111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 111–124 

WEAPON SYSTEMS ACQUISTION REFORM ACT OF 2009 

MAY 20, 2009.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. SKELTON, from the committee on conference, 

submitted the following 

CONFERENCE REPORT 

[To accompany S. 454] 

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 

two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 454), to 

improve the organization and procedures of the Department of Defense for the acquisition of major weapon systems, and for other 

purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed 

to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: 

That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House and agree to the same with an amendment as 

follows: 

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House 

amendment, insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009’’. 

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

as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

Sec. 2. Definitions. 

TITLE I—ACQUISITION ORGANIZATION 

Sec. 101. Cost assessment and program evaluation. 

Sec. 102. Directors of Developmental Test and Evaluation and Systems Engineering. 

Sec. 103. Performance assessments and root cause analyses for major defense acquisition programs. 

Sec. 104. Assessment of technological maturity of critical technologies of major defense acquisition programs by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering. 

Sec. 105. Role of the commanders of the combatant commands in identifying joint 

military requirements. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
2 

TITLE II—ACQUISITION POLICY 

Sec. 201. Consideration of trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives in Department of Defense acquisition programs. 

Sec. 202. Acquisition strategies to ensure competition throughout the lifecycle of 

major defense acquisition programs. 

Sec. 203. Prototyping requirements for major defense acquisition programs. 

Sec. 204. Actions to identify and address systemic problems in major defense acquisition programs prior to Milestone B approval. 

Sec. 205. Additional requirements for certain major defense acquisition programs. 

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

Sec. 207. Organizational conflicts of interest in major defense acquisition programs. 

TITLE III—ADDITIONAL ACQUISITION PROVISIONS 

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

Sec. 302. Earned value management. 

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

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

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) The term ‘‘congressional defense committees’’ has the 

meaning given that term in section 101(a)(16) of title 10, United 

States Code. 

(2) The term ‘‘major defense acquisition program’’ has the 

meaning given that term in section 2430 of title 10, United 

States Code. 

(3) The term ‘‘major weapon system’’ has the meaning given 

that term in section 2379(d) of title 10, United States Code. 

TITLE I—ACQUISITION ORGANIZATION 

SEC. 101. COST ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM EVALUATION. 

(a) DIRECTOR OF COST ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM EVALUATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 4 of title 10, United States Code, 

is amended by inserting after section 139b the following new 

section: 

‘‘§ 139c. Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation 

‘‘(a) APPOINTMENT.—There is a Director of Cost Assessment and 

Program Evaluation in the Department of Defense, appointed by the 

President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. 

‘‘(b) INDEPENDENT ADVICE TO SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.—(1) The 

Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation is the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense and other senior officials 

of the Department of Defense, and shall provide independent analysis and advice to such officials, on the following matters: 

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

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

‘‘(2) The Director may communicate views on matters within the 

responsibility of the Director directly to the Secretary of Defense and 

the Deputy Secretary of Defense without obtaining the approval or 

concurrence of any other official within the Department of Defense. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
3 

‘‘(c) DEPUTY DIRECTORS.—There are two Deputy Directors within the Office of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, as follows: 

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

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

‘‘(d) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The Director of Cost Assessment and 

Program Evaluation shall serve as the principal official within the 

senior management of the Department of Defense for the following: 

‘‘(1) Cost estimation and cost analysis for acquisition programs of the Department of Defense, and carrying out the duties assigned pursuant to section 2334 of this title. 

‘‘(2) Analysis and advice on matters relating to the planning and programming phases of the Planning, Programming, 

Budgeting and Execution system, and the preparation of materials and guidance for such system, as directed by the Secretary 

of Defense, working in coordination with the Under Secretary of 

Defense (Comptroller). 

‘‘(3) Analysis and advice for resource discussions relating to 

requirements under consideration in the Joint Requirements 

Oversight Council pursuant to section 181 of this title. 

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

‘‘(5) Review, analysis, and evaluation of programs for executing approved strategies and policies, ensuring that information on programs is presented accurately and completely, and 

assessing the effect of spending by the Department of Defense on 

the United States economy. 

‘‘(6) Assessments of special access and compartmented intelligence programs, in coordination with the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and in accordance 

with applicable policies. 

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

of Defense. 

‘‘(8) Leading the development of improved analytical skills 

and competencies within the cost assessment and program evaluation workforce of the Department of Defense and improved 

tools, data, and methods to promote performance, economy, and 

efficiency in analyzing national security planning and the allocation of defense resources.’’. 

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 4 of such title is amended by inserting after 

the item relating to section 139b the following new item: 

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

(3) EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE LEVEL IV.—Section 5315 of title 5, 

United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, Department of Defense the following new item: 

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

(b) INDEPENDENT COST ESTIMATION AND COST ANALYSIS.— 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
4 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 137 of title 10, United States 

Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

‘‘§ 2334. Independent cost estimation and cost analysis 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shall ensure that the cost estimation and cost 

analysis processes of the Department of Defense provide accurate information and realistic estimates of cost for the acquisition programs of the Department of Defense. In carrying out that responsibility, the Director shall— 

‘‘(1) prescribe, by authority of the Secretary of Defense, policies and procedures for the conduct of cost estimation and cost 

analysis for the acquisition programs of the Department of Defense; 

‘‘(2) provide guidance to and consult with the Secretary of 

Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the Secretaries of the military departments, and the 

heads of the Defense Agencies with respect to cost estimation in 

the Department of Defense in general and with respect to specific cost estimates and cost analyses to be conducted in connection with a major defense acquisition program under chapter 

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

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

the proper selection of confidence levels in cost estimates for 

major defense acquisition programs and major automated information system programs; 

‘‘(4) issue guidance relating to full consideration of life-cycle 

management and sustainability costs in major defense acquisition programs and major automated information system programs; 

‘‘(5) review all cost estimates and cost analyses conducted 

in connection with major defense acquisition programs and 

major automated information system programs; 

‘‘(6) conduct independent cost estimates and cost analyses 

for major defense acquisition programs and major automated 

information system programs for which the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics is the Milestone Decision Authority— 

‘‘(A) in advance of— 

‘‘(i) any certification under section 2366a or 2366b 

of this title; 

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

‘‘(iii) any certification under section 2433a of this 

title; and 

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

and 

‘‘(B) at any other time considered appropriate by the 

Director or upon the request of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
5 

‘‘(7) periodically assess and update the cost indexes used by 

the Department to ensure that such indexes have a sound basis 

and meet the Department’s needs for realistic cost estimation. 

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

RECORDS OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS AND DEFENSE AGEN- CIES.—The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Director of 

Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation— 

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

cost analyses conducted by the military departments and Defense Agencies, and all studies conducted by the military departments and Defense Agencies in connection with such cost 

estimates and cost analyses, for major defense acquisition programs and major automated information system programs of 

the military departments and Defense Agencies; and 

‘‘(2) has timely access to any records and data in the Department of Defense (including the records and data of each 

military department and Defense Agency and including classified and proprietary information) that the Director considers 

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

section. 

‘‘(c) PARTICIPATION, CONCURRENCE, AND APPROVAL IN COST ES- TIMATION.—The Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation may— 

‘‘(1) participate in the discussion of any discrepancies between an independent cost estimate and the cost estimate of a 

military department or Defense Agency for a major defense acquisition program or major automated information system program of the Department of Defense; 

‘‘(2) comment on deficiencies in the methodology or execution of any cost estimate or cost analysis developed by a military department or Defense Agency for a major defense acquisition program or major automated information system program; 

‘‘(3) concur in the choice of a cost estimate within the baseline description or any other cost estimate (including the confidence level for any such cost estimate) for use at any event 

specified in subsection (a)(6); and 

‘‘(4) participate in the consideration of any decision to request authorization of a multiyear procurement contract for a 

major defense acquisition program. 

‘‘(d) DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENCE LEVELS FOR BASELINE ESTIMATES OF MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.—The Director 

of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, and the Secretary of 

the military department concerned or the head of the Defense Agency concerned (as applicable), shall each— 

‘‘(1) disclose in accordance with paragraph (2) the confidence level used in establishing a cost estimate for a major defense acquisition program or major automated information system program, the rationale for selecting such confidence level, 

and, if such confidence level is less than 80 percent, the justification for selecting a confidence level of less than 80 percent; 

and 

‘‘(2) include the disclosure required by paragraph (1)— 

‘‘(A) in any decision documentation approving a cost estimate within the baseline description or any other cost estimate for use at any event specified in subsection (a)(6); and 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
6 

‘‘(B) in the next Selected Acquisition Report pursuant to 

section 2432 of this title in the case of a major defense acquisition program, or the next quarterly report pursuant to 

section 2445c of this title in the case of a major automated 

information system program. 

‘‘(e) ANNUAL REPORT ON COST ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES.—(1) 

The Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shall prepare an annual report summarizing the cost estimation and cost 

analysis activities of the Department of Defense during the previous 

year and assessing the progress of the Department in improving the 

accuracy of its cost estimates and analyses. Each report shall include, for the year covered by such report, an assessment of— 

‘‘(A) the extent to which each of the military departments 

and Defense Agencies have complied with policies, procedures, 

and guidance issued by the Director with regard to the preparation of cost estimates for major defense acquisition programs 

and major automated information systems; 

‘‘(B) the overall quality of cost estimates prepared by each 

of the military departments and Defense Agencies for major defense acquisition programs and major automated information 

system programs; and 

‘‘(C) any consistent differences in methodology or approach 

among the cost estimates prepared by the military departments, 

the Defense Agencies, and the Director. 

‘‘(2) Each report under this subsection shall be submitted concurrently to the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense 

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

Defense (Comptroller), and the congressional defense committees not 

later than 10 days after the transmittal to Congress of the budget 

of the President for the next fiscal year (as submitted pursuant to 

section 1105 of title 31). 

‘‘(3)(A) Each report submitted to the congressional defense committees under this subsection shall be submitted in unclassified 

form, but may include a classified annex. 

‘‘(B) The Director shall ensure that a report submitted under 

this subsection does not include any information, such as proprietary or source selection sensitive information, that could undermine 

the integrity of the acquisition process. 

‘‘(C) The unclassified version of each report submitted to the 

congressional defense committees under this subsection shall be 

posted on an Internet website of the Department of Defense that is 

available to the public. 

‘‘(4) The Secretary of Defense may comment on any report of the 

Director to the congressional defense committees under this subsection. 

‘‘(f) STAFF.—The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation has sufficient 

professional staff of military and civilian personnel to enable the 

Director to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the Director 

under this section.’’. 

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 137 of such title is amended by adding at 

the end the following new item: 

‘‘2334. Independent cost estimation and cost analysis.’’. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
7 

(c) TRANSFER OF PERSONNEL AND FUNCTIONS.— (1) TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS.—The functions of the Office 

of Program Analysis and Evaluation of the Department of Defense, including the functions of the Cost Analysis Improvement 

Group, are hereby transferred to the Office of the Director of 

Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation. 

(2) TRANSFER OF PERSONNEL TO DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR

INDEPENDENT COST ASSESSMENT.—The personnel of the Cost 

Analysis Improvement Group are hereby transferred to the Deputy Director for Cost Assessment in the Office of the Director of 

Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation. 

(3) TRANSFER OF PERSONNEL TO DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR

PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION.—The personnel (other 

than the personnel transferred under paragraph (2)) of the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation are hereby transferred 

to the Deputy Director for Program Evaluation in the Office of 

the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation. 

(d) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— (1) Section 181(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘Director of the Office of Program Analysis and 

Evaluation’’ and inserting ‘‘Director of Cost Assessment and 

Program Evaluation’’. 

(2) Section 2306b(i)(1)(B) of such title is amended by striking ‘‘Cost Analysis Improvement Group of the Department of 

Defense’’ and inserting ‘‘Director of Cost Assessment and Program Analysis’’. 

(3) Section 2366a(a)(4) of such title is amended by inserting 

‘‘, with the concurrence of the Director of Cost Assessment and 

Program Evaluation,’’ after ‘‘has been submitted’’. 

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

execute’’. 

(5) Subparagraph (A) of section 2434(b)(1) of such title is 

amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(A) be prepared or approved by the Director of Cost Assessment 

and Program Evaluation; and’’. 

(6) Section 2445c(f)(3) of such title is amended by striking 

‘‘are reasonable’’ and inserting ‘‘have been determined, with the 

concurrence of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program 

Evaluation, to be reasonable’’. 

(e) REPORT ON MONITORING OF OPERATING AND SUPPORT

COSTS FOR MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.— 

(1) REPORT TO SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.—Not later than one 

year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of 

Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation under section 139c of 

title 10 United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), shall 

review existing systems and methods of the Department of Defense for tracking and assessing operating and support costs on 

major defense acquisition programs and submit to the Secretary 

of Defense a report on the finding and recommendations of the 

Director as a result of the review, including an assessment by 

the Director of the feasibility and advisability of establishing 

baselines for operating and support costs under section 2435 of 

title 10, United States Code. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
8 

(2) TRANSMITTAL TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 30 days 

after receiving the report required by paragraph (1), the Secretary shall transmit the report to the congressional defense 

committees, together with any comments on the report the Secretary considers appropriate. 

SEC. 102. DIRECTORS OF DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION 

AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING. 

(a) IN GENERAL.— (1) ESTABLISHMENT OF POSITIONS.—Chapter 4 of title 10, 

United States Code, as amended by section 101(a) of this Act, 

is further amended by inserting after section 139c the following 

new section: 

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

‘‘(a) DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION.— ‘‘(1) APPOINTMENT.—There is a Director of Developmental 

Test and Evaluation, who shall be appointed by the Secretary 

of Defense from among individuals with an expertise in test and 

evaluation. 

‘‘(2) PRINCIPAL ADVISOR FOR DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND

EVALUATION.—The Director shall be the principal advisor to the 

Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics on developmental test and 

evaluation in the Department of Defense. 

‘‘(3) SUPERVISION.—The Director shall be subject to the supervision of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics and shall report to the Under Secretary. 

‘‘(4) COORDINATION WITH DIRECTOR OF SYSTEMS ENGINEER- ING.—The Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation shall 

closely coordinate with the Director of Systems Engineering to 

ensure that the developmental test and evaluation activities of 

the Department of Defense are fully integrated into and consistent with the systems engineering and development planning 

processes of the Department. 

‘‘(5) DUTIES.—The Director shall— 

‘‘(A) develop policies and guidance for— 

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

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

evaluation; 

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

‘‘(B) review and approve the developmental test and 

evaluation plan within the test and evaluation master plan 

for each major defense acquisition program of the Department of Defense; 

‘‘(C) monitor and review the developmental test and 

evaluation activities of the major defense acquisition programs; 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
9 

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

‘‘(E) periodically review the organizations and capabilities of the military departments with respect to developmental test and evaluation and identify needed changes or 

improvements to such organizations and capabilities, and 

provide input regarding needed changes or improvements 

for the test and evaluation strategic plan developed in accordance with section 196(d) of this title; and 

‘‘(F) perform such other activities relating to the developmental test and evaluation activities of the Department 

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

‘‘(6) ACCESS TO RECORDS.—The Secretary of Defense shall 

ensure that the Director has access to all records and data of 

the Department of Defense (including the records and data of 

each military department and including classified and propriety information, as appropriate) that the Director considers 

necessary in order to carry out the Director’s duties under this 

subsection. 

‘‘(7) CONCURRENT SERVICE AS DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE TEST RESOURCES MANAGEMENT CENTER.—The individual serving as the Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation may also serve concurrently as the Director of the Department of Defense Test Resource Management Center under 

section 196 of this title. 

‘‘(b) DIRECTOR OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.— 

‘‘(1) APPOINTMENT.—There is a Director of Systems Engineering, who shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense 

from among individuals with an expertise in systems engineering and development planning. 

‘‘(2) PRINCIPAL ADVISOR FOR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING.—The Director shall be the principal 

advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics on systems 

engineering and development planning in the Department of 

Defense. 

‘‘(3) SUPERVISION.—The Director shall be subject to the supervision of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics and shall report to the Under Secretary. 

‘‘(4) COORDINATION WITH DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTAL

TEST AND EVALUATION.—The Director of Systems Engineering 

shall closely coordinate with the Director of Developmental Test 

and Evaluation to ensure that the developmental test and evaluation activities of the Department of Defense are fully integrated into and consistent with the systems engineering and development planning processes of the Department. 

‘‘(5) DUTIES.—The Director shall— 

‘‘(A) develop policies and guidance for— 

‘‘(i) the use of systems engineering principles and 

best practices, generally; 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
10 

‘‘(ii) the use of systems engineering approaches to 

enhance reliability, availability, and maintainability 

on major defense acquisition programs; 

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

of lifecycle management and sustainability; and 

‘‘(iv) the inclusion of provisions relating to systems 

engineering and reliability growth in requests for proposals; 

‘‘(B) review and approve the systems engineering master plan for each major defense acquisition program; 

‘‘(C) monitor and review the systems engineering and 

development planning activities of the major defense acquisition programs; 

‘‘(D) provide advocacy, oversight, and guidance to elements of the acquisition workforce responsible for systems 

engineering, development planning, and lifecycle management and sustainability functions; 

‘‘(E) provide input on the inclusion of systems engineering requirements in the process for consideration of joint 

military requirements by the Joint Requirements Oversight 

Council pursuant to section 181 of this title, including specific input relating to each capabilities development document; 

‘‘(F) periodically review the organizations and capabilities of the military departments with respect to systems engineering, development planning, and lifecycle management 

and sustainability, and identify needed changes or improvements to such organizations and capabilities; and 

‘‘(G) perform such other activities relating to the systems engineering and development planning activities of 

the Department of Defense as the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics may prescribe. 

‘‘(6) ACCESS TO RECORDS.—The Director shall have access 

to any records or data of the Department of Defense (including 

the records and data of each military department and including 

classified and proprietary information as appropriate) that the 

Director considers necessary to review in order to carry out the 

Director’s duties under this subsection. 

‘‘(c) JOINT ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than March 31 each 

year, beginning in 2010, the Director of Developmental Test and 

Evaluation and the Director of Systems Engineering shall jointly 

submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the activities undertaken pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) during the 

preceding year. Each report shall include a section on activities relating to the major defense acquisition programs which shall set 

forth, at a minimum, the following: 

‘‘(1) A discussion of the extent to which the major defense 

acquisition programs are fulfilling the objectives of their systems engineering master plans and developmental test and 

evaluation plans. 

‘‘(2) A discussion of the waivers of and deviations from requirements in test and evaluation master plans, systems engiVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:04 May 21, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR124.XXX HR124

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
11 

neering master plans, and other testing requirements that occurred during the preceding year with respect to such programs, 

any concerns raised by such waivers or deviations, and the actions that have been taken or are planned to be taken to address such concerns. 

‘‘(3) An assessment of the organization and capabilities of 

the Department of Defense for systems engineering, development 

planning, and developmental test and evaluation with respect 

to such programs. 

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

‘‘(d) JOINT GUIDANCE.—The Director of Developmental Test and 

Evaluation and the Director of Systems Engineering shall jointly, in 

coordination with the official designated by the Secretary of Defense 

under section 103 of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 

2009, issue guidance on the following: 

‘‘(1) The development and tracking of detailed measurable 

performance criteria as part of the systems engineering master 

plans and the developmental test and evaluation plans within 

the test and evaluation master plans of major defense acquisition programs. 

‘‘(2) The use of developmental test and evaluation to measure the achievement of specific performance objectives within a 

systems engineering master plan. 

‘‘(3) A system for storing and tracking information relating 

to the achievement of the performance criteria and objectives 

specified pursuant to this subsection. 

‘‘(e) MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAM DEFINED.—In this 

section, the term ‘major defense acquisition program’ has the meaning given that term in section 2430 of this title.’’. 

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 4 of such title, as amended by section 101(a) 

of this Act, is further amended by inserting after the item relating to section 139c the following new item: 

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

(b) DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION AND SYSTEMS EN- GINEERING IN THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS AND DEFENSE AGEN- CIES.— (1) PLANS.—The service acquisition executive of each military department and each Defense Agency with responsibility 

for a major defense acquisition program shall develop and implement plans to ensure the military department or Defense 

Agency concerned has provided appropriate resources for each 

of the following: 

(A) Developmental testing organizations with adequate 

numbers of trained personnel in order to— 

(i) ensure that developmental testing requirements 

are appropriately addressed in the translation of operational requirements into contract specifications, in the 

source selection process, and in the preparation of requests for proposals on all major defense acquisition 

programs; 

(ii) participate in the planning of developmental 

test and evaluation activities, including the preparaVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:04 May 21, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR124.XXX HR124

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
12 

tion and approval of a developmental test and evaluation plan within the test and evaluation master plan 

for each major defense acquisition program; and 

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

(B) Development planning and systems engineering organizations with adequate numbers of trained personnel in 

order to— 

(i) support key requirements, acquisition, and 

budget decisions made for each major defense acquisition program prior to Milestone A approval and Milestone B approval through a rigorous systems analysis 

and systems engineering process; 

(ii) include a robust program for improving reliability, availability, maintainability, and sustainability as an integral part of design and development 

within the systems engineering master plan for each 

major defense acquisition program; and 

(iii) identify systems engineering requirements, including reliability, availability, maintainability, and 

lifecycle management and sustainability requirements, 

during the Joint Capabilities Integration Development 

System process, and incorporate such systems engineering requirements into contract requirements for each 

major defense acquisition program. 

(2) REPORTS BY SERVICE ACQUISITION EXECUTIVES.—Not 

later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

the service acquisition executive of each military department 

and each Defense Agency with responsibility for a major defense 

acquisition program shall submit to the Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation and the Director of Systems Engineering a report on the extent to which— 

(A) such military department or Defense Agency has 

implemented, or is implementing, the plan required by 

paragraph (1); and 

(B) additional authorities or resources are needed to attract, develop, retain, and reward developmental test and 

evaluation personnel and systems engineers with appropriate levels of hands-on experience and technical expertise 

to meet the needs of such military department or Defense 

Agency. 

(3) ASSESSMENT OF REPORTS BY DIRECTORS OF DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.— 

The first annual report submitted to Congress by the Director 

of Developmental Test and Evaluation and the Director of Systems Engineering under section 139d(c) of title 10, United 

States Code (as added by subsection (a)), shall include an assessment by the Directors of the reports submitted by the service 

acquisition executives to the Directors under paragraph (2). 

SEC. 103. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS AND ROOT CAUSE ANALYSES 

FOR MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 

(a) DESIGNATION OF SENIOR OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS AND ROOT CAUSE ANALYSES.— 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
13 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall designate 

a senior official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense as the 

principal official of the Department of Defense responsible for 

conducting and overseeing performance assessments and root 

cause analyses for major defense acquisition programs. 

(2) NO PROGRAM EXECUTION RESPONSIBILITY.—The Secretary shall ensure that the senior official designated under 

paragraph (1) is not responsible for program execution. 

(3) STAFF AND RESOURCES.—The Secretary shall assign to 

the senior official designated under paragraph (1) appropriate 

staff and resources necessary to carry out official’s function 

under this section. 

(b) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The senior official designated under 

subsection (a) shall be responsible for the following: 

(1) Carrying out performance assessments of major defense 

acquisition programs in accordance with the requirements of 

subsection (c) periodically or when requested by the Secretary of 

Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, the Secretary of a military department, or 

the head of a Defense Agency. 

(2) Conducting root cause analyses for major defense acquisition programs in accordance with the requirements of subsection (d) when required by section 2433a(a)(1) of title 10, 

United States Code (as added by section 206(a) of this Act), or 

when requested by the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, the Secretary of a military department, or the head of a Defense Agency. 

(3) Issuing policies, procedures, and guidance governing the 

conduct of performance assessments and root cause analyses by 

the military departments and the Defense Agencies. 

(4) Evaluating the utility of performance metrics used to 

measure the cost, schedule, and performance of major defense 

acquisition programs, and making such recommendations to 

the Secretary of Defense as the official considers appropriate to 

improve such metrics. 

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

(A) prior to certification under section 2433a of title 10, 

United States Code (as so added); 

(B) prior to entry into full-rate production; or 

(C) in the course of consideration of any decision to request authorization of a multiyear procurement contract for 

the program. 

(c) PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS.—For purposes of this section, 

a performance assessment with respect to a major defense acquisition program is an evaluation of the following: 

(1) The cost, schedule, and performance of the program, relative to current metrics, including performance requirements 

and baseline descriptions. 

(2) The extent to which the level of program cost, schedule, 

and performance predicted relative to such metrics is likely to 

result in the timely delivery of a level of capability to the 

warfighter that is consistent with the level of resources to be exVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:04 May 21, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR124.XXX HR124

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
14 

pended and provides superior value to alternative approaches 

that may be available to meet the same military requirement. 

(d) ROOT CAUSE ANALYSES.—For purposes of this section and 

section 2433a of title 10, United States Code (as so added), a root 

cause analysis with respect to a major defense acquisition program 

is an assessment of the underlying cause or causes of shortcomings 

in cost, schedule, or performance of the program, including the role, 

if any, of— 

(1) unrealistic performance expectations; 

(2) unrealistic baseline estimates for cost or schedule; 

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

(4) unanticipated design, engineering, manufacturing, or 

technology integration issues arising during program performance; 

(5) changes in procurement quantities; 

(6) inadequate program funding or funding instability; 

(7) poor performance by government or contractor personnel 

responsible for program management; or 

(8) any other matters. 

(e) SUPPORT OF APPLICABLE CAPABILITIES AND EXPERTISE.— 

The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the senior official designated under subsection (a) has the support of other Department of 

Defense officials with relevant capabilities and expertise needed to 

carry out the requirements of this section. 

(f) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than March 1 each year, beginning in 2010, the official responsible for conducting and overseeing 

performance assessments and root cause analyses for major defense 

acquisition programs shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the activities undertaken under this section during the preceding year. 

SEC. 104. ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGICAL MATURITY OF CRITICAL 

TECHNOLOGIES OF MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS BY THE DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND 

ENGINEERING. 

(a) ASSESSMENT BY DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 139a of title 10, United States 

Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

‘‘(c)(1) The Director of Defense Research and Engineering, in 

consultation with the Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation, shall periodically review and assess the technological maturity 

and integration risk of critical technologies of the major defense acquisition programs of the Department of Defense and report on the 

findings of such reviews and assessments to the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. 

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

to the congressional defense committees by March 1 of each year a 

report on the technological maturity and integration risk of critical 

technologies of the major defense acquisition programs of the Department of Defense.’’. 

(2) FIRST ANNUAL REPORT.—The first annual report under 

subsection (c)(2) of section 139a of title 10, United States Code 

(as added by paragraph (1)), shall be submitted to the congresVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:04 May 21, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR124.XXX HR124

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
15 

sional defense committees not later than March 1, 2010, and 

shall address the results of reviews and assessments conducted 

by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering pursuant 

to subsection (c)(1) of such section (as so added) during the preceding calendar year. 

(b) REPORT ON RESOURCES FOR IMPLEMENTATION.—Not later 

than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report describing any additional resources that may be required by the Director, and by other research 

and engineering elements of the Department of Defense, to carry out 

the following: 

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

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

(3) The requirements of Department of Defense Instruction 

5000, as revised. 

(c) TECHNOLOGICAL MATURITY STANDARDS.—Not later than 180 

days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, in consultation with the Director 

of Developmental Test and Evaluation, shall develop knowledgebased standards against which to measure the technological maturity and integration risk of critical technologies at key stages in the 

acquisition process for purposes of conducting the reviews and assessments of major defense acquisition programs required by subsection (c) of section 139a of title 10, United States Code (as so 

added). 

SEC. 105. ROLE OF THE COMMANDERS OF THE COMBATANT COMMANDS IN IDENTIFYING JOINT MILITARY REQUIREMENTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 181(d) of title 10, United States Code, 

as amended by section 101(d) of this Act, is further amended— 

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

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

‘‘(2) The Council shall seek and consider input from the commanders of the combatant commands in carrying out its mission 

under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) and in conducting 

periodic reviews in accordance with the requirements of subsection 

(e).’’. 

(b) INPUT FROM COMMANDERS OF COMBATANT COMMANDS.— 

The Joint Requirements Oversight Council in the Department of Defense shall seek and consider input from the commanders of combatant commands, in accordance with section 181(d) of title 10, United 

States Code (as amended by subsection (a)). Such input may include, but is not limited to, an assessment of the following: 

(1) Any current or projected missions or threats in the theater of operations of the commander of a combatant command 

that would inform the assessment of a new joint military requirement. 

(2) The necessity and sufficiency of a proposed joint military requirement in terms of current and projected missions or 

threats. 

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


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
16 

within the theater of operations of the commander of a combatant command. 

(4) The ability of partner nations in the theater of operations of the commander of a combatant command to assist in 

meeting the joint military requirement or the benefit, if any, of 

a partner nation assisting in development or use of technologies 

developed to meet the joint military requirement. 

(c) COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES REVIEW OF

IMPLEMENTATION.— (1) REQUIREMENT.—Not later than two years after the date 

of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 

United States shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on 

the implementation of the requirements of— 

(A) subsection (d)(2) of section 181 of title 10, United 

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

Requirements Oversight Council to solicit and consider 

input from the commanders of the combatant commands; 

(B) the amendments to subsection (b) of section 181 of 

title 10, United States Code, made by section 942 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181; 122 Stat. 287) and by section 201(b) of 

this Act; and 

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

(2) MATTERS COVERED.—The report shall include, at a minimum, an assessment of— 

(A) the extent to which the Council has effectively 

sought, and the commanders of the combatant commands 

have provided, meaningful input on proposed joint military 

requirements; 

(B) the quality and effectiveness of efforts to estimate 

the level of resources needed to fulfill joint military requirements; and 

(C) the extent to which the Council has considered 

trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives. 

TITLE II—ACQUISITION POLICY 

SEC. 201. CONSIDERATION OF TRADE-OFFS AMONG COST, SCHEDULE, 

AND PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES IN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 

(a) CONSIDERATION OF TRADE-OFFS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall ensure 

that mechanisms are developed and implemented to require 

consideration of trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives as part of the process for developing requirements for Department of Defense acquisition programs. 

(2) ELEMENTS.—The mechanisms required under this subsection shall ensure, at a minimum, that— 

(A) Department of Defense officials responsible for acquisition, budget, and cost estimating functions are provided an appropriate opportunity to develop estimates and 

raise cost and schedule matters before performance objectives are established for capabilities for which the ChairVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:04 May 21, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR124.XXX HR124

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
17 

man of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council is the 

validation authority; and 

(B) the process for developing requirements is structured to enable incremental, evolutionary, or spiral acquisition approaches, including the deferral of technologies that 

are not yet mature and capabilities that are likely to significantly increase costs or delay production until later increments or spirals. 

(b) DUTIES OF JOINT REQUIREMENTS OVERSIGHT COUNCIL.— Section 181(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (A); 

(B) by inserting ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (B) 

after the semicolon; and 

(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: 

‘‘(C) in ensuring the consideration of trade-offs among 

cost, schedule, and performance objectives for joint military 

requirements in consultation with the advisors specified in 

subsection (d);’’. 

(2) in paragraph (3)— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘, in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the 

Director of Cost Assessment and Performance Evaluation,’’ 

after ‘‘assist the Chairman’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon at the end; 

(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 

inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(5) assist the Chairman, in consultation with the commanders of the combatant commands and the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in establishing an objective for the overall period of time within which 

an initial operational capability should be delivered to meet 

each joint military requirement.’’. 

(c) REVIEW OF JOINT MILITARY REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary 

of Defense shall ensure that each new joint military requirement 

recommended by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council is reviewed to ensure that the Joint Requirements Oversight Council 

has, in making such recommendation— 

(1) taken appropriate action to seek and consider input 

from the commanders of the combatant commands, in accordance with the requirements of section 181(d) of title 10, United 

States Code (as amended by section 105(a) of this Act); 

(2) engaged in consideration of trade-offs among cost, 

schedule, and performance objectives in accordance with the requirements of section 181(b)(1)(C) of title 10, United States 

Code (as added by subsection (b)); and 

(3) engaged in consideration of issues of joint portfolio 

management, including alternative material and non-material 

solutions, as provided in Department of Defense instructions for 

the development of joint military requirements. 

(d) STUDY GUIDANCE FOR ANALYSES OF ALTERNATIVES.—The 

Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shall take the 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
18 

lead in the development of study guidance for an analysis of alternatives for each joint military requirement for which the Chairman 

of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council is the validation authority. In developing the guidance, the Director shall solicit the advice of appropriate officials within the Department of Defense and 

ensure that the guidance requires, at a minimum— 

(1) full consideration of possible trade-offs among cost, 

schedule, and performance objectives for each alternative considered; and 

(2) an assessment of whether or not the joint military requirement can be met in a manner that is consistent with the 

cost and schedule objectives recommended by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. 

(e) ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES IN CERTIFICATION FOR MILE- STONE A.—Section 2366a(a) of title 10, United States Code, as 

amended by section 101(d)(3) of this Act, is further amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (3); 

(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and 

(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph (4): 

‘‘(4) that an analysis of alternatives has been performed 

consistent with study guidance developed by the Director of Cost 

Assessment and Program Evaluation; and’’. 

(f) DUTIES OF MILESTONE DECISION AUTHORITY.—Section 

2366b(a)(1)(B) of such title is amended by inserting ‘‘appropriate 

trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives have 

been made to ensure that’’ before ‘‘the program is affordable’’. 

SEC. 202. ACQUISITION STRATEGIES TO ENSURE COMPETITION 

THROUGHOUT THE LIFECYCLE OF MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 

(a) ACQUISITION STRATEGIES TO ENSURE COMPETITION.—The 

Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the acquisition strategy for 

each major defense acquisition program includes— 

(1) measures to ensure competition, or the option of competition, at both the prime contract level and the subcontract 

level (at such tier or tiers as are appropriate) of such program 

throughout the life-cycle of such program as a means to improve 

contractor performance; and 

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

(b) MEASURES TO ENSURE COMPETITION.—The measures to ensure competition, or the option of competition, for purposes of subsection (a)(1) may include measures to achieve the following, in appropriate cases if such measures are cost-effective: 

(1) Competitive prototyping. 

(2) Dual-sourcing. 

(3) Unbundling of contracts. 

(4) Funding of next-generation prototype systems or subsystems. 

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

(6) Use of build-to-print approaches to enable production 

through multiple sources. 

(7) Acquisition of complete technical data packages. 

(8) Periodic competitions for subsystem upgrades. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
19 

(9) Licensing of additional suppliers. 

(10) Periodic system or program reviews to address longterm competitive effects of program decisions. 

(c) ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO ENSURE COMPETITION AT SUBCONTRACT LEVEL.—The Secretary shall take actions to ensure fair 

and objective ‘‘make-buy’’ decisions by prime contractors on major 

defense acquisition programs by— 

(1) requiring prime contractors to give full and fair consideration to qualified sources other than the prime contractor for 

the development or construction of major subsystems and components of major weapon systems; 

(2) providing for government surveillance of the process by 

which prime contractors consider such sources and determine 

whether to conduct such development or construction in-house 

or through a subcontract; and 

(3) providing for the assessment of the extent to which a 

contractor has given full and fair consideration to qualified 

sources other than the contractor in sourcing decisions as a part 

of past performance evaluations. 

(d) CONSIDERATION OF COMPETITION THROUGHOUT OPERATION

AND SUSTAINMENT OF MAJOR WEAPON SYSTEMS.—Whenever a decision regarding source of repair results in a plan to award a contract 

for performance of maintenance and sustainment of a major weapon 

system, the Secretary shall take actions to ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with statutory requirements, 

contracts for such maintenance and sustainment are awarded on a 

competitive basis and give full consideration to all sources (including sources that partner or subcontract with public or private sector 

repair activities). 

(e) APPLICABILITY.— 

(1) STRATEGY AND MEASURES TO ENSURE COMPETITION.— 

The requirements of subsections (a) and (b) shall apply to any 

acquisition plan for a major defense acquisition program that 

is developed or revised on or after the date that is 60 days after 

the date of the enactment of this Act. 

(2) ADDITIONAL ACTIONS.—The actions required by subsections (c) and (d) shall be taken within 180 days after the 

date of the enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 203. PROTOTYPING REQUIREMENTS FOR MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 

(a) COMPETITIVE PROTOTYPING.—Not later than 90 days after 

the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 

modify the guidance of the Department of Defense relating to the operation of the acquisition system with respect to competitive prototyping for major defense acquisition programs to ensure the following: 

(1) That the acquisition strategy for each major defense acquisition program provides for competitive prototypes before 

Milestone B approval (or Key Decision Point B approval in the 

case of a space program) unless the Milestone Decision Authority for such program waives the requirement pursuant to paragraph (2). 

(2) That the Milestone Decision Authority may waive the requirement in paragraph (1) only— 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
20 

(A) on the basis that the cost of producing competitive 

prototypes exceeds the expected life-cycle benefits (in constant dollars) of producing such prototypes, including the 

benefits of improved performance and increased technological and design maturity that may be achieved through 

competitive prototyping; or 

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

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

Authority— 

(A) shall require that the program produce a prototype 

before Milestone B approval (or Key Decision Point B approval in the case of a space program) if the expected lifecycle benefits (in constant dollars) of producing such prototype exceed its cost and its production is consistent with 

achieving critical national security objectives; and 

(B) shall notify the congressional defense committees in 

writing not later than 30 days after the waiver is authorized and include in such notification the rationale for the 

waiver and the plan, if any, for producing a prototype. 

(4) That prototypes may be required under paragraph (1) or 

(3) for the system to be acquired or, if prototyping of the system 

is not feasible, for critical subsystems of the system. 

(b) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW OF CERTAIN WAIVERS.— (1) NOTICE TO COMPTROLLER GENERAL.—Whenever a Milestone Decision Authority authorizes a waiver of the requirement 

for prototypes pursuant to paragraph (2) of subsection (a) on the 

basis of excessive cost, the Milestone Decision Authority shall 

submit the notification of the waiver, together with the rationale, to the Comptroller General of the United States at the same 

time it is submitted to the congressional defense committees. 

(2) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW.—Not later than 60 

days after receipt of a notification of a waiver under paragraph 

(1), the Comptroller General shall— 

(A) review the rationale for the waiver; and 

(B) submit to the congressional defense committees a 

written assessment of the rationale for the waiver. 

SEC. 204. ACTIONS TO IDENTIFY AND ADDRESS SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS 

IN MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS PRIOR TO 

MILESTONE B APPROVAL. 

(a) MODIFICATION TO CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.—Subsection (a) of section 2366a of title 10, United States Code, is 

amended by striking ‘‘may not receive Milestone A approval, or Key 

Decision Point A approval in the case of a space program,’’ and inserting ‘‘may not receive Milestone A approval, or Key Decision 

Point A approval in the case of a space program, or otherwise be 

initiated prior to Milestone B approval, or Key Decision Point B approval in the case of a space program,’’. 

(b) MODIFICATION TO NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.—Subsection 

(b) of such section is amended— 

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

(2) in paragraph (1), as so designated, by striking ‘‘by at 

least 25 percent,’’ and inserting ‘‘by at least 25 percent, or the 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
21 

program manager determines that the period of time required 

for the delivery of an initial operational capability is likely to 

exceed the schedule objective established pursuant to section 

181(b)(5) of this title by more than 25 percent,’’; and 

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

‘‘(2) Not later than 30 days after a program manager submits 

a notification to the Milestone Decision Authority pursuant to paragraph (1) with respect to a major defense acquisition program, the 

Milestone Decision Authority shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report that— 

‘‘(A) identifies the root causes of the cost or schedule growth 

in accordance with applicable policies, procedures, and guidance; 

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

‘‘(C) includes one of the following: 

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

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

‘‘(II) there are no alternatives to the program that 

will provide acceptable military capability at less cost; 

‘‘(III) new estimates of the development cost or 

schedule, as appropriate, are reasonable; and 

‘‘(IV) the management structure for the program is 

adequate to manage and control program development 

cost and schedule. 

‘‘(ii) A plan for terminating the development of the program or withdrawal of Milestone A approval, or Key Decision Point A approval in the case of a space program, if the 

Milestone Decision Authority determines that such action is 

in the interest of national defense.’’. 

(c) APPLICATION TO ONGOING PROGRAMS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Each major defense acquisition program 

described in paragraph (2) shall be certified in accordance with 

the requirements of section 2366a of title 10, United States Code 

(as amended by this section), within one year after the date of 

the enactment of this Act. 

(2) COVERED PROGRAMS.—The requirement in paragraph 

(1) shall apply to any major defense acquisition program that— 

(A) was initiated before the date of the enactment of 

this Act; and 

(B) as of the date of certification under paragraph (1) 

has not otherwise been certified pursuant to either section 

2366a (as so amended) or 2366b of title 10, United States 

Code. 

SEC. 205. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN MAJOR DEFENSE 

ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 

(a) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO MILESTONE B APPROVAL.—Section 2366b of title 10, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in subsection (d)— 

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

(B) by striking the second sentence and inserting the 

following: 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
22 

‘‘(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 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 such certification components.’’; and 

(3) in subsection (a)— 

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

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

(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 

paragraph (2): 

‘‘(2) has received a preliminary design review and conducted a formal post-preliminary design review assessment, 

and certifies on the basis of such assessment that the program 

demonstrates a high likelihood of accomplishing its intended 

mission; and’’; and 

(D) in paragraph (3), as redesignated by subparagraph 

(B) of this paragraph— 

(i) in subparagraph (D), by striking the semicolon 

and inserting ‘‘, as determined by the Milestone Decision Authority on the basis of an independent review 

and assessment by the Director of Defense Research 

and Engineering; and’’; 

(ii) by striking subparagraph (E); and 

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

(b) CERTIFICATION AND REVIEW OF PROGRAMS ENTERING DE- VELOPMENT PRIOR TO ENACTMENT OF SECTION 2366B OF TITLE

10.— 

(1) DETERMINATION.—Not later than 270 days after the 

date of the enactment of this Act, for each major defense acquisition program that received Milestone B approval before January 6, 2006, and has not received Milestone C approval, and for 

each space program that received Key Decision Point B approval before January 6, 2006, and has not received Key DeciVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:04 May 21, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR124.XXX HR124

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
23 

sion Point C approval, the Milestone Decision Authority shall 

determine whether or not such program satisfies all of the certification components specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) of section 2366b of title 10, United States Code (as 

amended by subsection (a) of this section). 

(2) ANNUAL REVIEW.—The Milestone Decision Authority 

shall review any program determined pursuant to paragraph 

(1) not to satisfy any of the certification components of subsection (a) of section 2366b of title 10, United States Code (as 

so amended), not less often than annually thereafter to determine the extent to which such program currently satisfies such 

certification components until such time as the Milestone Decision Authority determines that such program satisfies all such 

certification components. 

(3) DESIGNATION OF CERTIFICATION STATUS IN BUDGET DOC- UMENTATION.—Any budget request, budget justification material, budget display, reprogramming request, Selected Acquisition Report, or other budget documentation or performance report submitted by the Secretary of Defense to the President regarding a major defense acquisition program which the Milestone Decision Authority determines under paragraph (1) does 

not satisfy all of the certification components of subsection (a) 

of section 2366b of title 10, United States Code, (as so amended) 

shall prominently and clearly indicate that such program has 

not fully satisfied such certification components until such time 

as the Milestone Decision Authority makes the determination 

that such program has satisfied all such certification components. 

(c) REVIEWS OF PROGRAMS RESTRUCTURED AFTER EXPERIENCING CRITICAL COST GROWTH.—The official designated to perform oversight of performance assessment pursuant to section 103 of 

this Act, shall assess the performance of each major defense acquisition program that has exceeded critical cost growth thresholds established pursuant to section 2433(e) of title 10, United States Code, 

but has not been terminated in accordance with section 2433a of 

such title (as added by section 206(a) of this Act) not less often than 

semi-annually until one year after the date on which such program 

receives a new milestone approval, in accordance with section 

2433a(c)(3) of such title (as so added). The results of reviews performed under this subsection shall be reported to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and 

summarized in the next annual report of such designated official. 

SEC. 206. CRITICAL COST GROWTH IN MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION 

PROGRAMS. 

(a) ACTIONS FOLLOWING CRITICAL COST GROWTH.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 144 of title 10, United States 

Code, is amended by inserting after section 2433 the following 

new section: 

‘‘§ 2433a. Critical cost growth in major defense acquisition 

programs 

‘‘(a) REASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM.—If the program acquisition 

unit cost or procurement unit cost of a major defense acquisition 

program or designated subprogram (as determined by the Secretary 

under section 2433(d) of this title) increases by a percentage equal 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
24 

to or greater than the critical cost growth threshold for the program 

or subprogram, the Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the 

Joint Requirements Oversight Council regarding program requirements, shall— 

‘‘(1) determine the root cause or causes of the critical cost 

growth in accordance with applicable statutory requirements 

and Department of Defense policies, procedures, and guidance; 

and 

‘‘(2) in consultation with the Director of Cost Assessment 

and Program Evaluation, carry out an assessment of— 

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

‘‘(B) the projected cost of completing the program based 

on reasonable modification of such requirements; 

‘‘(C) the rough order of magnitude of the costs of any 

reasonable alternative system or capability; and 

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

to the growth in cost of the program. 

‘‘(b) PRESUMPTION OF TERMINATION.—(1) After conducting the 

reassessment required by subsection (a) with respect to a major defense acquisition program, the Secretary shall terminate the program unless the Secretary submits to Congress, before the end of the 

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

containing the information described in section 2433(g) of this title 

is required to be submitted under section 2432(f) of this title, a written certification in accordance with paragraph (2). 

‘‘(2) A certification described by this paragraph with respect to 

a major defense acquisition program is a written certification that— 

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

‘‘(B) there are no alternatives to the program which will 

provide acceptable capability to meet the joint military requirement (as defined in section 181(g)((1) of this title) at less cost; 

‘‘(C) the new estimates of the program acquisition unit cost 

or procurement unit cost have been determined by the Director 

of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to be reasonable; 

‘‘(D) the program is a higher priority than programs whose 

funding must be reduced to accommodate the growth in cost of 

the program; and 

‘‘(E) the management structure for the program is adequate 

to manage and control program acquisition unit cost or procurement unit cost. 

‘‘(3) A written certification under paragraph (2) shall be accompanied by a report presenting the root cause analysis and assessment carried out pursuant to subsection (a) and the basis for each 

determination made in accordance with subparagraphs (A) through 

(E) of paragraph (2), together with supporting documentation. 

‘‘(c) ACTIONS IF PROGRAM NOT TERMINATED.—(1) If the Secretary elects not to terminate a major defense acquisition program 

pursuant to subsection (b), the Secretary shall— 

‘‘(A) restructure the program in a manner that addresses 

the root cause or causes of the critical cost growth, as identified 

pursuant to subsection (a), and ensures that the program has 

an appropriate management structure as set forth in the certification submitted pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(E); 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
25 

‘‘(B) rescind the most recent Milestone approval, or Key Decision Point approval in the case of a space program, for the 

program and withdraw any associated certification under section 2366a or 2366b of this title; 

‘‘(C) require a new Milestone approval, or Key Decision 

Point approval in the case of a space program, for the program 

before taking any contract action to enter a new contract, exercise an option under an existing contract, or otherwise extend 

the scope of an existing contract under the program, except to 

the extent determined necessary by the Milestone Decision Authority, on a non-delegable basis, to ensure that the program 

can be restructured as intended by the Secretary without unnecessarily wasting resources; 

‘‘(D) include in the report specified in paragraph (2) a description of all funding changes made as a result of the growth 

in cost of the program, including reductions made in funding 

for other programs to accommodate such cost growth; and 

‘‘(E) conduct regular reviews of the program in accordance 

with the requirements of section 205 of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. 

‘‘(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)(D), the report specified in 

this paragraph is the first Selected Acquisition Report for the program submitted pursuant to section 2432 of this title after the President submits a budget pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, in the 

calendar year following the year in which the program was restructured. 

‘‘(d) ACTIONS IF PROGRAM TERMINATED.—If a major defense acquisition program is terminated pursuant to subsection (b), the Secretary shall submit to Congress a written report setting forth— 

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

‘‘(2) the alternatives considered to address any problems in 

the program; and 

‘‘(3) the course the Department plans to pursue to meet any 

continuing joint military requirements otherwise intended to be 

met by the program.’’. 

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 144 of such title is amended by inserting 

after the item relating to section 2433 the following new item: 

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

(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (2) of section 

2433(e) of such title 10 is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(2) If the program acquisition unit cost or procurement unit 

cost of a major defense acquisition program or designated major 

subprogram (as determined by the Secretary under subsection (d)) 

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

growth threshold for the program or subprogram, the Secretary of 

Defense shall take actions consistent with the requirements of section 2433a of this title.’’. 

(b) TREATMENT AS MDAP.—Section 2430 of such title is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting ‘‘, including all 

planned increments or spirals,’’ after ‘‘an eventual total expenditure for procurement’’; and 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
26 

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

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

‘‘(1) The estimated level of resources required to fulfill the 

relevant joint military requirement, as determined by the Joint 

Requirements Oversight Council pursuant to section 181 of this 

title. 

‘‘(2) The cost estimate referred to in section 2366a(a)(4) of 

this title. 

‘‘(3) The cost estimate referred to in section 2366b(a)(1)(C) 

of this title. 

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

SEC. 207. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 

(a) REVISED REGULATIONS REQUIRED.—Not later than 270 days 

after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 

shall revise the Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to provide uniform guidance and tighten existing requirements for organizational conflicts of interest by contractors in major 

defense acquisition programs. 

(b) ELEMENTS.—The revised regulations required by subsection 

(a) shall, at a minimum— 

(1) address organizational conflicts of interest that could 

arise as a result of— 

(A) lead system integrator contracts on major defense 

acquisition programs and contracts that follow lead system 

integrator contracts on such programs, particularly contracts for production; 

(B) the ownership of business units performing systems 

engineering and technical assistance functions, professional 

services, or management support services in relation to 

major defense acquisition programs by contractors who simultaneously own business units competing to perform as 

either the prime contractor or the supplier of a major subsystem or component for such programs; 

(C) the award of major subsystem contracts by a prime 

contractor for a major defense acquisition program to business units or other affiliates of the same parent corporate 

entity, and particularly the award of subcontracts for software integration or the development of a proprietary software system architecture; or 

(D) the performance by, or assistance of, contractors in 

technical evaluations on major defense acquisition programs; 

(2) ensure that the Department of Defense receives advice 

on systems architecture and systems engineering matters with 

respect to major defense acquisition programs from federally 

funded research and development centers or other sources independent of the prime contractor; 

(3) require that a contract for the performance of systems 

engineering and technical assistance functions for a major defense acquisition program contains a provision prohibiting the 

contractor or any affiliate of the contractor from participating 

as a prime contractor or a major subcontractor in the developVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:04 May 21, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR124.XXX HR124

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
27 

ment or construction of a weapon system under the program; 

and 

(4) establish such limited exceptions to the requirement in 

paragraphs (2) and (3) as may be necessary to ensure that the 

Department of Defense has continued access to advice on systems architecture and systems engineering matters from highlyqualified contractors with domain experience and expertise, 

while ensuring that such advice comes from sources that are objective and unbiased. 

(c) CONSULTATION IN REVISION OF REGULATIONS.— 

(1) RECOMMENDATIONS OF PANEL ON CONTRACTING INTEGRITY.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment 

of this Act, the Panel on Contracting Integrity established pursuant to section 813 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364; 120 

Stat. 2320) shall present recommendations to the Secretary of 

Defense on measures to eliminate or mitigate organizational 

conflicts of interest in major defense acquisition programs. 

(2) CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS.—In developing 

the revised regulations required by subsection (a), the Secretary 

shall consider the following: 

(A) The recommendations presented by the Panel on 

Contracting Integrity pursuant to paragraph (1). 

(B) Any findings and recommendations of the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy and the Director of 

the Office of Government Ethics pursuant to section 841(b) 

of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417; 122 Stat. 4539). 

(d) EXTENSION OF PANEL ON CONTRACTING INTEGRITY.—Subsection (e) of section 813 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(e) TERMINATION.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the panel shall 

continue to serve until the date that is 18 months after the date 

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

on a determination that the activities of the panel no longer justify its continuation and that concerns about contracting integrity have been mitigated. 

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

TITLE III—ADDITIONAL ACQUISITION 

PROVISIONS 

SEC. 301. AWARDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL FOR 

EXCELLENCE IN THE ACQUISITION OF PRODUCTS AND 

SERVICES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the 

enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall commence carrying out a program to recognize excellent performance by individuals and teams of members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel of the Department of Defense in the acquisition of products 

and services for the Department of Defense. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
28 

(b) ELEMENTS.—The program required by subsection (a) shall 

include the following: 

(1) Procedures for the nomination by the personnel of the 

military departments and the Defense Agencies of individuals 

and teams of members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel of the Department of Defense for eligibility for recognition under the program. 

(2) Procedures for the evaluation of nominations for recognition under the program by one or more panels of individuals from the Government, academia, and the private sector 

who have such expertise, and are appointed in such manner, as 

the Secretary shall establish for purposes of the program. 

(c) AWARD OF CASH BONUSES.—As part of the program required 

by subsection (a), the Secretary may award to any individual recognized pursuant to the program a cash bonus authorized by any 

other provision of law to the extent that the performance of such individual so recognized warrants the award of such bonus under 

such provision of law. 

SEC. 302. EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT. 

(a) MODIFICATION OF ELEMENTS IN REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION.—Subsection (a) of section 887 of the Duncan Hunter National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110– 

417; 122 Stat. 4562) is amended by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following new paragraphs: 

‘‘(7) A discussion of the methodology used to establish appropriate baselines for earned value management at the award 

of a contract or commencement of a program, whichever is earlier. 

‘‘(8) A discussion of the manner in which the Department 

ensures that personnel responsible for administering and overseeing earned value management systems have the training and 

qualifications needed to perform that responsibility. 

‘‘(9) A discussion of mechanisms to ensure that contractors 

establish and use approved earned value management systems, 

including mechanisms such as the consideration of the quality 

of contractor earned value management performance in past 

performance evaluations. 

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

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

and 

‘‘(B) a plan for implementing any improvements the 

Secretary determines to be appropriate.’’. 

(b) MODIFICATION OF REPORT DATE.—Subsection (b) of such 

section is amended by striking ‘‘270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘October 14, 2009’’. 

SEC. 303. EXPANSION OF NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES OF THE 

NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL BASE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2501(a) of title 10, United States 

Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
29 

‘‘(6) Maintaining critical design skills to ensure that the 

armed forces are provided with systems capable of ensuring 

technological superiority over potential adversaries.’’. 

(b) ASSESSMENT OF EFFECT OF TERMINATION OF MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS ON TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL

CAPABILITIES.—Section 2505(b) of such title is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 

inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

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

‘‘(4) consider the effects of the termination of major defense 

acquisition programs (as the term is defined in section 2430 of 

this title) in the previous fiscal year on the sectors and capabilities in the assessment.’’. 

SEC. 304. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES REPORTS 

ON COSTS AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING 

MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 

(a) REVIEW OF OPERATING AND SUPPORT COSTS OF MAJOR

WEAPON SYSTEMS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year after the date of 

the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 

States shall submit to the congressional defense committees a 

report on growth in operating and support costs for major 

weapon systems. 

(2) ELEMENTS.—In preparing the report required by paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall, at a minimum— 

(A) identify the original estimates for operating and 

support costs for major weapon systems selected by the 

Comptroller General for purposes of the report; 

(B) assess the actual operating and support costs for 

such major weapon systems; 

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

(D) for such major weapon systems that have experienced the highest rate of growth in operating and support 

costs, assess the factors contributing to such growth; 

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

(F) make such recommendations as the Comptroller 

General considers appropriate. 

(b) REVIEW OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION RELATING TO MAJOR

DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.— 

(1) REVIEW.—The Comptroller General of the United States 

shall perform a review of weaknesses in operations affecting the 

reliability of financial information on the systems and assets to 

be acquired under major defense acquisition programs. 

(2) ELEMENTS.—The review required under paragraph (1) 

shall— 

(A) identify any weaknesses in operations under major 

defense acquisition programs that hinder the capacity to 

assemble reliable financial information on the systems and 

assets to be acquired under such programs in accordance 

with applicable accounting standards; 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
30 

(B) identify any mechanisms developed by the Department of Defense to address weaknesses in operations under 

major defense acquisition programs identified pursuant to 

subparagraph (A); and 

(C) assess the implementation of the mechanisms set 

forth pursuant to subparagraph (B), including— 

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

(ii) the schedule for carrying out such mechanisms; 

and 

(iii) the metrics, if any, instituted to assess 

progress in carrying out such mechanisms. 

(3) CONSULTATION.—In performing the review required by 

paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall seek and consider 

input from each of the following: 

(A) The Chief Management Officer of the Department 

of Defense. 

(B) The Chief Management Officer of the Department 

of the Army. 

(C) The Chief Management Officer of the Department 

of the Navy. 

(D) The Chief Management Officer of the Department 

of the Air Force. 

(4) REPORT.—Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the 

congressional defense committees a report on the results of the 

review required by paragraph (1). 

And the House agree to the same. 

IKE SKELTON, 

JOHN M. SPRATT, 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, 

GENE TAYLOR, 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, 

SILVESTRE REYES, 

VIC SNYDER, 

ADAM SMITH, 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, 

MIKE MCINTYRE, 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, ROBERT E. ANDREWS, SUSAN A. DAVIS, JAMES R. LANGEVIN, JIM COOPER, BRAD ELLSWORTH, 

JOE SESTAK, 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, 

HOWARD ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

MAC THORNBERRY, 

WALTER B. JONES, 

W. TODD AKIN, 

J. RANDY FORBES, 

JEFF MILLER, 

JOE WILSON, 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
31 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, DUNCAN HUNTER, MIKE COFFMAN, Managers on the Part of the House. 

CARL LEVIN, 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, 

ROBERT C. BYRD, 

JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, 

JACK REED, 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, 

BILL NELSON, 

BEN NELSON, 

EVAN BAYH, 

JIM WEBB, 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, 

MARK UDALL, 

KAY R. HAGAN, 

MARK BEGICH, 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, 

JOHN MCCAIN, 

JAMES M. INHOFE, 

JEFF SESSIONS, 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, 

JOHN THUNE, 

MEL MARTINEZ, 

ROGER F. WICKER, 

RICHARD BURR, 

DAVID VITTER, 

SUSAN COLLINS, 

Managers on the Part of the Senate. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
(33) 

JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF 

CONFERENCE 

The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the 

conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 

amendment of the House to the bill (S. 454), to improve the organization and procedures of the Department of Defense for the acquisition of major weapon systems, and for other purposes, submit the 

following joint statement to the House and the Senate in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the managers and 

recommended in the accompanying conference report: 

The House amendment struck all of the Senate bill after the 

enacting clause and inserted a substitute text. 

The Senate recedes from its disagreement to the amendment 

of the House with an amendment that is a substitute for the Senate bill and the House amendment. The differences between the 

Senate bill, the House amendment, and the substitute agreed to in 

conference are noted below, except for clerical corrections, conforming changes made necessary by agreements reached by the 

conferees, and minor drafting and clarifying changes. 

TITLE I—ACQUISITION ORGANIZATION 

Cost assessment and program evaluation (sec. 101) 

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 104) that would establish a Director of Independent Cost Assessment in the Department of Defense (DOD) to ensure that cost estimates for major defense acquisition programs and major automated information system programs are fair, reliable, and unbiased. 

The House amendment contained a provision (sec. 102) that 

would require the Secretary of Defense to designate an official 

within the Office of the Secretary of Defense to perform this function. 

The House recedes with an amendment that would establish a 

Director of Cost Assessment and Performance Evaluation, who 

would be responsible for ensuring that cost estimates are fair, reliable, and unbiased, and for performing program analysis and evaluation functions currently performed by the Director of Program 

Analysis and Evaluation. The provision would also codify the cost 

estimating requirements from the Senate bill and the House 

amendment in a new section 2334 of title 10, United States Code. 

Directors of Developmental Test and Evaluation and Systems Engineering (sec. 102) 

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 101) that would require certain reports on systems engineering capabilities of the Department of Defense. The Senate bill also contained a provision 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
34 

(sec. 102) that would establish the position of Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation. 

The House amendment contained provisions (sec. 101 and 103) 

that would require the Secretary of Defense to appoint senior officials to carry out acquisition oversight functions, including systems 

engineering and developmental testing. 

The Senate recedes with an amendment that would establish 

the positions of Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation and 

Director of Systems Engineering and establish requirements on the 

issuance of guidance and reports on systems engineering and developmental testing. The amendment would further require the service acquisition executive of each military department and defense 

agency to implement and report on plans to ensure that the military departments and defense agencies have appropriate developmental test, systems engineering, and development planning resources. 

The Defense Science Board Task Force on Developmental Test 

and Evaluation reported in May 2008 that the Army has essentially eliminated its developmental testing component, while the 

Navy and the Air Force have cut their testing workforce by up to 

60 percent in some organizations. As a result, ‘‘(a) significant 

amount of developmental testing is currently performed without a 

needed degree of government involvement or oversight and in some 

cases, with limited government access to contractor data.’’ 

Similarly, the Committee on Pre-Milestone A and Early-Phase 

Systems Engineering of Air Force Studies Board of the National 

Research Council reported that ‘‘in recent years the depth of systems engineering (SE) talent in the Air Force has declined owing 

to policies within the Department of Defense (DOD) that shifted 

the oversight of SE functions increasingly to outside contractors, as 

well as to the decline of in-house development planning capabilities 

in the Air Force . . . . The result is that there are no longer enough 

experienced systems engineers to fill the positions in programs that 

need them, particularly within the government.’’ 

The conferees expect the Director of Developmental Test and 

Evaluation and the Director of Systems Engineering to work with 

the military departments and defense agencies to ensure that they 

rebuild these capabilities and perform the developmental testing 

and systems engineering functions necessary to ensure the successful execution of major defense acquisition programs. In particular, 

the conferees expect the military departments to conduct developmental testing early in the execution of a major defense acquisition 

program, to validate that a system’s design is demonstrating appropriate progress toward technological maturity and toward meeting 

system performance requirements. 

Performance assessments and root cause analyses for major defense 

acquisition programs (sec. 103) 

The House amendment contained a provision (sec. 104) that 

would require the Secretary of Defense to designate a senior official 

in the Office of the Secretary of Defense as the principal Department of Defense official responsible for issuing policies, procedures, 

and guidance governing the conduct of performance assessments 

for major defense acquisition programs. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
35 

The Senate bill contained no similar provision. 

The Senate recedes with an amendment that would require the 

Secretary to designate a senior official responsible for conducting 

and overseeing performance assessments and root cause analyses 

for major defense acquisition programs. 

Assessment of technological maturity of critical technologies of 

major defense acquisition programs by the Director of Defense 

Research and Engineering (sec. 104) 

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 103) that would require the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, in consultation with the Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation, 

to periodically review and assess the technological maturity and integration risk of critical technologies on major defense acquisition 

programs. 

The House amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 105). 

The Senate recedes with an amendment that would combine 

the two provisions. The conferees note that the technological maturity standard for major defense acquisition programs at the time of 

Milestone B approval (or Key Decision Point B approval in the case 

of space programs) is established by statute in section 2366b of 

title 10, United States Code. The conferees expect the Director of 

Defense Research and Engineering to establish appropriate knowledge-based standards for technological maturity at other key points 

in the acquisition process, as well as appropriate standards for integration risk. 

Role of the commanders of the combatant commands in identifying 

joint military requirements (sec. 105) 

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 105) that would 

clarify the role of the commanders of the combatant commands in 

identifying joint military requirements. 

The House amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 106). 

The Senate recedes with an amendment to ensure that the 

Comptroller General review required by the provision would address the full range of issues raised by recent legislative changes 

to the process for the identification of joint military requirements. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISION NOT ADOPTED 

Clarification of submittal of certification of adequacy of budgets by 

the Director of the Department of Defense Test Resource Management Center 

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 106) that would 

clarify the impact of organizational changes made in the Senate bill 

on the requirement for the Director of the Department of Defense 

Test Resource Management Center to certify the adequacy of budgets to the Secretary of Defense. 

The House amendment contained no similar provision. 

The Senate recedes. The provision is unnecessary, because the 

organizational changes to the Defense Test Resource Management 

Center that required the clarification are not included in the conference report. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
36 

TITLE II—ACQUISITION POLICY 

Consideration of trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance 

objectives in Department of Defense acquisition programs (sec. 

201) 

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 201) that would require the Department of Defense to implement mechanisms to ensure that trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives are considered early in the process of developing requirements 

for major weapon systems. 

The House amendment contained a provision (sec. 207) that 

would require the Comptroller General to review and report to 

Congress on mechanisms used by the Department to make such 

trade-offs. 

The House recedes with an amendment clarifying the required 

mechanisms. The conference amendment includes a requirement 

for the Secretary of Defense to review proposed joint military requirements to ensure that the Joint Requirements Oversight Council has given appropriate consideration to trade-offs between cost, 

schedule, and performance objectives. The Secretary would have 

flexibility to determine how best to conduct the required review. 

Acquisition strategies to ensure competition throughout the lifecycle 

of major defense acquisition programs (sec. 202) 

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 203) that would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the acquisition strategy for each major defense acquisition program includes measures 

to ensure competition, or the option of competition, at both the 

prime contract level and the subcontract level. The Senate provision would also establish certain requirements for the use of prototypes on major defense acquisition programs. 

The House amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 201), 

but did not include requirements for the use of prototypes. 

The House recedes with an amendment combining elements 

from the Senate bill and the House amendment. The Senate language on prototypes is addressed in a separate section. 

Prototyping requirements for major defense acquisition programs 

(sec. 203) 

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 203(c) and (d)) that 

would establish prototyping requirements for major defense acquisition programs. 

The House amendment contained no similar provision. 

The House recedes with an amendment that would simplify 

the requirement. 

Actions to identify and address systemic problems in major defense 

acquisition programs prior to Milestone B approval (sec. 204) 

The House amendment contained a provision (sec. 203) that 

would enhance requirements for the Department of Defense to 

identify and address systemic problems in major defense acquisition programs before Milestone B approval, while such programs 

are still in the technology development phase. 

The Senate bill contained no similar provision. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
37 

The Senate recedes with a clarifying amendment. The conferees agree that greater investment of time and resources in the 

technology development phase is likely to result in better overall 

program performance and lower overall program costs. For this 

reason, increased time or expenditures for early testing and development should not alone be taken as an indication that a program 

is troubled and needs to be terminated or restructured. 

Additional requirements for certain major defense acquisition programs (sec. 205) 

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 202) that would establish certain requirements relating to preliminary design review 

and critical design review for major defense acquisition programs. 

The House amendment contained a provision (sec. 202) that 

would establish new procedures for programs that fail to meet all 

of the requirements for Milestone B certification under section 

2366b of title 10, United States Code, and would establish requirements relating to preliminary design review for major defense acquisition programs. 

The Senate recedes with a clarifying amendment. The conference amendment does not include the Senate provision regarding critical design review, because this requirement is already addressed in Department of Defense Instruction 5000.02 (December 

2008 revision). The conferees view this requirement as a key step 

in a knowledge-based approach to acquisition, and expect to revisit 

this issue if the current requirement for critical design review is 

discontinued or is not enforced. 

Critical cost growth in major defense acquisition programs (sec. 

206) 

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 204) that would 

strengthen the so-called ‘‘Nunn-McCurdy’’ requirements in section 

2433(e)(2) of title 10, United States Code, for major defense acquisition programs that experience excessive cost growth. 

The House amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 204). 

The House recedes with an amendment combining elements 

from the Senate bill and the House amendment. The conference 

amendment would also recodify these requirements in a new section 2433a of title 10, United States Code. 

Organizational conflicts of interest in major defense acquisition programs (sec. 207) 

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 205) that would require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics to issue regulations addressing organizational conflicts of interest by contractors in the acquisition of major weapon 

systems. 

The House amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 205). 

The House recedes with an amendment combining elements 

from the Senate bill and the House amendment. Existing Department of Defense regulations leave it up to individual elements of 

the Department to determine on a case-by-case basis whether or 

not organizational conflicts of interest can be mitigated, and if so, 

what mitigation measures are required. The conferees agree that 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
38 

additional guidance is required to tighten existing requirements, 

provide consistency throughout the Department, and ensure that 

advice provided by contractors is objective and unbiased. In developing the regulations required by this section for cases in which 

mitigation is determined to be appropriate, the conferees expect the 

Secretary to give consideration to strengthened measures of organizational separation of the type included in the Senate bill. 

TITLE III—ADDITIONAL ACQUISITION PROVISIONS 

Awards for Department of Defense personnel for excellence in the acquisition of products and services (sec. 301) 

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 206) that would direct the Secretary of Defense to establish a program to recognize 

excellent performance by individuals and teams in the acquisition 

of products and services for the Department of Defense. 

The House amendment contained an identical provision (sec. 

206). The conference report includes this provision. 

Earned value management (sec. 302) 

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 207) that would require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics to review and improve guidance governing the implementation of Earned Value Management (EVM) systems for Department of Defense (DOD) contracts. 

The House amendment contained no similar provision. 

The House recedes with an amendment that would incorporate 

the requirements of the Senate provision into section 887 of the 

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2009 (Public Law 110–417), which requires the Secretary of Defense to identify and address shortcomings in EVM systems for 

DOD contracts. 

Expansion of national security objectives of the national technology 

and industrial base (sec. 303) 

The Senate bill contained a provision (sec. 208) that would 

amend section 2501 of title 10, United States Code, to address critical design skills in the national technology and industrial base and 

require reports on the termination of major defense acquisition programs. 

The House amendment contained no similar provision. 

The House recedes with an amendment requiring that defense 

capability assessments performed pursuant to section 2505 of title 

10, United States Code, consider the effects of the termination of 

major defense acquisition programs. The outcome of this assessment would be incorporated into the annual reports required by 

section 2504 of title 10, United States Code. 

Comptroller General of the United States reports on costs and financial information regarding major defense acquisition programs 

(sec. 304) 

The Senate bill contained two provisions (sec. 104(b) and sec. 

209) that would require reports by the Government Accountability 

Office on: (1) operating and support costs of major weapon systems; 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
39 

and (2) financial information relating to major defense acquisition 

programs. 

The House amendment contained no similar provision. 

The House recedes with an amendment incorporating the two 

reporting requirements into a single provision. 

COMPLIANCE WITH SENATE AND HOUSE RULES 

Compliance with rules of the Senate and the House of Representatives regarding earmarks and congressionally directed spending 

items 

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives and Rule XLIV(3) of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate, neither this conference report nor the accompanying joint 

statement of managers contains any congressional earmarks, congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits, as defined in such rules. 

IKE SKELTON, 

JOHN M. SPRATT, 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, 

GENE TAYLOR, 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, 

SILVESTRE REYES, 

VIC SNYDER, 

ADAM SMITH, 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, 

MIKE MCINTYRE, 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, 

ROBERT E. ANDREWS, 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, 

JIM COOPER, BRAD ELLSWORTH, 

JOE SESTAK, 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, 

HOWARD ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

MAC THORNBERRY, 

WALTER B. JONES, 

W. TODD AKIN, 

J. RANDY FORBES, 

JEFF MILLER, 

JOE WILSON, 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, 

MIKE COFFMAN, 

Managers on the Part of the House. 

CARL LEVIN, 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, 

ROBERT C. BYRD, 

JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, 

JACK REED, 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
40 

BILL NELSON, BEN NELSON, EVAN BAYH, JIM WEBB, CLAIRE MCCASKILL, MARK UDALL, KAY R. HAGAN, MARK BEGICH, ROLAND W. BURRIS, JOHN MCCAIN, JAMES M. INHOFE, JEFF SESSIONS, SAXBY CHAMBLISS, LINDSEY GRAHAM, JOHN THUNE, MEL MARTINEZ, ROGER F. WICKER, RICHARD BURR, DAVID VITTER, SUSAN COLLINS, Managers on the Part of the Senate. 

Æ 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING