage OSD 

to conduct technology readiness assessments and to expand the use 

of independent cost estimates early in the acquisition process. CBO 

estimates that implementing title I would cost $10 million in 2010 

and $55 million over the 2010–2014 period. 

Technology Readiness Assessments. Section 105 would require 

the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) to periodically review the technological maturity and integration risk of 

technologies critical to the success of DoD’s major defense acquisition programs and report the findings to the Under Secretary of 

Defense, Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD AT&L). Such 

reviews currently take place at Milestones B and C in the defense 

acquisition process. According to DoD, although the language in 

section 105 would provide latitude in deciding when to conduct 

such reviews, it might lead to increased emphasis on conducting 

such reviews earlier in the acquisition process and updating such 

assessments on a more regular basis. 

Assuming readiness assessments for all MDAPs also were done 

early in the acquisition process (Milestone A) and updates were 

done every three years, the number of assessments conducted annually by the DDR&E would increase from 20 to 70. The costs of 

conducting those assessments would be incurred by both the 

DDR&E and the services. According to DoD, approximately 10 additional staff would be required to assist the DDR&E in conducting 

these assessments, which CBO estimates would cost approximately 

$2 million on an annual basis. The costs incurred by the services 

for conducting such assessments can vary from approximately 

$50,000 to $300,000 depending on the number of critical technologies that are under review during an assessment; the average 

cost of such assessments is approximately $100,000. Based on this 

information, CBO anticipates the annual cost to the services would 

increase by about $5 million. In total, CBO estimates that impleVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:13 May 13, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR101.XXX HR101

jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
23 

menting section 105 would cost $7 million in 2010 and $36 million 

over the 2010–2014 period. 

Oversight of Cost Estimation. Section 101 would require the Secretary of Defense to designate an official within OSD to be the 

principal advisor to the Secretary on cost estimation. The designated official would be responsible for prescribing DoD policies on 

cost estimation and analysis, monitoring, and reviewing cost estimates within the department, and conducting independent cost estimates of programs for which the USD AT&L is responsible for advancing through the acquisition process. 

Section 102 would require the official designated as the principal 

advisor on cost estimation to issue independent cost estimates in 

various circumstances, including in support of program reviews at 

Milestone A. Independent cost estimates in support of milestone reviews—which are conducted by the Cost Analysis Improvement 

Group (CAIG)—are currently required later in the acquisition process (for example, at Milestones B and C). Section 102 also would 

require additional reporting on cost estimation. Based upon information from DoD, CBO anticipates that conducting additional cost 

estimates and preparing reports as required by section 102 would 

require 15 additional employees within OSD, and some additional 

contracting support. Based upon this information, CBO estimates 

that implementing section 102 would cost $3 million in 2010 and 

about $20 million over the 2010–2014 period. 

Title II—Acquisition Policy 

Title II would modify a number of the procedures used by DoD 

to develop and acquire weapons systems and programs. Based on 

information from DoD, CBO estimates that implementing title II 

would not significantly increase administrative costs of the department beyond the amounts reflected for title I above. If, however, 

the administrative burden associated with implementing title II 

proves greater than anticipated, the resulting increase in costs 

arising from H.R. 2101 would be greater than amounts shown in 

the table. 

The modifications to the acquisition processes mandated by title 

II, combined with the organizational changes contained in title I, 

might improve the efficiency and effectiveness of DoD’s acquisition 

system for MDAPs. However, CBO has no basis for determining 

whether such improvements would result in net savings to the government; realizing any such savings would require reductions in future appropriations. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2101 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 

governments. 

Previous CBO estimate: On May 6, 2009, CBO transmitted a cost 

estimate for S. 454, the Weapons System Reform Act of 2009, as 

reported by the Senate Committee on Armed Services. The differences in the estimates reflect differences in the bills. In particular, S. 454 contains a provision not included in H.R. 2101 that 

would require DoD to reestablish the position of Developmental 

Testing and Evaluation. In addition, section 104 of S. 454 would require the creation of a Director of Independent Cost Assessment, 

and would transfer the staff and resources of the CAIG from its 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
24 

current location within OSD’s Program Analysis and Evaluation 

(PA&E). Although section 101 of H.R. 2101 would require the appointment of a principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense on cost 

estimation, H.R. 2101 would not transfer the staff and resources of 

the CAIG outside of PA&E; and therefore, CBO does not anticipate 

PA&E would be required to add personnel to perform cost estimation and analysis as would be required under S. 454. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Jason Wheelock and Kent 

Christensen. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: 

Burke Doherty. Impact on the Private Sector: Elizabeth Bass. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the committee generally concurs with the estimate 

as contained in the report of the Congressional Budget Office. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XXI 

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI, H.R. 2101, the Weapons Acquisition System Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge 

and Oversight Act of 2009, contains no congressional earmarks, 

limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 

9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI. 

OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the committee reports that the findings 

and recommendations of the committee, based on oversight activities pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

With respect to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, this legislation does not include any new 

spending or credit authority, nor does it provide for any increase 

or decrease in tax revenues or expenditures. 

With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the bill does not authorize specific program funding. 

GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the goals and objectives of H.R. 2101 are 

to improve the efficiency and quality of outcomes in the acquisition 

of major weapons systems by controlling cost growth and promoting 

independent oversight. With respect to the outcome related goal of 

controlling cost growth in major defense acquisition programs, the 

objective of this legislation is to: (1) require additional oversight on 

major defense acquisition programs in the early stages of development when most costs are determined; (2) require additional oversight of programs which have demonstrated poor performance; (3) 

promote the use of competitive acquisition strategies; and (4) promote and enable consideration of trade-offs between cost, schedule, 

and performance. With respect to the outcome related goal of proVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:16 May 13, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR101.XXX HR101

jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
25 

moting independence in the oversight of acquisition, the objective 

of this legislation is to: (1) require the Secretary of Defense to designate an official within the Department of Defense to serve as the 

principal advisor throughout the process of setting requirements, 

formulating and executing budgets, and during program execution 

for cost estimation, systems engineering, and performance assessment; (2) require the review of technological maturity on major defense acquisition programs by the Director of Defense Research and 

Engineering; (3) require input from the commanders of combatant 

commands in establishing joint military requirements; (4) require 

the Secretary of Defense to address the potential organizational 

conflicts of interest of defense contractors; and (5) award excellence 

in acquisition. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the committee finds the authority for this legislation in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. 

STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES

Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104–4, this legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state, local, and tribal 

governments, nor with respect to the private sector. Similarly, the 

bill provides no unfunded federal intergovernmental mandates. 

RECORD VOTE

In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, a record vote was taken with respect to 

the committee’s consideration of H.R. 2101. The record of this vote 

is included in this report. 

The committee ordered reported H.R. 2101, as amended, to the 

House with a favorable recommendation by a record vote of 59–0, 

a quorum being present. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
26 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTSInsert offset folio 34 here HR101.001
27 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle A—General Military Law 

* * * * * * * 

PART I—ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL 

MILITARY POWERS 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 4—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

Sec. 

131. Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

* * * * * * * 

145. Principal advisors for acquisition oversight functions. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 139a. Director of Defense Research and Engineering 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c)(1) The Director of Defense Research and Engineering 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 January 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. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 145. Principal advisors for acquisition oversight functions 

(a) ASSIGNMENT OF ACQUISITION OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS.—The 

Secretary of Defense shall designate an official within the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense as the principal advisor to the Secretary for 

each acquisition oversight function specified in subsection (c). An official may be designated to perform one or more of such functions. 

The performance of duties pursuant to a designation under this section shall not limit or otherwise affect the performance of any other 

duties assigned to such official by the Secretary or by other officers 

of the Department responsible for the management and direction of 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
28 

such official except as necessary to satisfy the requirements of subsection (b). 

(b) QUALIFICATIONS.—In designating an official for a function 

pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary shall ensure that the official reports directly to the Secretary in the performance of such 

function and is— 

(1) highly expert in matters relating to the function; 

(2) assigned the appropriate staff and resources necessary to 

carry out the function; 

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

(4) free of any undue political influence; and 

(5) free of any personal conflict of interest. 

(c) ACQUISITION OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS.—(1) The acquisition 

oversight functions to be performed by officials designated pursuant 

to subsection (a) are as follows: 

(A) Cost estimation. 

(B) Systems engineering. 

(C) Performance assessment. 

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

(2) Each acquisition oversight function specified in paragraph (1) 

shall cover all phases of an acquisition program, including setting 

of requirements, formulation and execution of budgets, and program 

execution. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 7—BOARDS, COUNCILS, AND COMMITTEES 

* * * * * * * 

§ 181. Joint Requirements Oversight Council 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) ADVISORS.—(1) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Comptroller), and the Director of the Office of Program Analysis 

and Evaluation shall serve as advisors to the Council on matters 

within their authority and expertise. 

(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). Such input may include, but is not limited to, an assessment of 

the following: 

(A) 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. 

(B) The necessity and sufficiency of a proposed joint military 

requirement in terms of current and projected missions or 

threats. 

(C) The relative priority of a proposed joint military requirement in comparison with other joint military requirements 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
29 

within the theater of operations of a commander of a combatant 

command. 

(D) 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. 

* * * * * * * 

PART IV—SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND 

PROCUREMENT 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 137—PROCUREMENT GENERALLY 

Sec. 

2302. Definitions. 

* * * * * * * 

2334. Acquisition oversight: oversight of cost estimation. 

2334a. Acquisition oversight: oversight of systems engineering. 

2334b. Acquisition oversight: oversight of performance assessment. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 2334. Acquisition oversight: oversight of cost estimation 

(a) ISSUANCE OF POLICIES, PROCEDURES, GUIDANCE, AND COST

ESTIMATES.—The official assigned oversight of cost estimation pursuant to section 145 of this title shall issue the following: 

(1) Policies and procedures governing the conduct of cost estimation and cost analysis generally for the acquisition programs 

of the Department of Defense. 

(2) Guidance relating to cost estimates and cost analyses conducted in connection with major defense acquisition programs 

under chapter 144 of this title or major automated information 

system programs under chapter 144A of this title. 

(3) Guidance relating to the proper selection of confidence levels for cost estimates generally, and specifically, for the proper 

selection of confidence levels for cost estimates for major defense 

acquisition programs under chapter 144 of this title or major 

automated information system program under chapter 144A of 

this title. 

(4) Guidance relating to full consideration of life-cycle management and sustainability costs of major defense acquisition 

programs under chapter 144 of this title or major automated information system programs under chapter 144A of this title. 

(5) 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 

title 10, United States Code; 

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


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
30 

(iii) any certification under section 2433(e)(2) of this 

title; and 

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

and 

(B) at any other time considered necessary by such official or upon the request of the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. 

(b) REVIEW OF COST ESTIMATES, COST ANALYSES, COST INDEXES, AND RECORDS OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS.—The Secretary of 

Defense shall ensure that the official designated for oversight of cost 

estimation pursuant to section 145 of this title— 

(1) promptly receives the results of all cost estimates and cost 

analyses conducted by the military departments, and all studies 

conducted by the military departments in connection with such 

cost estimates and cost analyses, for major defense acquisition 

programs and major automated information systems of the 

military departments, and is authorized to comment on such estimates, analyses, and studies; 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 including classified and proprietary information as appropriate) that the official considers necessary to 

review in order to carry out any duties under this section. 

(c) PARTICIPATION, CONCURRENCE, AND APPROVAL IN COST ESTI- MATION.—The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the official designated for oversight of cost estimation pursuant to section 145 of 

this title is involved in all discussions relating to cost estimation 

and the estimation of resource levels required for major defense acquisition programs and major automated information systems of the 

Department of Defense generally at all stages of such programs and 

may— 

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

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

(3) participate in the discussion of any discrepancies between 

an independent cost estimate and the cost estimate of a military 

department for a major defense acquisition program or major 

automated information system of the Department of Defense; 

(4) approve or disapprove, at such official’s sole discretion, 

the confidence level used in establishing a baseline description 

or budget estimate for a major defense acquisition program or 

major automated information system of the Department of Defense at any of the events specified in paragraph (5) of subsection (a) of this section; 

(5) concur in the choice of a baseline description or budget estimate for use at any of the events specified in paragraph (5) 

of subsection (a) of this section; and 

(6) participate in any decision to request authorization of a 

multiyear procurement contract for a major defense acquisition 

program. 

(d) DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENCE LEVELS FOR BASELINE ESTI- MATES OF MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.—The official 

designated to perform oversight of cost estimation pursuant to section 145 of this title, in approving a confidence level for use in a 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
31 

major defense acquisition program pursuant to subsection (c)(4), 

shall— 

(1) disclose the confidence level used in establishing a baseline estimate for the major defense acquisition 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) in any 

decision documentation approving a baseline estimate for the 

major defense acquisition program, in the next Selected Acquisition Report pursuant to section 2432 of this title for the major 

defense acquisition program, and in the next annual report submitted under subsection (f). 

(e) RELATIONSHIP TO COST ANALYSIS IMPROVEMENT GROUP.—The 

official designated to perform oversight of cost estimation pursuant 

to section 145 of this title shall be assigned responsibility for the 

management and oversight of the Cost Analysis Improvement Group 

of the Department of Defense. 

(f) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than March 1 of each year, beginning on March 1, 2010, the official designated to perform oversight 

of cost estimation pursuant to section 145 of this title shall submit 

to the congressional defense committees a report on the activities undertaken pursuant to this section during the preceding year. The report shall be in an unclassified form but may include a classified 

annex. 

§ 2334a. Acquisition oversight: oversight of systems engineering 

(a) ISSUANCE OF POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND GUIDANCE.—The official designated to perform oversight of systems engineering pursuant to section 145 of this title shall— 

(1) issue policies, procedures, and guidance for all elements 

of the Department of Defense concerning— 

(A) the use of systems engineering principles and best 

practices, generally; 

(B) the use of systems engineering approaches to enhance 

reliability, availability, and maintainability on major defense acquisition programs; 

(C) the development of systems engineering master plans 

for major defense acquisition programs, including systems 

engineering considerations in support of life-cycle management and sustainability; 

(D) the inclusion of provisions relating to systems engineering and reliability growth in requests for proposals; 

(E) the appropriate use of development planning to reduce the time from system development to deployment, to 

reduce development risk and cost growth, and to provide 

future benchmarks against which to trade requirements, 

cost, and schedule; 

(F) developmental test and evaluation generally; 

(G) in coordination with the Director of Operational Test 

and Evaluation, the integration of developmental test and 

evaluation with operational test and evaluation; 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
32 

(H) in coordination with the Director of Operational Test 

and Evaluation, the development of test and evaluation 

master plans for major defense acquisition programs; and 

(I) the use of developmental test and evaluation as part 

of a coordinated systems engineering approach to system 

development; and 

(2) provide advocacy, oversight, and direction to elements of 

the acquisition workforce responsible for functions relating to 

systems engineering, developmental test and evaluation, and 

life-cycle management and sustainability. 

(b) PARTICIPATION IN REQUIREMENTS DISCUSSIONS.—The official 

designated to perform oversight of systems engineering pursuant to 

section 145 of this title shall 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 title 10, United States Code, including specific input relating to each capabilities development document. 

(c) ACCESS TO RECORDS OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS.—The 

official designated to perform oversight of systems engineering pursuant to section 145 of this title shall 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 official considers necessary to review in order to carry out any duties under this section. 

(d) ASSESSMENT OF MILITARY DEPARTMENT CAPABILITIES FOR

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUA- TION.—The official designated to perform oversight of systems engineering pursuant to section 145 of this title shall— 

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

(2) provide such assessment, along with such recommendations for improvement as the official considers necessary, to the 

Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and 

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

(e) REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUI- SITION PROGRAMS.—The official designated to perform oversight of 

systems engineering pursuant to section 145 of this title shall review 

and approve the following plans with respect to any major defense 

acquisition program: 

(1) The systems engineering master plan. 

(2) The developmental test and evaluation plan within the 

test and evaluation master plan. 

(f) REPORTING THROUGH UNDER SECRETARY.—The official designated to perform oversight of systems engineering pursuant to section 145 of this title shall report to the Secretary of Defense through 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. 

(g) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than March 1 of each year, beginning on March 1, 2010, the official designated to perform oversight 

of systems engineering pursuant to section 145 of this title shall 

submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the acVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:13 May 13, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR101.XXX HR101

jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
33 

tivities undertaken pursuant to this section during the preceding 

year. The report shall be in unclassified form but may include a 

classified annex. 

§ 2334b. Acquisition oversight: oversight of performance assessment 

(a) ISSUANCE OF POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND GUIDANCE FOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS.—The official designated to perform oversight of performance assessment pursuant to section 145 of this title 

shall be responsible for the issuance of policies, procedures, and 

guidance governing the conduct of performance assessments for the 

acquisition programs of the Department of Defense, including assessment of the extent to which acquisition programs— 

(1) deliver sufficient capability to the warfighter; 

(2) achieve timely delivery of such capability; and 

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

(b) ASSESSMENT OF BASELINE QUALITY.—The official designated 

to perform oversight of performance assessment pursuant to section 

145 of this title shall periodically assess the suitability of the baseline descriptions required by section 2435 of title 10, United States 

Code, of major defense acquisition programs for providing a basis 

for performance assessment and make such recommendations to the 

Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics as the official considers necessary to 

improve the suitability of baseline descriptions for such purpose. 

(c) EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.—The official designated to perform oversight of performance assessment pursuant to 

section 145 of this title shall be responsible for the management and 

oversight of the records of the earned value management system of 

the Department of Defense. 

(d) PARTICIPATION IN CERTAIN PROGRAM REVIEWS.—The official 

designated to perform oversight of performance assessment pursuant 

to section 145 of this title is authorized to present an assessment of 

the performance of a major defense acquisition program during— 

(1) any discussions prior to certification under section 

2433(e)(2) of this title; 

(2) any discussions prior to entry into full-rate production; 

and 

(3) consideration of any decision to request authorization of 

a multiyear procurement contract for a major defense acquisition program. 

(e) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than March 1 of each year, beginning on March 1, 2010, the official designated to perform oversight 

of performance assessment pursuant to section 145 of this title shall 

submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the activities undertaken pursuant to this section during the preceding 

year. The report shall be in unclassified form but may include a 

classified annex. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 139—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
34 

§ 2366b. Major defense acquisition programs: certification 

required before Milestone B or Key Decision Point 

B approval 

(a) CERTIFICATION.—A major defense acquisition program may 

not receive Milestone B approval, or Key Decision Point B approval 

in the case of a space program, until the milestone decision authority— 

(1) has received a business case analysis and certifies on the 

basis of the analysis that— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(D) funding is available to execute the product development and production plan under the program, through the 

period covered by the future-years defense program submitted during the fiscal year in which the certification is 

made, consistent with the estimates described in subparagraph (C) for the program; øand¿ 

(2) has received a preliminary design review and conducted 

a formal post-preliminary design review assessment, and certifies on the basis of such assessment that the program demonstrates a high likelihood of accomplishing its intended mission or that no preliminary design review is necessary for such 

program to demonstrate a high likelihood of accomplishing its 

intended mission; and 

ø(2)¿ (3) further certifies that— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(D) the technology in the program has been demonstrated in a relevant environmentø;¿, 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 

ø(E) the program demonstrates a high likelihood of accomplishing its intended mission; and¿ 

ø(F)¿ (E) the program complies with all relevant policies, 

regulations, and directives of the Department of Defense. 

* * * * * * * 

(d) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—(1) The milestone decision 

authority may, at the time of Milestone B approval (or Key Decision Point B approval in the case of a space program) or at the 

time that such milestone decision authority withdraws a certification or rescinds Milestone B approval (or Key Decision Point B 

approval in the case of a space program) pursuant to subsection 

(b)(2), waive the applicability to a major defense acquisition program of one or more components (as specified in paragraph (1) or 

(2) of subsection (a)) of the certification requirement if the milestone decision authority determines that, but for such a waiver, the 

Department would be unable to meet critical national security objectives. øWhenever the milestone decision authority makes such a 

determination and authorizes such a waiver, 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.¿ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
35 

(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. 

(e) DESIGNATION OF CERTIFICATION STATUS IN BUDGET DOCU- MENTATION.—Any budget request, budget justification material, 

budget display, reprogramming request, Selected Acquisition Report, or other budget documentation or performance report submitted by the Secretary of Defense to the President regarding a 

major defense acquisition program receiving a waiver pursuant to 

subsection (d) shall prominently and clearly indicate that such program has not fully satisfied the certification requirements of this 

section until such time as the milestone decision authority makes 

the determination that such program has satisfied all certification 

components pursuant to subsection (d)(2)(B). 

ø(e)¿ (f) NONDELEGATION.—The milestone decision authority may 

not delegate the certification requirement under subsection (a) or 

the authority to waive any component of such requirement under 

subsection (d). 

ø(f)¿ (g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 144—MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION 

PROGRAMS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 2430. Major defense acquisition program defined 

(a) In this chapter, the term ‘‘major defense acquisition program’’ 

means a Department of Defense acquisition program that is not a 

highly sensitive classified program (as determined by the Secretary 

of Defense) and— 

(1) * * * 

(2) that is estimated by the Secretary of Defense to require 

an eventual total expenditure for research, development, test, 

and evaluation of more than $300,000,000 (based on fiscal year 

1990 constant dollars) or an eventual total expenditure for procurement, including all planned increments or spirals, of more 

than $1,800,000,000 (based on fiscal year 1990 constant dollars). 

* * * * * * * 

§ 2433. Unit cost reports 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
36 

(e)(1) * * * 

ø(2) If 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, after consultation with the Joint Requirements Oversight 

Council regarding program requirements, shall— 

ø(A) carry out an assessment of— 

ø(i) any design, engineering, manufacturing, or technology 

integration issues that contributed significantly to the cost 

growth of the program; 

ø(ii) the projected cost of completing the program if current 

requirements are not modified; 

ø(iii) the projected cost of completing the program based on 

reasonable modification of such requirements; and 

ø(iv) the rough order of magnitude of the costs of any reasonable alternative system or capability; 

ø(B) submit to Congress, before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the day the Selected Acquisition Report containing the 

information described in subsection (g) is required to be submitted 

under section 2432(f) of this title, a written certification (with a 

supporting explanation) stating that— 

ø(i) such acquisition program is essential to the national security; 

ø(ii) there are no alternatives to such acquisition program 

which will provide equal or greater military capability at less 

cost; 

ø(iii) the new estimates of the program acquisition unit cost 

or procurement unit cost are reasonable; and 

ø(iv) the management structure for the acquisition program 

is adequate to manage and control program acquisition unit 

cost or procurement unit cost; and 

ø(C) if a report under paragraph (1) has been previously submitted to Congress with respect to such program for the current 

fiscal year but was based upon a different unit cost report from the 

program manager to the service acquisition executive designated by 

the Secretary concerned, a further report containing the information described in subsection (g), determined from the time of the 

previous report to the time of the current report.¿ 

(2)(A) 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, after consultation with the Joint Requirements Oversight 

Council regarding program requirements, shall— 

(i) determine the root cause or causes of the critical cost 

growth including the role, if any, of— 

(I) changes or growth in requirements; 

(II) unrealistic baseline estimates; 

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

(IV) changes in procurement quantities; 

(V) inadequate program funding or funding instability; 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
37 

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

(VII) other causes as identified by the Secretary; 

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

(I) the root causes of cost growth identified pursuant to 

subparagraph (A); 

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

(III) the viability of the acquisition strategy; 

(IV) the quality of program management; 

(V) a broad range of potential material and non-material 

alternatives to such program; and 

(VI) the need to reduce funding for other programs due 

to the cost growth on such program; 

(iii) submit the determination made under clause (ii) to Congress, before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the day 

the Selected Acquisition Report containing the information described in subsection (g) is required to be submitted under section 2432(f) of this title; and 

(iv) if a report under paragraph (1) has been previously submitted to Congress with respect to such program or subprogram 

for the current fiscal year but was based upon a different unit 

cost report from the program manager to the service acquisition 

executive designated by the Secretary concerned, submit a further report containing the information described in subsection 

(g), determined from the time of the previous report to the time 

of the current report. 

(B) A program may be restructured pursuant to a determination 

under subparagraph (A)(ii) only if— 

(i) a written certification (with a supporting explanation) is 

submitted along with the determination stating that— 

(I) such program is essential to national security; 

(II) there are no alternatives to such program which will 

provide acceptable military capability at less cost; 

(III) new estimates of the program acquisition unit cost 

or procurement unit cost are reasonable; 

(IV) the program is a higher priority than programs 

whose funding must be reduced to accommodate cost 

growth on such program; and 

(V) the management structure for the program is adequate to manage and control program acquisition unit cost 

or procurement unit cost; and 

(ii) the most recent milestone decision is revisited and results 

in the approval of such restructured program. 

(3) If a determination of an increase by a percentage equal to or 

greater than the significant cost growth threshold is made by the 

Secretary under subsection (d) and a Selected Acquisition Report 

containing the information described in subsection (g) is not submitted to Congress under paragraph (1), or if a determination of an 

increase by a percentage equal to or greater than the critical cost 

growth threshold is made by the Secretary under subsection (d) 

and the certification of the Secretary of Defense is not submitted 

to Congress under paragraph (2), funds appropriated for military 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
38 

construction, for research, development, test, and evaluation, and 

for procurement may not be obligated for a major contract under 

the program. The prohibition on the obligation of funds for a major 

defense acquisition program shall cease to apply at the end of a period of 30 days of continuous session of Congress (as determined 

under section 7307(b)(2) of this title) beginning on the date— 

(A) on which Congress receives the Selected Acquisition Report under paragraph (1) øor (2)(B)¿ or (2)(A)(iii) with respect 

to that program, in the case of a determination of an increase 

by a percentage equal to or greater than the significant cost 

growth threshold (as determined in subsection (d)); or 

(B) on which Congress has received both the Selected Acquisition Report under paragraph (1) øor (2)(B)¿ or (2)(A)(iii) and 

the certification of the Secretary of Defense under øparagraph 

(2)(A)¿ paragraph (2)(B) with respect to that program, in the 

case of an increase by a percentage equal to or greater than 

the critical cost growth threshold (as determined under subsection (d)). 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 813 OF THE JOHN WARNER NATIONAL 

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 

SEC. 813. ESTABLISHMENT OF PANEL ON CONTRACTING INTEGRITY. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(e) TERMINATION..—The panel shall terminate on December 31, 

2009.¿ 

(e) TERMINATION.—(1) Subject to the restriction in paragraph (2), 

the panel shall continue to serve until the date that is 18 months 

after the date on which the Secretary of Defense notifies the congressional defense committees of an intention to terminate the panel 

based on a determination that the activities of the panel no longer 

justify its continuation and that concerns about contracting integrity have been fully mitigated. 

(2) The panel shall continue to serve at least until December 31, 

2011. 

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

Clause 3(a) of rule XIII requires that the report include all supplemental, minority, or additional views that have been submitted. 

None have been submitted by the time of the filing of the report. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS