H. R. 1735—216 
(b) AMOUNT OF SURETY BOND GUARANTEE FROM SMALL BUSI-
NESS ADMINISTRATION.—Section 411(c)(1) of the Small Business 
Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 694b(c)(1)) is amended by striking 
‘‘70’’ and inserting ‘‘90’’. 
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section 
shall take effect 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
Act. 
SEC. 875. REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT ACCESS TO INTELLECTUAL PROP-
ERTY RIGHTS OF PRIVATE SECTOR FIRMS. 
(a) REVIEW REQUIRED.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
enter into a contract with an independent entity with appro-
priate expertise to conduct a review of— 
(A) Department of Defense regulations, practices, and 
sustainment requirements related to Government access 
to and use of intellectual property rights of private sector 
firms; and 
(B) Department of Defense practices related to the 
procurement, management, and use of intellectual property 
rights to facilitate competition in sustainment of weapon 
systems throughout their life-cycle. 
(2) CONSULTATION REQUIRED.—The contract shall require 
that in conducting the review, the independent entity shall 
consult with the National Defense Technology and Industrial 
Base Council (described in section 2502 of title 10, United 
States Code) and each Center of Industrial and Technical Excel-
lence (described in section 2474 of title 10, United States Code). 
(b) REPORT.—Not later than March 1, 2016, the Secretary shall 
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the 
findings of the independent entity, along with a description of 
any actions that the Secretary proposes to revise and clarify laws 
or that the Secretary may take to revise or clarify regulations 
related to intellectual property rights. 
SEC. 876. INCLUSION IN ANNUAL TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL 
CAPABILITY ASSESSMENTS OF A DETERMINATION ABOUT 
DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS. 
Section 2505(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended— 
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
(5) and (6), respectively; and 
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new para-
graphs (3) and (4): 
‘‘(3) determine the extent to which the requirements associ-
ated with defense acquisition programs can be satisfied by 
the present and projected performance capacities of industries 
supporting the sectors or capabilities in the assessment, 
evaluate the reasons for any variance from applicable preceding 
determinations, and identify the extent to which those indus-
tries are comprised of only one potential source in the national 
technology and industrial base or have multiple potential 
sources; 
‘‘(4) determine the extent to which the requirements associ-
ated with defense acquisition programs can be satisfied by 
the present and projected performance capacities of industries 
that do not actively support Department of Defense acquisition
H. R. 1735—217 
programs and identify the barriers to the participation of those 
industries;’’. 
Subtitle G—Other Matters 
SEC. 881. CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL PROGRAM COST INCREASES 
AND SCHEDULE DELAYS RESULTING FROM OVERSIGHT OF 
DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 
(a) AVOIDANCE
OF
UNNECESSARY
COST
INCREASES
AND 
SCHEDULE DELAYS.—The Director of Operational Test and Evalua-
tion, the Deputy Chief Management Officer, the Director of the 
Defense Contract Management Agency, the Director of the Defense 
Contract Audit Agency, the Inspector General of the Department 
of Defense, and the heads of other defense audit, testing, acquisition, 
and management agencies shall ensure that policies, procedures, 
and activities implemented by their offices and agencies in connec-
tion with defense acquisition program oversight do not result in 
unnecessary increases in program costs or cost estimates or delays 
in schedule or schedule estimates. 
(b) CONSIDERATION OF PRIVATE SECTOR BEST PRACTICES.—In 
considering potential cost increases and schedule delays as a result 
of oversight efforts pursuant to subsection (a), the officials described 
in such subsection shall consider private sector best practices with 
respect to oversight implementation. 
SEC. 882. EXAMINATION AND GUIDANCE RELATING TO OVERSIGHT 
AND APPROVAL OF SERVICES CONTRACTS. 
Not later than March 1, 2016, the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall— 
(1) complete an examination of the decision authority 
related to acquisition of services; and 
(2) develop and issue guidance to improve capabilities and 
processes related to requirements development and source selec-
tion for, and oversight and management of, services contracts. 
SEC. 883. STREAMLINING OF REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO DEFENSE 
BUSINESS SYSTEMS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.— 
(1) REVISION.—Section 2222 of title 10, United States Code, 
is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘§ 2222. Defense business systems: business process re-
engineering; enterprise architecture; management 
‘‘(a) DEFENSE BUSINESS PROCESSES GENERALLY.—The Secretary 
of Defense shall ensure that defense business processes are 
reviewed, and as appropriate revised, through business process 
reengineering to match best commercial practices, to the maximum 
extent practicable, so as to minimize customization of commercial 
business systems. 
‘‘(b) DEFENSE BUSINESS SYSTEMS GENERALLY.—The Secretary 
of Defense shall ensure that each covered defense business system 
developed, deployed, and operated by the Department of Defense— 
‘‘(1) supports efficient business processes that have been 
reviewed, and as appropriate revised, through business process 
reengineering; 
‘‘(2) is integrated into a comprehensive defense business 
enterprise architecture;
H. R. 1735—218 
‘‘(3) is managed in a manner that provides visibility into, 
and traceability of, expenditures for the system; and 
‘‘(4) uses an acquisition and sustainment strategy that 
prioritizes the use of commercial software and business prac-
tices. 
‘‘(c) ISSUANCE OF GUIDANCE.— 
‘‘(1) SECRETARY
OF
DEFENSE
GUIDANCE.—The Secretary 
shall issue guidance to provide for the coordination of, and 
decision making for, the planning, programming, and control 
of investments in covered defense business systems. 
‘‘(2) SUPPORTING GUIDANCE.—The Secretary shall direct the 
Deputy Chief Management Officer of the Department of 
Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Tech-
nology, and Logistics, the Chief Information Officer, and the 
Chief Management Officer of each of the military departments 
to issue and maintain supporting guidance, as appropriate and 
within their respective areas of responsibility, for the guidance 
of the Secretary issued under paragraph (1). 
‘‘(d) GUIDANCE ELEMENTS.—The guidance issued under sub-
section (c)(1) shall include the following elements: 
‘‘(1) Policy to ensure that the business processes of the 
Department of Defense are continuously reviewed and revised— 
‘‘(A) to implement the most streamlined and efficient 
business processes practicable; and 
‘‘(B) eliminate or reduce the need to tailor commercial 
off-the-shelf systems to meet or incorporate requirements 
or interfaces that are unique to the Department of Defense. 
‘‘(2) A process to establish requirements for covered defense 
business systems. 
‘‘(3) Mechanisms for the planning and control of invest-
ments in covered defense business systems, including a process 
for the collection and review of programming and budgeting 
information for covered defense business systems. 
‘‘(4) Policy requiring the periodic review of covered defense 
business systems that have been fully deployed, by portfolio, 
to ensure that investments in such portfolios are appropriate. 
‘‘(5) Policy to ensure full consideration of sustainability 
and technological refreshment requirements, and the appro-
priate use of open architectures. 
‘‘(6) Policy to ensure that best acquisition and systems 
engineering practices are used in the procurement and deploy-
ment of commercial systems, modified commercial systems, and 
defense-unique systems to meet Department of Defense mis-
sions. 
‘‘(e) DEFENSE BUSINESS ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE.— 
‘‘(1) BLUEPRINT.—The Secretary, working through the 
Deputy Chief Management Officer of the Department of 
Defense, shall develop and maintain a blueprint to guide the 
development of integrated business processes within the 
Department of Defense. Such blueprint shall be known as the 
‘defense business enterprise architecture’. 
‘‘(2) PURPOSE.—The defense business enterprise architec-
ture 
shall 
be 
sufficiently 
defined 
to 
effectively 
guide 
implementation of interoperable defense business system solu-
tions and shall be consistent with the policies and procedures 
established by the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget.
H. R. 1735—219 
‘‘(3) ELEMENTS.—The defense business enterprise architec-
ture shall— 
‘‘(A) include policies, procedures, business data stand-
ards, business performance measures, and business 
information requirements that apply uniformly throughout 
the Department of Defense; and 
‘‘(B) enable the Department of Defense to— 
‘‘(i) comply with all applicable law, including Fed-
eral accounting, financial management, and reporting 
requirements; 
‘‘(ii) routinely produce verifiable, timely, accurate, 
and reliable business and financial information for 
management purposes; 
‘‘(iii) integrate budget, accounting, and program 
information and systems; and 
‘‘(iv) identify whether each existing business 
system is a part of the business systems environment 
outlined by the defense business enterprise architec-
ture, will become a part of that environment with 
appropriate modifications, or is not a part of that 
environment. 
‘‘(4) 
INTEGRATION
INTO
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY 
ARCHITECTURE.—(A) The defense business enterprise architec-
ture shall be integrated into the information technology enter-
prise architecture required under subparagraph (B). 
‘‘(B) The Chief Information Officer of the Department of 
Defense shall develop an information technology enterprise 
architecture. The architecture shall describe a plan for 
improving the information technology and computing infra-
structure of the Department of Defense, including for each 
of the major business processes conducted by the Department 
of Defense. 
‘‘(f) DEFENSE BUSINESS COUNCIL.— 
‘‘(1) REQUIREMENT
FOR
COUNCIL.—The Secretary shall 
establish a Defense Business Council to provide advice to the 
Secretary on developing the defense business enterprise 
architecture, reengineering the Department’s business proc-
esses, developing and deploying defense business systems, and 
developing requirements for defense business systems. The 
Council shall be chaired by the Deputy Chief Management 
Officer and the Chief Information Officer of the Department 
of Defense. 
‘‘(2) MEMBERSHIP.—The membership of the Council shall 
include the following: 
‘‘(A) The Chief Management Officers of the military 
departments, or their designees. 
‘‘(B) The following officials of the Department of 
Defense, or their designees: 
‘‘(i) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics with respect to acquisition, 
logistics, and installations management processes. 
‘‘(ii) The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) 
with respect to financial management and planning 
and budgeting processes. 
‘‘(iii) The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 
and Readiness with respect to human resources 
management processes.
H. R. 1735—220 
‘‘(g) APPROVALS REQUIRED FOR DEVELOPMENT.— 
‘‘(1) INITIAL
APPROVAL
REQUIRED.—The Secretary shall 
ensure that a covered defense business system program cannot 
proceed into development (or, if no development is required, 
into production or fielding) unless the appropriate approval 
official (as specified in paragraph (2)) determines that— 
‘‘(A) the system has been, or is being, reengineered 
to be as streamlined and efficient as practicable, and the 
implementation of the system will maximize the elimi-
nation of unique software requirements and unique inter-
faces; 
‘‘(B) the system and business system portfolio are or 
will be in compliance with the defense business enterprise 
architecture developed pursuant to subsection (e) or will 
be in compliance as a result of modifications planned; 
‘‘(C) the system has valid, achievable requirements 
and a viable plan for implementing those requirements 
(including, as appropriate, market research, business 
process reengineering, and prototyping activities); 
‘‘(D) the system has an acquisition strategy designed 
to eliminate or reduce the need to tailor commercial off- 
the-shelf systems to meet unique requirements, incorporate 
unique requirements, or incorporate unique interfaces to 
the maximum extent practicable; and 
‘‘(E) 
is 
in 
compliance 
with 
the 
Department’s 
auditability requirements. 
‘‘(2) APPROPRIATE OFFICIAL.—For purposes of paragraph (1), 
the appropriate approval official with respect to a covered 
defense business system is the following: 
‘‘(A) Except as may be provided in subparagraph (C), 
in the case of a priority defense business system, the 
Deputy Chief Management Officer of the Department of 
Defense. 
‘‘(B) Except as may be provided in subparagraph (C), 
for any defense business system other than a priority 
defense business system— 
‘‘(i) in the case of a system of a military depart-
ment, the Chief Management Officer of that military 
department; and 
‘‘(ii) in the case of a system of a Defense Agency 
or Department of Defense Field Activity, or a system 
that will support the business process of more than 
one military department or Defense Agency or Depart-
ment of Defense Field Activity, the Deputy Chief 
Management Officer of the Department of Defense. 
‘‘(C) In the case of any defense business system, such 
official other than the applicable official under subpara-
graph (A) or (B) as the Secretary designates for such pur-
pose. 
‘‘(3) ANNUAL CERTIFICATION.—For any fiscal year in which 
funds are expended for development or sustainment pursuant 
to a covered defense business system program, the appropriate 
approval official shall review the system and certify, certify 
with conditions, or decline to certify, as the case may be, 
that it continues to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (1). 
If the approval official determines that certification cannot 
be granted, the approval official shall notify the milestone
H. R. 1735—221 
decision authority for the program and provide a recommenda-
tion for corrective action. 
‘‘(4) OBLIGATION
OF
FUNDS
IN
VIOLATION
OF
REQUIRE-
MENTS.—The obligation of Department of Defense funds for 
a covered defense business system program that has not been 
certified in accordance with paragraph (3) is a violation of 
section 1341(a)(1)(A) of title 31. 
‘‘(h) RESPONSIBILITY OF MILESTONE DECISION AUTHORITY.—The 
milestone decision authority for a covered defense business system 
program shall be responsible for the acquisition of such system 
and shall ensure that acquisition process approvals are not consid-
ered for such system until the relevant certifications and approvals 
have been made under this section. 
‘‘(i) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 
‘‘(1)(A) DEFENSE
BUSINESS
SYSTEM.—The term ‘defense 
business system’ means an information system that is operated 
by, for, or on behalf of the Department of Defense, including 
any of the following: 
‘‘(i) A financial system. 
‘‘(ii) A financial data feeder system. 
‘‘(iii) A contracting system. 
‘‘(iv) A logistics system. 
‘‘(v) A planning and budgeting system. 
‘‘(vi) An installations management system. 
‘‘(vii) A human resources management system. 
‘‘(viii) A training and readiness system. 
‘‘(B) The term does not include— 
‘‘(i) a national security system; or 
‘‘(ii) an information system used exclusively by and 
within the defense commissary system or the exchange 
system or other instrumentality of the Department of 
Defense conducted for the morale, welfare, and recreation 
of members of the armed forces using nonappropriated 
funds. 
‘‘(2) COVERED DEFENSE BUSINESS SYSTEM.—The term ‘cov-
ered defense business system’ means a defense business system 
that is expected to have a total amount of budget authority, 
over the period of the current future-years defense program 
submitted to Congress under section 221 of this title, in excess 
of $50,000,000. 
‘‘(3) BUSINESS
SYSTEM
PORTFOLIO.—The term ‘business 
system portfolio’ means all business systems performing func-
tions closely related to the functions performed or to be per-
formed by a covered defense business system. 
‘‘(4) COVERED DEFENSE BUSINESS SYSTEM PROGRAM.—The 
term ‘covered defense business system program’ means a 
defense acquisition program to develop and field a covered 
defense business system or an increment of a covered defense 
business system. 
‘‘(5) PRIORITY DEFENSE BUSINESS SYSTEM PROGRAM.—The 
term ‘priority defense business system’ means a defense busi-
ness system that is— 
‘‘(A) expected to have a total amount of budget 
authority over the period of the current future-years 
defense program submitted to Congress under section 221 
of this title in excess of $250,000,000; or
H. R. 1735—222 
‘‘(B) designated by the Deputy Chief Management 
Officer of the Department of Defense as a priority defense 
business system, based on specific program analyses of 
factors including complexity, scope, and technical risk, and 
after notification to Congress of such designation. 
‘‘(6) ENTERPRISE
ARCHITECTURE.—The term ‘enterprise 
architecture’ has the meaning given that term in section 3601(4) 
of title 44. 
‘‘(7) INFORMATION SYSTEM.—The term ‘information system’ 
has the meaning given that term in section 11101 of title 
40, United States Code. 
‘‘(8) NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEM.—The term ‘national secu-
rity system’ has the meaning given that term in section 
3552(b)(6)(A) of title 44. 
‘‘(9) BUSINESS
PROCESS
MAPPING.—The term ‘business 
process mapping’ means a procedure in which the steps in 
a business process are clarified and documented in both written 
form and in a flow chart.’’. 
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the 
beginning of such chapter is amended by striking the item 
relating to section 2222 and inserting the following new item: 
‘‘2222. Defense business systems: business process reengineering; enterprise archi-
tecture; management.’’. 
(b) DEADLINE FOR GUIDANCE.—The guidance required by sub-
section (c)(1) of section 2222 of title 10, United States Code, as 
amended by subsection (a)(1), shall be issued not later than 
December 31, 2016. 
(c) REPEAL.—Section 811 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364; 10 
U.S.C. 2222 note) is repealed. 
(d) COMPTROLLER GENERAL ASSESSMENT.— 
(1) ASSESSMENT REQUIRED.—In each odd-numbered year, 
the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit 
to the congressional defense committees an assessment of the 
extent to which the actions taken by the Department of Defense 
comply with the requirements of section 2222 of title 10, United 
States Code. 
(2) REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED PROVISION.—Subsection (d) of 
section 332 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375; 
118 Stat. 1856) is repealed. 
(e) GUIDANCE ON ACQUISITION OF BUSINESS SYSTEMS.—The Sec-
retary of Defense shall issue guidance for major automated informa-
tion systems acquisition programs to promote the use of best 
acquisition, 
contracting, 
requirement 
development, 
systems 
engineering, program management, and sustainment practices, 
including— 
(1) ensuring that an acquisition program baseline has been 
established within two years after program initiation; 
(2) ensuring that program requirements have not changed 
in a manner that increases acquisition costs or delays the 
schedule, without sufficient cause and only after maximum 
efforts to reengineer business processes prior to changing 
requirements; 
(3) policies to evaluate commercial off-the-shelf business 
systems for security, resilience, reliability, interoperability, and
H. R. 1735—223 
integration with existing interrelated systems where such 
system integration and interoperability are essential to Depart-
ment of Defense operations; 
(4) policies to work with commercial off-the-shelf business 
system developers and owners in adapting systems for Depart-
ment of Defense use; 
(5) policies to perform Department of Defense legacy system 
audits to determine which systems are related to or rely upon 
the system to be replaced or integrated with commercial off- 
the-shelf business systems; 
(6) policies to perform full backup of systems that will 
be changed or replaced by the installation of commercial off- 
the-shelf business systems prior to installation and deployment 
to ensure reconstitution of the system to a functioning state 
should it become necessary; 
(7) policies to engage the research and development activi-
ties and laboratories of the Department of Defense to improve 
acquisition outcomes; and 
(8) policies to refine and improve developmental and oper-
ational testing of business processes that are supported by 
the major automated information systems. 
SEC. 884. PROCUREMENT OF PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT. 
The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Secretaries 
of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, in procuring an item of personal 
protective equipment or a critical safety item, use source selection 
criteria that is predominately based on technical qualifications of 
the item and not predominately based on price to the maximum 
extent practicable if the level of quality or failure of the item 
could result in death or severe bodily harm to the user, as deter-
mined by the Secretaries. 
SEC. 885. AMENDMENTS CONCERNING DETECTION AND AVOIDANCE 
OF COUNTERFEIT ELECTRONIC PARTS. 
(a) AMENDMENTS RELATED TO CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES.— 
Section 818(c)(2)(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81; 10 U.S.C. 2302 note) is 
amended— 
(1) in clause (i), by inserting ‘‘electronic’’ after ‘‘avoid 
counterfeit’’; 
(2) in clause (ii)— 
(A) by inserting ‘‘covered’’ after ‘‘provided to the’’; and 
(B) by inserting ‘‘or were obtained by the covered con-
tractor in accordance with regulations described in para-
graph (3)’’ after ‘‘Regulation’’; and 
(3) in clause (iii), by inserting ‘‘discovers the counterfeit 
electronic parts or suspect counterfeit electronic parts and’’ 
after ‘‘contractor’’. 
(b) AMENDMENTS RELATED
TO TRUSTED SUPPLIERS.—Section 
818(c)(3)(D)(iii) of such Act (Public Law 112–81; 10 U.S.C. 2302 
note) is amended by striking ‘‘review and audit’’ and inserting 
‘‘review, audit, and approval’’.
H. R. 1735—224 
SEC. 886. EXCEPTION FOR ABILITYONE PRODUCTS FROM AUTHORITY 
TO ACQUIRE GOODS AND SERVICES MANUFACTURED IN 
AFGHANISTAN, CENTRAL ASIAN STATES, AND DJIBOUTI. 
(a) EXCLUSION
OF CERTAIN ITEMS NOT MANUFACTURED
IN 
AFGHANISTAN.—Section 886 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (10 U.S.C. 2302 note) is amended— 
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘and except as provided 
in subsection (d),’’ after ‘‘subsection (b),’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection: 
‘‘(d) EXCLUSION OF ITEMS ON THE ABILITYONE PROCUREMENT 
CATALOG.—The authority under subsection (a) shall not be available 
for the procurement of any good that is contained in the procure-
ment catalog described in section 8503(a) of title 41, United States 
Code, in Afghanistan if such good can be produced and delivered 
by a qualified nonprofit agency for the blind or a nonprofit agency 
for other severely disabled in a timely fashion to support mission 
requirements.’’. 
(b) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN ITEMS NOT MANUFACTURED IN CEN-
TRAL
ASIAN
STATES.—Section 801 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84; 123 
Stat. 2399) is amended— 
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘and except as provided 
in subsection (h),’’ after ‘‘subsection (b),’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection: 
‘‘(h) EXCLUSION OF ITEMS ON THE ABILITYONE PROCUREMENT 
CATALOG.—The authority under subsection (a) shall not be available 
for the procurement of any good that is contained in the procure-
ment catalog described in section 8503(a) of title 41, United States 
Code, if such good can be produced and delivered by a qualified 
nonprofit agency for the blind or a nonprofit agency for other 
severely disabled in a timely fashion to support mission require-
ments.’’. 
(c) EXCLUSION
OF CERTAIN ITEMS NOT MANUFACTURED
IN 
DJIBOUTI.—Section 1263 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ 
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 
(Public Law 113–291) is amended— 
(1) in subsection (b), by inserting ‘‘and except as provided 
in subsection (g),’’ after ‘‘subsection (c),’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection: 
‘‘(g) EXCLUSION OF ITEMS ON THE ABILITYONE PROCUREMENT 
CATALOG.—The authority under subsection (b) shall not be available 
for the procurement of any good that is contained in the procure-
ment catalog described in section 8503(a) of title 41, United States 
Code, if such good can be produced and delivered by a qualified 
nonprofit agency for the blind or a nonprofit agency for other 
severely disabled in a timely fashion to support mission require-
ments.’’. 
SEC. 887. EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND 
INDUSTRY. 
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council shall prescribe 
a regulation making clear that agency acquisition personnel are 
permitted and encouraged to engage in responsible and constructive 
exchanges with industry, so long as those exchanges are consistent 
with existing law and regulation and do not promote an unfair 
competitive advantage to particular firms.
H. R. 1735—225 
SEC. 888. STANDARDS FOR PROCUREMENT OF SECURE INFORMATION 
TECHNOLOGY AND CYBER SECURITY SYSTEMS. 
(a) ASSESSMENT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense shall 
conduct an assessment of the application of the Open Trusted 
Technology Provider Standard or similar public, open technology 
standards to Department of Defense procurements for information 
technology and cyber security acquisitions and provide a briefing 
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 
of Representatives not later than one year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act. 
(b) ELEMENTS.—The assessment and briefing required by sub-
section (a) shall include the following: 
(1) Assessment of the current Open Trusted Technology 
Provider Standard to determine what aspects might be adopted 
by the Department of Defense and where additional develop-
ment of the standard may be required. 
(2) Identification of the types or classes of programs where 
the standard might be applied most effectively, as well as 
identification of types or classes of programs that should specifi-
cally be excluded from consideration. 
(3) Assessment of the impact on current acquisition regula-
tions or policies of the adoption of the standard. 
(4) Recommendations the Secretary may have related to 
the adoption of the standard or improvement in the standard 
to support Department acquisitions. 
(5) Any other matters the Secretary may deem appropriate. 
SEC. 889. UNIFIED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES. 
(a) BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS.—Not later than one year after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Deputy Chief Management 
Officer, the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense, 
and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 
and Logistics shall jointly complete a business case analysis to 
determine the most effective and efficient way to procure and deploy 
common information technology services. 
(b) ELEMENTS.—The business case analysis required by sub-
section (a) shall include an assessment of whether the Department 
of Defense should— 
(1) either— 
(A) acquire a unified set of commercially provided 
common or enterprise information technology services, 
including such services as messaging, collaboration, direc-
tory, security, and content delivery; or 
(B) allow the military departments and other compo-
nents of the Department to acquire such services sepa-
rately; 
(2) either— 
(A) acquire such services from a single provider that 
bundles all of the services; or 
(B) require that each common service be independently 
defined and use open standards to enable continuous adop-
tion of best commercial technology; and 
(3) enable availability of multiple versions of each type 
of service and application to enable choice and competition 
while supporting interoperability where necessary.
H. R. 1735—226 
SEC. 890. CLOUD STRATEGY FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. 
(a) CLOUD STRATEGY FOR SECRET INTERNET PROTOCOL ROUTER 
NETWORK.— 
(1) IN
GENERAL.—The Chief Information Officer of the 
Department of Defense shall, in consultation with the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Vice 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the chief information 
officers of the military departments, develop a cloud strategy 
for the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) 
of the Department. 
(2) MATTERS ADDRESSED.—This strategy required by para-
graph (1) shall address the following: 
(A) Security requirements. 
(B) The compatibility of applications currently utilized 
within the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network with 
a cloud computing environment. 
(C) How a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network 
cloud capability should be competitively acquired. 
(D) How a Secret Internet Protocol Router Network 
cloud system for the Department would achieve interoper-
ability with the cloud systems of the intelligence community 
(as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 
1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003)) operating at the security level Sen-
sitive Compartmented Information. 
(b) PRICING POLICY AND COST RECOVERY PROCESS FOR CERTAIN 
CLOUD SERVICES.—The Chief Information Officer shall, in consulta-
tion with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, develop 
a consistent pricing policy and cost recovery process for the use 
by Department of Defense components of the cloud services provided 
through the Intelligence Community Information Technology 
Environment. 
(c) ASSESSMENT OF FEASIBILITY AND ADVISABILITY OF IMPOSING 
MINIMUM STANDARDS.—The Chief Information Officer shall assess 
the feasibility and advisability of imposing a minimum set of open 
standards for cloud infrastructure, middle-ware, metadata, and 
application programming interfaces to promote interoperability, 
information sharing, ease of access to data, and competition across 
all of the cloud computing systems and services utilized by compo-
nents of the Department of Defense. 
SEC. 891. DEVELOPMENT PERIOD FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS. 
(a) FLEXIBLE LIMITATION ON DEVELOPMENT PERIOD.—Section 
2445b of title 10, United States Code is amended— 
(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and 
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new sub-
section: 
‘‘(d) TIME-CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT.—If an adjustment or revision 
under subsection (c) for a major automated information system 
that is not a national security system provides for a period in 
excess of five years from the time of program initiation to the 
time of a full deployment decision, the documents submitted under 
subsection (a) shall include a written determination by the senior 
Department of Defense official responsible for the program justi-
fying the need for the longer period.’’.
H. R. 1735—227 
(b) 
REPEAL
OF
INCONSISTENT
REQUIREMENT.—Section 
2445c(c)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended— 
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking the semicolon at the 
end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; 
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘; or’’ and inserting 
a period; and 
(3) by striking subparagraph (D). 
SEC. 892. REVISIONS TO PILOT PROGRAM ON ACQUISITION OF MILI-
TARY PURPOSE NONDEVELOPMENTAL ITEMS. 
Section 866 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383; 10 U.S.C. 2302 
note) is amended— 
(1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ‘‘with nontraditional 
defense contractors’’; and 
(2) in subsection (b)— 
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘awarded using 
competitive procedures in accordance with chapter 137 of 
title 10, United States Code’’; and 
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘$50,000,000’’ and 
inserting ‘‘$100,000,000’’. 
SEC. 893. IMPROVED AUDITING OF CONTRACTS. 
(a) PROHIBITION ON PERFORMANCE OF NON-DEFENSE AUDITS 
BY DCAA.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Effective on the date of the enactment 
of this Act, the Defense Contract Audit Agency may not provide 
audit support for non-Defense Agencies unless the Secretary 
of Defense certifies that the backlog for incurred cost audits 
is less than 18 months of incurred cost inventory. 
(2) ADJUSTMENT IN FUNDING FOR REIMBURSEMENTS FROM 
NON-DEFENSE AGENCIES.—The amount appropriated and other-
wise available to the Defense Contract Audit Agency for a 
fiscal year beginning after September 30, 2016, shall be reduced 
by an amount equivalent to any reimbursements received by 
the Agency from non-Defense Agencies for audit support pro-
vided. 
(b) AMENDMENTS
TO
DEFENSE
CONTRACT
AUDIT
AGENCY 
ANNUAL REPORT.—Section 2313a(a) of title 10, United States Code, 
is amended— 
(1) in paragraph (2), by amending subparagraph (D) to 
read as follows: 
‘‘(D) the total costs of sustained or recovered costs 
both as a total number and as a percentage of questioned 
costs; and’’; 
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘; and’’ and inserting 
a semicolon; 
(3) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and 
(4) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new para-
graph: 
‘‘(4) a description of outreach actions toward industry to 
promote more effective use of audit resources; and’’. 
(c) REVIEW OF ACQUISITION OVERSIGHT AND AUDITS.— 
(1) REVIEW
REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense shall 
review the oversight and audit structure of the Department 
of Defense with the goals of—
H. R. 1735—228 
(A) enhancing the productivity of oversight and pro-
gram and contract auditing to avoid duplicative audits; 
and 
(B) streamlining of oversight reviews. 
(2) 
RECOMMENDATIONS.—The 
Secretary 
shall 
ensure 
streamlined oversight reviews and avoidance of duplicative 
audits and make recommendations in the report required under 
paragraph (3) for any necessary changes in law. 
(3) REPORT.— 
(A) Not later than one year after the date of the enact-
ment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
to the congressional defense committees a report on actions 
taken to avoid duplicative audits and streamline oversight 
reviews. 
(B) The report required under this paragraph shall 
include the following elements: 
(i) A description of actions taken to avoid duplica-
tive audits and streamline oversight reviews based 
on the review conducted under paragraph (1). 
(ii) 
A 
comparison 
of 
commercial 
industry 
accounting practices, including requirements under the 
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–204; 15 
U.S.C. 7201 et seq.), with the cost accounting standards 
prescribed under chapter 15 of title 41, United States 
Code, to determine if some portions of cost accounting 
standards compliance can be met through such prac-
tices or requirements. 
(iii) A description of standards of materiality used 
by the Defense Contract Audit Agency and the 
Inspector General of the Department of Defense for 
defense contract audits. 
(iv) An estimate of average delay and range of 
delays in contract awards due to the time necessary 
for the Defense Contract Audit Agency to complete 
pre-award audits. 
(v) The total costs of sustained or recovered costs 
both as a total number and as a percentage of ques-
tioned costs. 
(d) INCURRED COST INVENTORY DEFINED.—In this section, the 
term ‘‘incurred cost inventory’’ means the level of contractor 
incurred cost proposals in inventory from prior fiscal years that 
are currently being audited by the Defense Contract Audit Agency. 
SEC. 894. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON EVALUATION METHOD FOR 
PROCUREMENT OF AUDIT OR AUDIT READINESS SERV-
ICES. 
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 
(1) Given the size, scope, and complexity of the Department 
of Defense, the statutory deadline to establish and maintain 
auditable financial statements, starting with the fiscal year 
2018 financial statement, is one of the more challenging 
management tasks that has ever faced the Department. 
(2) As the military services have never received a clean 
opinion on their consolidated financial statements and only 
recently begun auditing portions of their financial statements, 
the audits of military service financial statements will also
H. R. 1735—229 
be a complex challenge for companies selected to provide audit 
services. 
(3) The acquisition of services by the Department abides 
by many rules and parameters, one of which is the lowest 
price, technically acceptable (LPTA) evaluation method. LPTA 
is generally appropriate for commercial or noncomplex services 
or supplies where the requirement is clearly definable and 
the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal. 
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that, 
before using the lowest price, technically acceptable evaluation 
method for the procurement of audit or audit readiness services, 
the Secretary of Defense should establish the values and metrics 
for evaluating companies offering audit services, including financial 
management and audit expertise and experience, personnel quali-
fications and certifications, past performance, technology, tools, and 
size. 
SEC. 895. MITIGATING POTENTIAL UNFAIR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE 
OF TECHNICAL ADVISORS TO ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 
and Logistics shall review, and as necessary revise or issue, policy 
guidance pertaining to the identification, mitigation, and prevention 
of potential unfair competitive advantage conferred to technical 
advisors to acquisition programs. 
SEC. 896. SURVEY ON THE COSTS OF REGULATORY COMPLIANCE. 
(a) SURVEY.—The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a survey 
of contractors with the highest level of reimbursements for cost 
type contracts with the Department of Defense during fiscal year 
2014 to estimate industry’s cost of regulatory compliance (as a 
percentage of total costs) with Government-unique acquisition regu-
lations and requirements in the categories of quality assurance, 
accounting and financial management, contracting and purchasing, 
program management, engineering, logistics, material management, 
property administration, and other unique requirements not 
imposed on contracts for commercial items. 
(b) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
the congressional defense committees a report on the findings of 
the survey conducted under subsection (a). The data received as 
a result of the survey and included in the report shall be aggregated 
to protect against the public release of proprietary information. 
SEC. 897. TREATMENT OF INTERAGENCY AND STATE AND LOCAL PUR-
CHASES WHEN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACTS AS 
CONTRACT INTERMEDIARY FOR THE GENERAL SERVICES 
ADMINISTRATION. 
Contracts executed by the Department of Defense as a result 
of the transfer of contracts from the General Services Administra-
tion or for which the Department serves as an item manager for 
products on behalf of the General Services Administration shall 
not be subject to requirements under chapter 148 of title 10, United 
States Code, to the extent such contracts are for purchases of 
products by other Federal agencies or State or local governments.