Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 2 of 3 | June 2018

Title 10 Reorganization Volume 2

Recommendation 34: Repeal certain Title 10 sections and note sections, create 

a new Part V under Subtitle A of Title 10, and redesignate sections in 

Subtitles B–D to make room for Part V to support a more logical organization 

and greater ease of use. 

Problem

With passage of the Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947 all of the laws governing DoD acquisition 

were contained within an organized, logical structure. In the 60 years since Title 10 was enacted, the 

acquisition-related part of the Code (Part IV, Service, Supply, and Procurement, of Subtitle A, General 

Military Law), has dramatically expanded, with the addition of new sections. Further disrupting the 

once organized structure are the myriad note sections for numerous provisions, including permanent or 

temporary requirements as well as specific reporting requirements. This statutory language is included

within the Code but are set forth in note sections under existing sections of law. For example, the 

FY 2018 NDAA included 35 new defense acquisition-related provisions that became note sections. In 

the last three NDAAs alone, Congress enacted 265 new acquisition-related provisions, with many being 

included as notes or assigned statutory designations such as; 10 U.S.C. § 2313b. The abundant note 

sections have rendered Title 10 difficult to navigate even for experienced acquisition personnel. 

Background

Title 10, enacted into positive law August 10, 1956, details the specific laws governing the Military 

Services and provides organizational structure for DoD. The title was originally divided into five 

subtitles, A through E, with defense acquisition statutes primarily found in Subtitle A, General Military 

Law under Part IV, Service, Supply, and Procurement. In the 1956 codification, the acquisition-related 

statutes were mainly codified in three chapters: Chapter 137, Procurement Generally (derived from the 

Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947); Chapter 139, Research and Development; and Chapter 141, 

Miscellaneous Procurement Provisions. A Subtitle E was added in 1994.

In the past 60 years, the original three chapters have grown dramatically, with Chapter 141 growing 

from six to 36 sections. Congress created several new chapters, including Chapter 140, Procurement of 

Commercial Items; Chapter 142, Procurement Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program;

Chapter 144, Major Defense Acquisition Programs; Chapter 146, Contracting for Performance of 

Civilian Commercial or Industrial Type Functions; Chapter 149, Defense Acquisition System; and 

Chapter 144B, Weapon Systems Development and Related Matters. Title 10, Subtitle A, Part IV now 

includes 34 chapters. These chapters have generally been inserted where there is room within the 

existing structure of Part IV of Subtitle A, rather than where they might fit logically or thematically. 

Designating new chapters within Part IV of Subtitle A is increasingly problematic. It is now almost 

always necessary for the section number of a new section to be in the form of a number-and-letter 

combination (e.g., 2410q or 2466a) rather than the traditional numeric designation. This designation

form, though legally sufficient, hinders usability and may lead to confusion of similar citations 

(e.g., 2304(a) versus 2304a). 

There are 20 iterations of Section 2410 (2410, 2410a, 2410b . . . 2410s). In addition to the organization 

problems created by the growth of the number of actual sections, is the accumulation of almost 
Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 2 of 3 | June 2018

Title 10 Reorganization Volume 2

350 notes. Section 2304, for example, concerns Competition Requirements; however, that section 

includes 55 notes with titles ranging from Matters Relating to Reverse Auctions to Competition for 

Procurement of Small Arms Supplied to Iraq and Afghanistan. The FY 2018 NDAA resulted in addition 

of 35 new defense acquisition notes.

These provisions cover a wide variety of subjects and are increasingly organized primarily in sequence 

of enactment rather than by similarity of subject matter. Many defense provisions of law that apply to 

defense acquisition are not found in Title 10 itself, but are provisions of the annual defense 

authorization acts or other statutes, which are set forth in the Code as confusing “note” sections. These 

provisions, especially when they are permanent, are not as useful as they would be if they were 

provisions of the Code itself. 

Discussion

Despite the trend toward electronic research, the current cumbersome statutory structure for 

acquisition-related statutes hinders the acquisition community, both inside and outside DoD, from 

easily identifying related sections and appropriate definitions, and prevents understanding of the 

statutes in their proper context. As indicated above, the structure originally provided for defense 

acquisition-related statutes has been overwhelmed by the volume of amendments. The Office of the 

Law Revision Counsel noted “[o]ver time, some areas of law outgrow their original boundaries due to 

the enactment of new laws and amendments. . . . As a result, the Code becomes less organized, harder 

to navigate, and less reflective of the underlying structure of the statutes.”1 In the overview to the 

Discussion Draft of the Accelerating the Pace of Acquisition Reform Act of 2018, introduced by 

Representative Mac Thornberry, (R-TX), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), 

the committee described the acquisition-related statutes in Title 10 as “cumbersome and incoherent.”2

The committee further stated that “[a] focused effort is needed to rationalize the body of acquisition 

law provided to DoD.”3 Indeed, the task is not so much to reorganize the defense acquisition laws as to 

organize them.

Congress, in the conference report to the FY 2018 NDAA, encouraged such a comprehensive 

reorganization by noting, in regard to the conference report’s recommended repeal of an obsolete 

provision: “this first, relatively narrow repeal of an outdated program in title 10 . . . should encourage a 

future, wider effort to reorganize and optimize the entirety of acquisition law.”4 This statement 

encourages a once-in-a-generation opportunity for reorganization, or organization, of Title 10. 

As a starting point, the Section 809 Panel undertook a review of all the note sections for possible 

codification of such notes or their potential repeal. As a result the panel recommended the potential 

repeal of 100 note sections and three Title 10 sections.

 

1 “Editorial Reclassification,” U.S. House of Representatives, Office of Law Revision Counsel, accessed June 2, 2018,

http://uscode.house.gov/editorialreclassification/reclassification.html. 2 House Armed Services Committee, Accelerating the Pace of Acquisition Reform Act of 2018: Discussion Draft Overview, 1, accessed 

June 2, 2018,

https://armedservices.house.gov/sites/republicans.armedservices.house.gov/files/wysiwyg_uploaded/FY19%20Reform%20Bill%20Summ

ary%20Memo_FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf. 3 Ibid. 4 FY 2018 NDAA, Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2810, H. Rept. 115-404, 889.
Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 2 of 3 | June 2018

Title 10 Reorganization Volume 2

The provisions recommended for repeal (a) required the Department to issue regulations (or directives 

or guidance, etc.) or (b) have now expired, or (c) are otherwise obsolete. The purpose of repealing these 

provisions would be to remove provisions from Title 10 that may unnecessarily constrain the Secretary 

of Defense’s authority, and to reduce the volume of statutory provisions with which those working 

with defense acquisition statutes must contend. The panel shared its list with DoD to ensure repealing 

these provisions would do no harm. DoD agreed with the majority, though not all, of the panel’s 

recommendations. As with the recommendations to repeal various statutory offices included in 

Volume 1 of the panel’s Final Report, repealing a requirement neither invalidates the policy nor 

discourages its continuation. Though the repeal allows the Secretary of Defense greater opportunity to 

make revisions as circumstances warrant, or for other interested parties to revisit and recommend 

possible changes as well, a risk exists that repeal of a select number of note sections with ongoing 

policy implications may lead some to mistakenly believe those policies are no longer operative. 

Consequently, in situations for which DoD has already implemented, or is about to implement, policies

consistent with the NDAA sections identified in the notes proposed here for repeal, DoD should, to the 

maximum extent practicable, issue an affirmative statement or guidance to the organizations affected 

indicating the policies remain in place. 

To align with the legislative cycle for consideration of the annual defense authorization bill, the

Section 809 Panel submitted its recommendations for potential repeals in transmissions to Congress in 

February and March. The majority of recommendations were initially incorporated in the legislative 

discussion draft of the Accelerating the Pace of Acquisition Reform Act of 2018. The FY 2019 NDAA, as 

approved by HASC, includes most, but not all, of the Section 809 Panel’s recommended statutory 

repeals. 5

As a next step, the Section 809 Panel is developing a comprehensive restructuring of the Title 10 

acquisition-related provisions that would be accomplished through creation of a new Part V, 

Acquisition within Subtitle A, General Military Matters.

6 Such a reorganization would require 

redesignating many existing provisions of law, which would create a short-term inconvenience; similar 

efforts have proven worthwhile. 7 In the context of reclassifying certain provisions codified in Title 50, 

the Office of the Law Revision Counsel noted, “The short-term inconvenience of adjusting to new Code 

citations is greatly outweighed by the benefit of making much needed long-term improvements in the 

organizational structure.”8 Enactment of Title 41, Public Contracts, into positive law by Pub. L. 

No. 111-350 is a recent example that is particularly relevant for the acquisition community.

Adding a new Part V at the end of Subtitle A will offer substantial advantages in terms of organizing 

acquisition statutes and making them proximate to other relevant provisions of Subtitle A. Because 

there is currently no room for a new Part V between the end of Part IV and the beginning of Subtitle B, 

the panel’s proposal would, entail redesignation of the chapters and sections of subtitles B, C, and D, 

relating to the three Military Services, so as to make room for the new part V. This proposal presumes 

 

5 See FY 2019 NDAA, H.R. 5515, Sec. 812. 6 The framework for this reorganization is also included in the HASC approved FY 2019 NDAA. Ibid at Sec. 801. 7 See Ibid at Secs. 806, 807, and 808. 8 “Editorial Reclassification, Title 50, United States Code, Brief Summary of Changes,” U.S. House of Representatives, Office of Law 

Revision Counsel, accessed June 2, 2018, http://uscode.house.gov/editorialreclassification/t50/index.html. 
Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 2 of 3 | June 2018

Title 10 Reorganization Volume 2

that future growth in Title 10 will generally be in subtitle A and that there will be relatively little 

growth in the military department subtitles. This proposal presents an opportunity to create room for 

not only a new Part V of Subtitle A on defense acquisition but also for additional growth in subtitle A, 

as well as for possible reorganization of other subjects within Subtitle A. As a technical matter, the 

redesignation of chapters and sections of Subtitles B, C, and D could be accomplished in a transparent 

manner that ensures there are no substantive changes and uses drafting techniques that minimize the 

number of complex amendatory provisions. 

The task of restructuring these statutes would require substantial effort, rather than simply moving 

each existing section of law into the newly created structure. This effort includes breaking up some 

long sections of code into more manageable sections and making technical updates. The proposed 

reorganization and technical updates would restore much of the parallelism between the acquisitionrelated provisions of Title 10 with the corresponding provisions of Title 41, standardizing the 

governments face to industry for contractors doing business with both DoD and other federal agencies. 

This effort would achieve what the Packard Commission called for almost 40 year ago: “Congress 

should work with the Administration to recodify all Federal statutes involving procurement...[s]uch 

codification should aim not only at consolidation, but more importantly, at simplification and 

consistency.”9

Conclusions

Organizing the defense acquisition statutes into a restructured, rationalized form would reduce the 

overcrowding, reflect more clearly the underlying structure of these statutes, and provide substantial 

benefits in terms of a structure that is more intuitive and easier to navigate. This effort would be 

especially beneficial for the thousands of attorneys across DoD who advise commanders, program 

managers, and contracting officers on acquisition authorities. Confusing notes and cumbersome 

statutory structure can create a barrier to entry for innovative firms unfamiliar with the federal 

acquisition process, firms DoD seeks to leverage to ensure technological dominance and enhanced

lethality across the joint force inside the curve of near-peer competitors and nonstate actors. 

This logical restructuring would be achieved by adding a new Part V at the end of Subtitle A and 

placing all of the defense-acquisition related statutes into that new part. An initial step, aimed at 

decluttering the code, was a review of all relevant note sections for possible repeal or codification. 

Subsequently, the Section 809 Panel recommended repealing sections and notes that either required 

DoD to issue regulations, had expired by their own terms, or were otherwise obsolete. With these 

recommendations, the Section 809 Panel is not expressing a view on the merits of the policies promoted 

by these provisions. Rather, in recommending the repeal of the statutory requirement for a regulation, 

the Section 809 Panel is recommending that the Secretary of Defense be allowed to revise the regulation 

as circumstances warrant 

The Section 809 Panel’s primary recommendation is to create a rational statutory structure. HASC 

Chairman Mac Thornberry describes this project in the summary to his proposed FY 2019 NDAA as 

 

9 President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management, A Quest for Excellence: Final Report to the President, June 1986, xxv, 

accessed June 2, 2018, https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2695411/Packard-Commission.pdf. 
Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 2 of 3 | June 2018

Title 10 Reorganization Volume 2

“a historic clarification of the acquisition process.”10 Future recommendations by the Section 809 Panel 

will fully address the chapter structure within this new Part V, and restructure some sections to restore 

the parallelism with current Title 41 provision. This effort is not intended to make substantive changes 

to the existing acquisition statutes, but would provide a more logical framework within which 

comprehensive statutory recommendations could be nested. This project ultimately will involve 

substantial effort on the part of Congress and DoD. 

Implementation

Legislative Branch

§ Repeal certain Title 10 sections and notes as described in the Section 809 Panel’s 

recommendations (submitted on February 26, 2018, and March 23, 2018) and codify the 

remaining notes in the new Part V.

§ Create a new Part V under Subtitle A of Title 10, and redesignate sections in Subtitles B-D to 

make room for Part V. 

Executive Branch

§ There are no Executive Branch changes required for this recommendation.

Implications for Other Agencies

§ There are no cross-agency implications for this recommendation.

 

10 House Armed Services Committee, National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2019, Chairman’s Mark Summary, 9, accessed June 2, 

2018,

https://armedservices.house.gov/sites/republicans.armedservices.house.gov/files/wysiwyg_uploaded/Chairman%27s%20Mark%20Sum

mary%20FY19%20NDAA.pdf.
Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations

Volume 2 of 3 | June 2018

Title 10 Reorganization Volume 2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK