PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 

WEAPON SYSTEMS ACQUISITION REFORM 

ACT OF 2009 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
123 STAT. 1704 PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 

Public Law 111–23 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To improve the organization and procedures of the Department of Defense for 

the acquisition of major weapon systems, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

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

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

is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

Sec. 2. Definitions. 

TITLE I—ACQUISITION ORGANIZATION 

Sec. 101. Cost assessment and program evaluation. 

Sec. 102. Directors of Developmental Test and Evaluation and Systems Engineering. Sec. 103. Performance assessments and root cause analyses for major defense acquisition programs. Sec. 104. Assessment of technological maturity of critical technologies of major defense acquisition programs by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering. Sec. 105. Role of the commanders of the combatant commands in identifying joint 

military requirements. 

TITLE II—ACQUISITION POLICY 

Sec. 201. Consideration of trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives in Department of Defense acquisition programs. Sec. 202. Acquisition strategies to ensure competition throughout the lifecycle of 

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

Sec. 204. Actions to identify and address systemic problems in major defense acquisition programs prior to Milestone B approval. Sec. 205. Additional requirements for certain major defense acquisition programs. 

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

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

TITLE III—ADDITIONAL ACQUISITION PROVISIONS 

Sec. 301. Awards for Department of Defense personnel for excellence in the acquisition of products and services. Sec. 302. Earned value management. 

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

industrial base. 

Sec. 304. Comptroller General of the United States reports on costs and financial 

information regarding major defense acquisition programs. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

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

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

States Code. 

10 USC 2430 

note. 

10 USC 101 note. 

Weapon Systems 

Acquisition 

Reform Act of 

2009. 

May 22, 2009 

[S. 454] 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 123 STAT. 1705 

(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. 

‘‘(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. 

President. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
123 STAT. 1706 PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 

‘‘(4) Formulation of study guidance for analyses of alternatives for major defense acquisition programs and performance 

of such analyses, as directed by the Secretary of Defense 

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

assessing the effect of spending by the Department of Defense 

on the United States economy. 

‘‘(6) Assessments of special access and compartmented 

intelligence programs, in coordination with the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and in accordance 

with applicable policies. 

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

of Defense. 

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

and competencies within the cost assessment and program 

evaluation workforce of the Department of Defense and 

improved tools, data, and methods to promote performance, 

economy, and efficiency in analyzing national security planning 

and the allocation of defense resources.’’. 

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the 

beginning of chapter 4 of such title is amended by inserting 

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

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

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

5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 

relating to the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, 

Department of Defense the following new item: 

‘‘Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, 

Department of Defense.’’. 

(b) INDEPENDENT COST ESTIMATION AND COST ANALYSIS.— 

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

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

section: 

‘‘§ 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 

Consultation. 

Policies. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 123 STAT. 1707 

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 lifecycle management and sustainability costs in major defense 

acquisition programs and major automated information system 

programs; 

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

in connection with major defense acquisition programs and 

major automated information system programs; 

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

for major defense acquisition programs and major automated 

information system programs for which the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics is the 

Milestone Decision Authority— 

‘‘(A) in advance of— 

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

of this title; 

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

production or full-rate production; 

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

title; and 

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

and 

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

Director or upon the request of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and 

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

by the Department to ensure that such indexes have a sound 

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

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

OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS AND DEFENSE AGENCIES.—The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Director of Cost Assessment 

and Program Evaluation— 

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

cost analyses conducted by the military departments and 

Defense Agencies, and all studies conducted by the military 

departments and Defense Agencies in connection with such 

cost estimates and cost analyses, for major defense acquisition 

programs and major automated information system programs 

of the military departments and Defense Agencies; and 

‘‘(2) has timely access to any records and data in the 

Department of Defense (including the records and data of each 

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

necessary to review in order to carry out any duties under 

this section. 

‘‘(c) PARTICIPATION, CONCURRENCE, AND APPROVAL IN COST

ESTIMATION.—The Director of Cost Assessment and Program 

Evaluation may— 

‘‘(1) participate in the discussion of any discrepancies 

between an independent cost estimate and the cost estimate 

Assessments. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
123 STAT. 1708 PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 

of a military department or Defense Agency for a major defense 

acquisition program or major automated information system 

program of the Department of Defense; 

‘‘(2) comment on deficiencies in the methodology or execution of any cost estimate or cost analysis developed by a military 

department or Defense Agency for a major defense acquisition 

program or major automated information system program; 

‘‘(3) concur in the choice of a cost estimate within the 

baseline description or any other cost estimate (including the 

confidence level for any such cost estimate) for use at any 

event specified in subsection (a)(6); and 

‘‘(4) participate in the consideration of any decision to 

request authorization of a multiyear procurement contract for 

a major defense acquisition program. 

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

of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, and the Secretary 

of the military department concerned or the head of the Defense 

Agency concerned (as applicable), shall each— 

‘‘(1) disclose in accordance with paragraph (2) the confidence level used in establishing a cost estimate for a major 

defense acquisition program or major automated information 

system program, the rationale for selecting such confidence 

level, and, if such confidence level is less than 80 percent, 

the justification for selecting a confidence level of less than 

80 percent; and 

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

‘‘(A) in any decision documentation approving a cost 

estimate within the baseline description or any other cost 

estimate for use at any event specified in subsection (a)(6); 

and 

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

to section 2432 of this title in the case of a major defense 

acquisition program, or the next quarterly report pursuant 

to section 2445c of this title in the case of a major automated information system program. 

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

The Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shall 

prepare an annual report summarizing the cost estimation and 

cost analysis activities of the Department of Defense during the 

previous year and assessing the progress of the Department in 

improving the accuracy of its cost estimates and analyses. Each 

report shall include, for the year covered by such report, an assessment of— 

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

and Defense Agencies have complied with policies, procedures, 

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

and major automated information systems; 

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

of the military departments and Defense Agencies for major 

defense acquisition programs and major automated information 

system programs; and 

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

among the cost estimates prepared by the military departments, 

the Defense Agencies, and the Director. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 123 STAT. 1709 

‘‘(2) Each report under this subsection shall be submitted 

concurrently to the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), and the congressional defense 

committees not later than 10 days after the transmittal to Congress 

of the budget of the President for the next fiscal year (as submitted 

pursuant to section 1105 of title 31). 

‘‘(3)(A) Each report submitted to the congressional defense 

committees under this subsection shall be submitted in unclassified 

form, but may include a classified annex. 

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

this subsection does not include any information, such as proprietary or source selection sensitive information, that could undermine the integrity of the acquisition process. 

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

congressional defense committees under this subsection shall be 

posted on an Internet website of the Department of Defense that 

is available to the public. 

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

of the Director to the congressional defense committees under this 

subsection. 

‘‘(f) STAFF.—The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the 

Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation has sufficient 

professional staff of military and civilian personnel to enable the 

Director to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the Director 

under this section.’’. 

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the 

beginning of chapter 137 of such title is amended by adding 

at the end the following new item: 

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

(c) TRANSFER OF PERSONNEL AND FUNCTIONS.— 

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

of Program Analysis and Evaluation of the Department of 

Defense, including the functions of the Cost Analysis Improvement Group, are hereby transferred to the Office of the Director 

of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation. 

(2) TRANSFER OF PERSONNEL TO DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR INDEPENDENT COST ASSESSMENT.—The personnel of the Cost Analysis Improvement Group are hereby transferred to the Deputy 

Director for Cost Assessment in the Office of the Director 

of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation. 

(3) TRANSFER OF PERSONNEL TO DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PROGRAM ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION.—The personnel (other than 

the personnel transferred under paragraph (2)) of the Office 

of Program Analysis and Evaluation are hereby transferred 

to the Deputy Director for Program Evaluation in the Office 

of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation. 

(d) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

(1) Section 181(d) of title 10, United States Code, is 

amended by striking ‘‘Director of the Office of Program Analysis 

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

and Program Evaluation’’. 

(2) Section 2306b(i)(1)(B) of such title is amended by 

striking ‘‘Cost Analysis Improvement Group of the Department 

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

Program Analysis’’. 

10 USC 139c 

note. 

Internet posting. 

Public 

information. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
123 STAT. 1710 PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 

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

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

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

(4) Section 2366b(a)(1)(C) of such title is amended by 

inserting ‘‘, with the concurrence of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation,’’ after ‘‘have been developed 

to execute’’. 

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

is amended to read as follows: 

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

and Program Evaluation; and’’. 

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

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

the concurrence of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, to be reasonable’’. 

(e) REPORT ON MONITORING OF OPERATING AND SUPPORT COSTS

FOR MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.— 

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

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

Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation under 

section 139c of title 10 United States Code (as added by subsection (a)), shall review existing systems and methods of the 

Department of Defense for tracking and assessing operating 

and support costs on major defense acquisition programs and 

submit to the Secretary of Defense a report on the finding 

and recommendations of the Director as a result of the review, 

including an assessment by the Director of the feasibility and 

advisability of establishing baselines for operating and support 

costs under section 2435 of title 10, United States Code. 

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

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

committees, together with any comments on the report the 

Secretary considers appropriate. 

SEC. 102. DIRECTORS OF DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION 

AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING. 

(a) IN GENERAL.— 

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

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

is further amended by inserting after section 139c the following 

new section: 

‘‘§ 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, 

Review. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 123 STAT. 1711 

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

‘‘(4) COORDINATION WITH DIRECTOR OF SYSTEMS

ENGINEERING.—The Director of Developmental Test and 

Evaluation shall closely coordinate with the Director of Systems 

Engineering to ensure that the developmental test and evaluation activities of the Department of Defense are fully integrated 

into and consistent with the systems engineering and development planning processes of the Department. 

‘‘(5) DUTIES.—The Director shall— 

‘‘(A) develop policies and guidance for— 

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

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

evaluation; 

‘‘(iii) the conduct of developmental test and evaluation conducted jointly by more than one military 

department or Defense Agency; 

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

evaluation plan within the test and evaluation master plan 

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

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

evaluation activities of the major defense acquisition programs; 

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

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

or improvements to such organizations and capabilities, 

and provide input regarding needed changes or improvements for the test and evaluation strategic plan developed 

in accordance with section 196(d) of this title; and 

‘‘(F) perform such other activities relating to the 

developmental test and evaluation activities of the Department of Defense as the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics may prescribe. 

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

ensure that the Director has access to all records and data 

of the Department of Defense (including the records and data 

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

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

this subsection. 

‘‘(7) CONCURRENT SERVICE AS DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT

OF DEFENSE TEST RESOURCES MANAGEMENT CENTER.—The individual serving as the Director of Developmental Test and 

Evaluation may also serve concurrently as the Director of the 

Department of Defense Test Resource Management Center 

under section 196 of this title. 

‘‘(b) DIRECTOR OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.— 

Policies. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
123 STAT. 1712 PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 

‘‘(1) APPOINTMENT.—There is a Director of Systems 

Engineering, who shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense 

from among individuals with an expertise in systems 

engineering and development planning. 

‘‘(2) PRINCIPAL ADVISOR FOR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING.—The Director shall be the principal 

advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics on systems 

engineering and development planning in the Department of 

Defense. 

‘‘(3) SUPERVISION.—The Director shall be subject to the 

supervision of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

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

‘‘(4) COORDINATION WITH DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTAL

TEST AND EVALUATION.—The Director of Systems Engineering 

shall closely coordinate with the Director of Developmental 

Test and Evaluation to ensure that the developmental test 

and evaluation activities of the Department of Defense are 

fully integrated into and consistent with the systems 

engineering and development planning processes of the Department. 

‘‘(5) DUTIES.—The Director shall— 

‘‘(A) develop policies and guidance for— 

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

best practices, generally; 

‘‘(ii) the use of systems engineering approaches 

to enhance reliability, availability, and maintainability 

on major defense acquisition programs; 

‘‘(iii) the development of systems engineering 

master plans for major defense acquisition programs 

including systems engineering considerations in support of lifecycle management and sustainability; and 

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

engineering and reliability growth in requests for proposals; 

‘‘(B) review and approve the systems engineering 

master plan for each major defense acquisition program; 

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

development planning activities of the major defense 

acquisition programs; 

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

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

‘‘(E) provide input on the inclusion of systems 

engineering requirements in the process for consideration 

of joint military requirements by the Joint Requirements 

Oversight Council pursuant to section 181 of this title, 

including specific input relating to each capabilities 

development document; 

‘‘(F) periodically review the organizations and capabilities of the military departments with respect to systems 

engineering, development planning, and lifecycle management and sustainability, and identify needed changes or 

improvements to such organizations and capabilities; and 

Policies. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 123 STAT. 1713 

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

the Department of Defense as the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics may prescribe. 

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

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

the records and data of each military department and including 

classified and proprietary information as appropriate) that the 

Director considers necessary to review in order to carry out 

the Director’s duties under this subsection. 

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

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

Evaluation and the Director of Systems Engineering shall jointly 

submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the 

activities undertaken pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) during 

the preceding year. Each report shall include a section on activities 

relating to the major defense acquisition programs which shall 

set forth, at a minimum, the following: 

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

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

evaluation plans. 

‘‘(2) A discussion of the waivers of and deviations from 

requirements in test and evaluation master plans, systems 

engineering master plans, and other testing requirements that 

occurred during the preceding year with respect to such programs, any concerns raised by such waivers or deviations, 

and the actions that have been taken or are planned to be 

taken to address such concerns. 

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

of the Department of Defense for systems engineering, development planning, and developmental test and evaluation with 

respect to such programs. 

‘‘(4) Any comments on such report that the Secretary of 

Defense considers appropriate. 

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

Evaluation and the Director of Systems Engineering shall jointly, 

in coordination with the official designated by the Secretary of 

Defense under section 103 of the Weapon Systems Acquisition 

Reform Act of 2009, issue guidance on the following: 

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

performance criteria as part of the systems engineering master 

plans and the developmental test and evaluation plans within 

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

‘‘(2) The use of developmental test and evaluation to 

measure the achievement of specific performance objectives 

within a systems engineering master plan. 

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

to the achievement of the performance criteria and objectives 

specified pursuant to this subsection. 

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

section, the term ‘major defense acquisition program’ has the 

meaning given that term in section 2430 of this title.’’. 

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the 

beginning of chapter 4 of such title, as amended by section 

Effective date. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
123 STAT. 1714 PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 

101(a) of this Act, is further amended by inserting after the 

item relating to section 139c the following new item: 

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

(b) DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION AND SYSTEMS

ENGINEERING IN THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS AND DEFENSE AGENCIES.— 

(1) PLANS.—The service acquisition executive of each military department and each Defense Agency with responsibility 

for a major defense acquisition program shall develop and 

implement plans to ensure the military department or Defense 

Agency concerned has provided appropriate resources for each 

of the following: 

(A) Developmental testing organizations with adequate 

numbers of trained personnel in order to— 

(i) ensure that developmental testing requirements 

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

source selection process, and in the preparation of 

requests for proposals on all major defense acquisition 

programs; 

(ii) participate in the planning of developmental 

test and evaluation activities, including the preparation and approval of a developmental test and evaluation plan within the test and evaluation master plan 

for each major defense acquisition program; and 

(iii) participate in and oversee the conduct of 

developmental testing, the analysis of data, and the 

preparation of evaluations and reports based on such 

testing. 

(B) Development planning and systems engineering 

organizations with adequate numbers of trained personnel 

in order to— 

(i) support key requirements, acquisition, and 

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

and systems engineering process; 

(ii) include a robust program for improving reliability, availability, maintainability, and sustainability 

as an integral part of design and development within 

the systems engineering master plan for each major 

defense acquisition program; and 

(iii) identify systems engineering requirements, 

including reliability, availability, maintainability, and 

lifecycle management and sustainability requirements, 

during the Joint Capabilities Integration Development 

System process, and incorporate such systems 

engineering requirements into contract requirements 

for each major defense acquisition program. 

(2) REPORTS BY SERVICE ACQUISITION EXECUTIVES.—Not 

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

Act, the service acquisition executive of each military department and each Defense Agency with responsibility for a major 

defense acquisition program shall submit to the Director of 

10 USC 2430 

note. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 123 STAT. 1715 

Developmental Test and Evaluation and the Director of Systems 

Engineering a report on the extent to which— 

(A) such military department or Defense Agency has 

implemented, or is implementing, the plan required by 

paragraph (1); and 

(B) additional authorities or resources are needed to 

attract, develop, retain, and reward developmental test 

and evaluation personnel and systems engineers with 

appropriate levels of hands-on experience and technical 

expertise to meet the needs of such military department 

or Defense Agency. 

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

The first annual report submitted to Congress by the Director 

of Developmental Test and Evaluation and the Director of 

Systems Engineering under section 139d(c) of title 10, United 

States Code (as added by subsection (a)), shall include an 

assessment by the Directors of the reports submitted by the 

service acquisition executives to the Directors under paragraph 

(2). 

SEC. 103. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS AND ROOT CAUSE ANALYSES 

FOR MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 

(a) DESIGNATION OF SENIOR OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS AND ROOT CAUSE ANALYSES.— 

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

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

the principal official of the Department of Defense responsible 

for conducting and overseeing performance assessments and 

root cause analyses for major defense acquisition programs. 

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

paragraph (1) is not responsible for program execution. 

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

the senior official designated under paragraph (1) appropriate 

staff and resources necessary to carry out official’s function 

under this section. 

(b) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The senior official designated under subsection (a) shall be responsible for the following: 

(1) Carrying out performance assessments of major defense 

acquisition programs in accordance with the requirements of 

subsection (c) periodically or when requested by the Secretary 

of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

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

(2) Conducting root cause analyses for major defense 

acquisition programs in accordance with the requirements of 

subsection (d) when required by section 2433a(a)(1) of title 

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

Act), or when requested by the Secretary of Defense, the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, 

the Secretary of a military department, or the head of a Defense 

Agency. 

(3) Issuing policies, procedures, and guidance governing 

the conduct of performance assessments and root cause analyses 

by the military departments and the Defense Agencies. 

10 USC 2430 

note. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
123 STAT. 1716 PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 

(4) Evaluating the utility of performance metrics used to 

measure the cost, schedule, and performance of major defense 

acquisition programs, and making such recommendations to 

the Secretary of Defense as the official considers appropriate 

to improve such metrics. 

(5) Advising acquisition officials on performance issues 

regarding a major defense acquisition program that may arise— 

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

10, United States Code (as so added); 

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

(C) in the course of consideration of any decision to 

request authorization of a multiyear procurement contract 

for the program. 

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

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

(1) The cost, schedule, and performance of the program, 

relative to current metrics, including performance requirements 

and baseline descriptions. 

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

and performance predicted relative to such metrics is likely 

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

warfighter that is consistent with the level of resources to 

be expended and provides superior value to alternative 

approaches that may be available to meet the same military 

requirement. 

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

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

root cause analysis with respect to a major defense acquisition 

program is an assessment of the underlying cause or causes of 

shortcomings in cost, schedule, or performance of the program, 

including the role, if any, of— 

(1) unrealistic performance expectations; 

(2) unrealistic baseline estimates for cost or schedule; 

(3) immature technologies or excessive manufacturing or 

integration risk; 

(4) unanticipated design, engineering, manufacturing, or 

technology integration issues arising during program performance; 

(5) changes in procurement quantities; 

(6) inadequate program funding or funding instability; 

(7) poor performance by government or contractor personnel 

responsible for program management; or 

(8) any other matters. 

(e) SUPPORT OF APPLICABLE CAPABILITIES AND EXPERTISE.— 

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

of Defense officials with relevant capabilities and expertise needed 

to carry out the requirements of this section. 

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

performance assessments and root cause analyses for major defense 

acquisition programs shall submit to the congressional defense 

committees a report on the activities undertaken under this section 

during the preceding year. 

Effective date. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 123 STAT. 1717 

SEC. 104. ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGICAL MATURITY OF CRITICAL 

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

ENGINEERING. 

(a) ASSESSMENT BY DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND

ENGINEERING.— 

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

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

subsection: 

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

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

and integration risk of critical technologies of the major defense 

acquisition programs of the Department of Defense and report 

on the findings of such reviews and assessments to the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. 

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

and to the congressional defense committees by March 1 of each 

year a report on the technological maturity and integration risk 

of critical technologies of the major defense acquisition programs 

of the Department of Defense.’’. 

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

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

(as added by paragraph (1)), shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees not later than March 1, 2010, and 

shall address the results of reviews and assessments conducted 

by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering pursuant 

to subsection (c)(1) of such section (as so added) during the 

preceding calendar year. 

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

than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

Director of Defense Research and Engineering shall submit to the 

congressional defense committees a report describing any additional 

resources that may be required by the Director, and by other 

research and engineering elements of the Department of Defense, 

to carry out the following: 

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

(2) The technological maturity assessments required by 

section 2366b(a) of title 10, United States Code. 

(3) The requirements of Department of Defense Instruction 

5000, as revised. 

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

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

of Defense Research and Engineering, in consultation with the 

Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation, shall develop 

knowledge-based standards against which to measure the technological maturity and integration risk of critical technologies at key 

stages in the acquisition process for purposes of conducting the 

reviews and assessments of major defense acquisition programs 

required by subsection (c) of section 139a of title 10, United States 

Code (as so added). 

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

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

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

Deadline. 

10 USC 139a 

note. 

10 USC 139a 

note. 

Deadline. 

Reports. 

Review. 

Reports. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
123 STAT. 1718 PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 

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

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

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

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

periodic reviews in accordance with the requirements of subsection 

(e).’’. 

(b) INPUT FROM COMMANDERS OF COMBATANT COMMANDS.— 

The Joint Requirements Oversight Council in the Department of 

Defense shall seek and consider input from the commanders of 

combatant commands, in accordance with section 181(d) of title 

10, United States Code (as amended by subsection (a)). Such input 

may include, but is not limited to, an assessment of the following: 

(1) Any current or projected missions or threats in the 

theater of operations of the commander of a combatant command that would inform the assessment of a new joint military 

requirement. 

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

requirement in terms of current and projected missions or 

threats. 

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

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

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

in meeting the joint military requirement or the benefit, if 

any, of a partner nation assisting in development or use of 

technologies developed to meet the joint military requirement. 

(c) COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES REVIEW

OF IMPLEMENTATION.— 

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

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

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

on the implementation of the requirements of— 

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

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

Requirements Oversight Council to solicit and consider 

input from the commanders of the combatant commands; 

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

of title 10, United States Code, made by section 942 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (Public Law 110–181; 122 Stat. 287) and by section 

201(b) of this Act; and 

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

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

(A) the extent to which the Council has effectively 

sought, and the commanders of the combatant commands 

have provided, meaningful input on proposed joint military 

requirements; 

(B) the quality and effectiveness of efforts to estimate 

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

Deadline. 

Reports. 

10 USC 181 note. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 123 STAT. 1719 

(C) the extent to which the Council has considered 

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

TITLE II—ACQUISITION POLICY 

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

AND PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES IN DEPARTMENT OF 

DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 

(a) CONSIDERATION OF TRADE-OFFS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall ensure 

that mechanisms are developed and implemented to require 

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

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

(A) Department of Defense officials responsible for 

acquisition, budget, and cost estimating functions are provided an appropriate opportunity to develop estimates and 

raise cost and schedule matters before performance objectives are established for capabilities for which the Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council is the 

validation authority; and 

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

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

(b) DUTIES OF JOINT REQUIREMENTS OVERSIGHT COUNCIL.— 

Section 181(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1)— 

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

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

(B) after the semicolon; and 

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

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

cost, schedule, and performance objectives for joint military 

requirements in consultation with the advisors specified 

in subsection (d);’’. 

(2) in paragraph (3)— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘, in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the 

Director of Cost Assessment and Performance Evaluation,’’ 

after ‘‘assist the Chairman’’; and 

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

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

and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

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

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

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

10 USC 2302 

note. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
123 STAT. 1720 PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 

an initial operational capability should be delivered to meet 

each joint military requirement.’’. 

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

of Defense shall ensure that each new joint military requirement 

recommended by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council is 

reviewed to ensure that the Joint Requirements Oversight Council 

has, in making such recommendation— 

(1) taken appropriate action to seek and consider input 

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

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

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

schedule, and performance objectives in accordance with the 

requirements of section 181(b)(1)(C) of title 10, United States 

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

(3) engaged in consideration of issues of joint portfolio 

management, including alternative material and non-material 

solutions, as provided in Department of Defense instructions 

for the development of joint military requirements. 

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

Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shall take 

the lead in the development of study guidance for an analysis 

of alternatives for each joint military requirement for which the 

Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council is the 

validation authority. In developing the guidance, the Director shall 

solicit the advice of appropriate officials within the Department 

of Defense and ensure that the guidance requires, at a minimum— 

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

schedule, and performance objectives for each alternative 

considered; and 

(2) an assessment of whether or not the joint military 

requirement can be met in a manner that is consistent with 

the cost and schedule objectives recommended by the Joint 

Requirements Oversight Council. 

(e) ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES IN CERTIFICATION FOR 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 

10 USC 2430 

note. 

10 USC 181 note. 

10 USC 181 note. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 123 STAT. 1721 

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

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

contractor performance; and 

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

(b) MEASURES TO ENSURE COMPETITION.—The measures to 

ensure competition, or the option of competition, for purposes of 

subsection (a)(1) may include measures to achieve the following, 

in appropriate cases if such measures are cost-effective: 

(1) Competitive prototyping. 

(2) Dual-sourcing. 

(3) Unbundling of contracts. 

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

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

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

through multiple sources. 

(7) Acquisition of complete technical data packages. 

(8) Periodic competitions for subsystem upgrades. 

(9) Licensing of additional suppliers. 

(10) Periodic system or program reviews to address 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. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
123 STAT. 1722 PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 

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

date of the enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 203. PROTOTYPING REQUIREMENTS FOR MAJOR DEFENSE 

ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 

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

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

shall modify the guidance of the Department of Defense relating 

to the operation of the acquisition system with respect to competitive prototyping for major defense acquisition programs to ensure 

the following: 

(1) That the acquisition strategy for each major defense 

acquisition program provides for competitive prototypes before 

Milestone B approval (or Key Decision Point B approval in 

the case of a space program) unless the Milestone Decision 

Authority for such program waives the requirement pursuant 

to paragraph (2). 

(2) That the Milestone Decision Authority may waive the 

requirement in paragraph (1) only— 

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

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

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

competitive prototyping; or 

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

objectives. 

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

Authority— 

(A) shall require that the program produce a prototype 

before Milestone B approval (or Key Decision Point B 

approval in the case of a space program) if the expected 

life-cycle benefits (in constant dollars) of producing such 

prototype exceed its cost and its production is consistent 

with achieving critical national security objectives; and 

(B) shall notify the congressional defense committees 

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

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

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

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

system is not feasible, for critical subsystems of the system. 

(b) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW OF CERTAIN WAIVERS.— 

(1) NOTICE TO COMPTROLLER GENERAL.—Whenever a Milestone Decision Authority authorizes a waiver of the requirement 

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

the basis of excessive cost, the Milestone Decision Authority 

shall submit the notification of the waiver, together with the 

rationale, to the Comptroller General of the United States 

at the same time it is submitted to the congressional defense 

committees. 

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

days after receipt of a notification of a waiver under paragraph 

(1), the Comptroller General shall— 

Notification. 

Waiver authority. 

Deadlines. 

10 USC 2430 

note. 

Deadline. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 123 STAT. 1723 

(A) review the rationale for the waiver; and 

(B) submit to the congressional defense committees 

a written assessment of the rationale for the waiver. 

SEC. 204. ACTIONS TO IDENTIFY AND ADDRESS SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS 

IN MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS PRIOR TO 

MILESTONE B APPROVAL. 

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

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

Key Decision Point A approval in the case of a space program,’’ 

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

be initiated prior to Milestone B approval, or Key Decision Point 

B approval in the case of a space program,’’. 

(b) MODIFICATION TO NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.—Subsection 

(b) of such section is amended— 

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

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

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

or the program manager determines that the period of time 

required for the delivery of an initial operational capability 

is likely to exceed the schedule objective established pursuant 

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

and 

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

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

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

the Milestone Decision Authority shall submit to the congressional 

defense committees a report that— 

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

in accordance with applicable policies, procedures, and guidance; 

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

and 

‘‘(C) includes one of the following: 

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

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

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

will provide acceptable military capability at less cost; 

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

schedule, as appropriate, are reasonable; and 

‘‘(IV) the management structure for the program 

is adequate to manage and control program development cost and schedule. 

‘‘(ii) A plan for terminating the development of the 

program or withdrawal of Milestone A approval, or Key 

Decision Point A approval in the case of a space program, 

if the Milestone Decision Authority determines that such 

action is in the interest of national defense.’’. 

(c) APPLICATION TO ONGOING PROGRAMS.— 

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

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

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

Certification. 

Deadline. 

10 USC 2366a 

note. 

Plan. 

Certification. 

Deadline. 

Reports. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
123 STAT. 1724 PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 

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

date of the enactment of this Act. 

(2) COVERED PROGRAMS.—The requirement in paragraph 

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

(A) was initiated before the date of the enactment 

of this Act; and 

(B) as of the date of certification under paragraph 

(1) has not otherwise been certified pursuant to either 

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

States Code. 

SEC. 205. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN MAJOR DEFENSE 

ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 

(a) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO MILESTONE B 

APPROVAL.—Section 2366b of title 10, United States Code, is 

amended— 

(1) in subsection (d)— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘The milestone decision 

authority may’’; and 

(B) by striking the second sentence and inserting the 

following: 

‘‘(2) Whenever the milestone decision authority makes such 

a determination and authorizes such a waiver— 

‘‘(A) the waiver, the determination, and the reasons for 

the determination shall be submitted in writing to the congressional defense committees within 30 days after the waiver 

is authorized; and 

‘‘(B) the milestone decision authority shall review the program not less often than annually to determine the extent 

to which such program currently satisfies the certification 

components specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection 

(a) until such time as the milestone decision authority determines that the program satisfies all such certification components.’’; 

(2) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections 

(f) and (g), respectively, and inserting after subsection (d) the 

following new subsection (e): 

‘‘(e) DESIGNATION OF CERTIFICATION STATUS IN BUDGET DOCUMENTATION.—Any budget request, budget justification material, 

budget display, reprogramming request, Selected Acquisition 

Report, or other budget documentation or performance report submitted by the Secretary of Defense to the President regarding 

a major defense acquisition program receiving a waiver pursuant 

to subsection (d) shall prominently and clearly indicate that such 

program has not fully satisfied the certification requirements of 

this section until such time as the milestone decision authority 

makes the determination that such program has satisfied all such 

certification components.’’; and 

(3) in subsection (a)— 

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

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

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

paragraph (2): 

Determination. 

Waiver authority. 

Deadline. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 123 STAT. 1725 

‘‘(2) has received a preliminary design review and conducted 

a formal post-preliminary design review assessment, and certifies on the basis of such assessment that the program demonstrates a high likelihood of accomplishing its intended mission; and’’; and 

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

(B) of this paragraph— 

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

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

and assessment by the Director of Defense Research 

and Engineering; and’’; 

(ii) by striking subparagraph (E); and 

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

(b) CERTIFICATION AND REVIEW OF PROGRAMS ENTERING

DEVELOPMENT PRIOR TO ENACTMENT OF SECTION 2366B OF TITLE

10.— 

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

date of the enactment of this Act, for each major defense 

acquisition program that received Milestone B approval before 

January 6, 2006, and has not received Milestone C approval, 

and for each space program that received Key Decision Point 

B approval before January 6, 2006, and has not received Key 

Decision Point C approval, the Milestone Decision Authority 

shall determine whether or not such program satisfies all of 

the certification components specified in paragraphs (1) and 

(2) of subsection (a) of section 2366b of title 10, United States 

Code (as amended by subsection (a) of this section). 

(2) ANNUAL REVIEW.—The Milestone Decision Authority 

shall review any program determined pursuant to paragraph 

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

(as so amended), not less often than annually thereafter to 

determine the extent to which such program currently satisfies 

such certification components until such time as the Milestone 

Decision Authority determines that such program satisfies all 

such certification components. 

(3) DESIGNATION OF CERTIFICATION STATUS IN BUDGET

DOCUMENTATION.—Any budget request, budget justification 

material, budget display, reprogramming request, Selected 

Acquisition Report, or other budget documentation or performance report submitted by the Secretary of Defense to the President regarding a major defense acquisition program which the 

Milestone Decision Authority determines under paragraph (1) 

does not satisfy all of the certification components of subsection 

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

amended) shall prominently and clearly indicate that such program has not fully satisfied such certification components until 

such time as the Milestone Decision Authority makes the determination that such program has satisfied all such certification 

components. 

(c) REVIEWS OF PROGRAMS RESTRUCTURED AFTER EXPERIENCING

CRITICAL COST GROWTH.—The official designated to perform oversight of performance assessment pursuant to section 103 of this 

Act, shall assess the performance of each major defense acquisition 

Assessment. 

10 USC 2433a 

note. 

Deadline. 

10 USC 2366b 

note. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
123 STAT. 1726 PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 

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 

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; 

Deadline. 

Certification. 

Determination. 

Consultations. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 123 STAT. 1727 

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

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

cost; 

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

cost or procurement unit cost have been determined by the 

Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to be 

reasonable; 

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

funding must be reduced to accommodate the growth in cost 

of the program; and 

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

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

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

each determination made in accordance with subparagraphs (A) 

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

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

pursuant to subsection (b), the Secretary shall— 

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

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

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

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

‘‘(B) rescind the most recent Milestone approval, or Key 

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

the program and withdraw any associated certification under 

section 2366a or 2366b of this title; 

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

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

before taking any contract action to enter a new contract, 

exercise an option under an existing contract, or otherwise 

extend the scope of an existing contract under the program, 

except to the extent determined necessary by the Milestone 

Decision Authority, on a non-delegable basis, to ensure that 

the program can be restructured as intended by the Secretary 

without unnecessarily wasting resources; 

‘‘(D) include in the report specified in paragraph (2) a 

description of all funding changes made as a result of the 

growth in cost of the program, including reductions made in 

funding for other programs to accommodate such cost growth; 

and 

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

with the requirements of section 205 of the Weapon Systems 

Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. 

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

this paragraph is the first Selected Acquisition Report for the program submitted pursuant to section 2432 of this title after the 

President submits a budget pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, 

in the calendar year following the year in which the program 

was restructured. 

Reports. 

Reports. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
123 STAT. 1728 PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 

‘‘(d) ACTIONS IF PROGRAM TERMINATED.—If a major defense 

acquisition program is terminated pursuant to subsection (b), the 

Secretary shall submit to Congress a written report setting forth— 

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

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

in the program; and 

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

any continuing joint military requirements otherwise intended 

to be met by the program.’’. 

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the 

beginning of chapter 144 of such title is amended by inserting 

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

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

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

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

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

cost of a major defense acquisition program or designated major 

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

increases by a percentage equal to or greater than the critical 

cost growth threshold for the program or subprogram, the Secretary 

of Defense shall take actions consistent with the requirements 

of section 2433a of this title.’’. 

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

amended— 

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

increments or spirals,’’ after ‘‘an eventual total expenditure 

for procurement’’; and 

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

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

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

the relevant joint military requirement, as determined by the 

Joint Requirements Oversight Council pursuant to section 181 

of this title. 

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

of this title. 

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

of this title. 

‘‘(4) The cost estimate within a baseline description as 

required by section 2435 of this title.’’. 

SEC. 207. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN MAJOR 

DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 

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

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

shall revise the Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation to provide uniform guidance and tighten existing 

requirements for organizational conflicts of interest by contractors 

in major defense acquisition programs. 

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

(a) shall, at a minimum— 

(1) address organizational conflicts of interest that could 

arise as a result of— 

(A) lead system integrator contracts on major defense 

acquisition programs and contracts that follow lead system 

Deadline. 

10 USC 2430 

note. 

Reports. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 123 STAT. 1729 

integrator contracts on such programs, particularly contracts for production; 

(B) the ownership of business units performing systems 

engineering and technical assistance functions, professional 

services, or management support services in relation to 

major defense acquisition programs by contractors who 

simultaneously own business units competing to perform 

as either the prime contractor or the supplier of a major 

subsystem or component for such programs; 

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

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

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

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

in technical evaluations on major defense acquisition programs; 

(2) ensure that the Department of Defense receives advice 

on systems architecture and systems engineering matters with 

respect to major defense acquisition programs from federally 

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

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

engineering and technical assistance functions for a major 

defense acquisition program contains a provision prohibiting 

the contractor or any affiliate of the contractor from participating as a prime contractor or a major subcontractor in the 

development or construction of a weapon system under the 

program; and 

(4) establish such limited exceptions to the requirement 

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

the Department of Defense has continued access to advice on 

systems architecture and systems engineering matters from 

highly-qualified contractors with domain experience and expertise, while ensuring that such advice comes from sources that 

are objective and unbiased. 

(c) CONSULTATION IN REVISION OF REGULATIONS.— 

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

of this Act, the Panel on Contracting Integrity established 

pursuant to section 813 of the John Warner National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364; 

120 Stat. 2320) shall present recommendations to the Secretary 

of Defense on measures to eliminate or mitigate organizational 

conflicts of interest in major defense acquisition programs. 

(2) CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS.—In developing 

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

shall consider the following: 

(A) The recommendations presented by the Panel on 

Contracting Integrity pursuant to paragraph (1). 

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

of the Office of Government Ethics pursuant to section 

841(b) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417; 122 

Stat. 4539). 

Deadline. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
123 STAT. 1730 PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 

(d) EXTENSION OF PANEL ON CONTRACTING INTEGRITY.—Subsection (e) of section 813 of the John Warner National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 is amended to read as 

follows: 

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

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

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

panel based on a determination that the activities of the panel 

no longer justify its continuation and that concerns about contracting integrity have been mitigated. 

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

TITLE III—ADDITIONAL ACQUISITION 

PROVISIONS 

SEC. 301. AWARDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL FOR 

EXCELLENCE IN THE ACQUISITION OF PRODUCTS AND 

SERVICES. 

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

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

carrying out a program to recognize excellent performance by 

individuals and teams of members of the Armed Forces and civilian 

personnel of the Department of Defense in the acquisition of products and services for the Department of Defense. 

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

include the following: 

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

military departments and the Defense Agencies of individuals 

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

(2) Procedures for the evaluation of nominations for recognition under the program by one or more panels of individuals 

from the Government, academia, and the private sector who 

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

the Secretary shall establish for purposes of the program. 

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

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

other provision of law to the extent that the performance of such 

individual so recognized warrants the award of such bonus under 

such provision of law. 

SEC. 302. EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT. 

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

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

417; 122 Stat. 4562) is amended by striking paragraph (7) and 

inserting the following new paragraphs: 

‘‘(7) A discussion of the methodology used to establish 

appropriate baselines for earned value management at the 

award of a contract or commencement of a program, whichever 

is earlier. 

Procedures. 

Deadline. 

10 USC 2302 

note. 

Notification. 

10 USC 2304 

note. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 123 STAT. 1731 

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

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

and qualifications needed to perform that responsibility. 

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

establish and use approved earned value management systems, 

including mechanisms such as the consideration of the quality 

of contractor earned value management performance in past 

performance evaluations. 

‘‘(10) Recommendations for improving earned value 

management and its implementation within the Department, 

including— 

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

and 

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

Secretary determines to be appropriate.’’. 

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

section is amended by striking ‘‘270 days after the date of the 

enactment of this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘October 14, 2009’’. 

SEC. 303. EXPANSION OF NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES OF THE 

NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL BASE. 

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

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

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

armed forces are provided with systems capable of ensuring 

technological superiority over potential adversaries.’’. 

(b) ASSESSMENT OF EFFECT OF TERMINATION OF MAJOR

DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS ON TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL

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

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

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

and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

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

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

acquisition programs (as the term is defined in section 2430 

of this title) in the previous fiscal year on the sectors and 

capabilities in the assessment.’’. 

SEC. 304. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES REPORTS 

ON COSTS AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING 

MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 

(a) REVIEW OF OPERATING AND SUPPORT COSTS OF MAJOR

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

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

United States shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on growth in operating and support costs for 

major weapon systems. 

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

(A) identify the original estimates for operating and 

support costs for major weapon systems selected by the 

Comptroller General for purposes of the report; 

(B) assess the actual operating and support costs for 

such major weapon systems; 

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


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
123 STAT. 1732 PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 

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

costs, assess the factors contributing to such growth; 

(E) assess measures taken by the Department of 

Defense to reduce operating and support costs for major 

weapon systems; and 

(F) make such recommendations as the Comptroller 

General considers appropriate. 

(b) REVIEW OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION RELATING TO MAJOR

DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.— 

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

shall perform a review of weaknesses in operations affecting 

the reliability of financial information on the systems and assets 

to be acquired under major defense acquisition programs. 

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

shall— 

(A) identify any weaknesses in operations under major 

defense acquisition programs that hinder the capacity to 

assemble reliable financial information on the systems and 

assets to be acquired under such programs in accordance 

with applicable accounting standards; 

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

major defense acquisition programs identified pursuant to 

subparagraph (A); and 

(C) assess the implementation of the mechanisms set 

forth pursuant to subparagraph (B), including— 

(i) the actions taken, or planned to be taken, to 

implement such mechanisms; 

(ii) the schedule for carrying out such mechanisms; 

and 

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

progress in carrying out such mechanisms. 

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

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

input from each of the following: 

(A) The Chief Management Officer of the Department 

of Defense. 

(B) The Chief Management Officer of the Department 

of the Army. 

(C) The Chief Management Officer of the Department 

of the Navy. 

(D) The Chief Management Officer of the Department 

of the Air Force. 

(4) REPORT.—Not later than one year after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 123 STAT. 1733 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 454 (H.R. 2101): 

HOUSE REPORTS: Nos. 111–101 accompanying H.R. 2101 (Comm. on Armed Services) and 111–124 (Comm. of Conference). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009): 

May 6, 7, considered and passed Senate. 

May 13, considered and passed House, amended, in lieu of H.R. 2101 pursuant to H. Res. 432. 

May 20, Senate agreed to conference report. 

May 21, House agreed to conference report. 

DAILY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS (2009): 

May 22, Presidential remarks. 

Æ 

to the congressional defense committees a report on the results 

of the review required by paragraph (1). 

Approved May 22, 2009. 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLIC LAW