H. R. 3619—38 
resource proposal for the initial project or program funding, 
and shall ensure the project or program is included in the 
Coast Guard Capital Investment Plan. 
‘‘(2) ASSESSMENT OF TRADE-OFFS.—In conducting an afford-
ability assessment under subsection (a)(2)(B), the Commandant 
shall develop and implement mechanisms to ensure that trade- 
offs among cost, schedule, and performance are considered in 
the establishment of preliminary operational requirements for 
development and production of new assets and capabilities 
for Level 1 and Level 2 acquisitions projects and programs. 
‘‘(c) HUMAN RESOURCE CAPITAL PLANNING.—The Commandant 
shall develop staffing predictions, define human capital performance 
initiatives, and identify preliminary training needs required to 
implement each Level 1 and Level 2 acquisition project and pro-
gram. 
‘‘§ 572. Acquisition 
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Commandant may not establish a Level 
1 or Level 2 acquisition project or program until the Commandant— 
‘‘(1) clearly defines the operational requirements for the 
project or program; 
‘‘(2) establishes the feasibility of alternatives; 
‘‘(3) develops an acquisition project or program baseline; 
‘‘(4) produces a life-cycle cost estimate; and 
‘‘(5) assesses the relative merits of alternatives to determine 
a preferred solution in accordance with the requirements of 
this section. 
‘‘(b) SUBMISSION REQUIRED BEFORE PROCEEDING.—Any Coast 
Guard Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition project or program may not 
begin to obtain any capability or asset or proceed beyond that 
phase of its development that entails approving the supporting 
acquisition until the Commandant submits to the appropriate 
congressional committees the following: 
‘‘(1) The key performance parameters, the key system 
attributes, and the operational performance attributes of the 
capability or asset to be acquired under the proposed acquisition 
project or program. 
‘‘(2) A detailed list of the systems or other capabilities 
with which the capability or asset to be acquired is intended 
to be interoperable, including an explanation of the attributes 
of interoperability. 
‘‘(3) The anticipated acquisition project or program baseline 
and acquisition unit cost for the capability or asset to be 
acquired under the project or program. 
‘‘(4) A detailed schedule for the acquisition process showing 
when all capability and asset acquisitions are to be completed 
and when all acquired capabilities and assets are to be initially 
and fully deployed. 
‘‘(c) ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Coast Guard may not acquire an 
experimental or technically immature capability or asset or 
implement a Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition project or program, 
unless it has prepared an analysis of alternatives for the capa-
bility or asset to be acquired in the concept and technology 
development phase of the acquisition process for the capability 
or asset.
H. R. 3619—39 
‘‘(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The analysis of alternatives shall be 
prepared by a federally funded research and development 
center, a qualified entity of the Department of Defense, or 
a similar independent third-party entity that has appropriate 
acquisition expertise and has no financial interest in any part 
of the acquisition project or program that is the subject of 
the analysis. At a minimum, the analysis of alternatives shall 
include— 
‘‘(A) an assessment of the technical maturity of the 
capability or asset, and technical and other risks; 
‘‘(B) an examination of capability, interoperability, and 
other advantages and disadvantages; 
‘‘(C) an evaluation of whether different combinations 
or quantities of specific assets or capabilities could meet 
the Coast Guard’s overall performance needs; 
‘‘(D) a discussion of key assumptions and variables, 
and sensitivity to change in such assumptions and vari-
ables; 
‘‘(E) when an alternative is an existing capability, 
asset, or prototype, an evaluation of relevant safety and 
performance records and costs; 
‘‘(F) a calculation of life-cycle costs including— 
‘‘(i) an examination of likely research and develop-
ment costs and the levels of uncertainty associated 
with such estimated costs; 
‘‘(ii) an examination of likely production and 
deployment costs and the levels of uncertainty associ-
ated with such estimated costs; 
‘‘(iii) an examination of likely operating and sup-
port costs and the levels of uncertainty associated with 
such estimated costs; 
‘‘(iv) if they are likely to be significant, an examina-
tion of likely disposal costs and the levels of 
uncertainty associated with such estimated costs; and 
‘‘(v) such additional measures as the Commandant 
or the Secretary of the department in which the Coast 
Guard is operating determines to be necessary for 
appropriate evaluation of the capability or asset; and 
‘‘(G) the business case for each viable alternative. 
‘‘(d) TEST AND EVALUATION MASTER PLAN.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For any Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition 
project or program the Chief Acquisition Officer must approve 
a test and evaluation master plan specific to the acquisition 
project or program for the capability, asset, or subsystems 
of the capability or asset and intended to minimize technical, 
cost, and schedule risk as early as practicable in the develop-
ment of the project or program. 
‘‘(2) TEST AND EVALUATION STRATEGY.—The master plan 
shall— 
‘‘(A) set forth an integrated test and evaluation strategy 
that will verify that capability-level or asset-level and sub-
system-level design and development, including perform-
ance and supportability, have been sufficiently proven 
before the capability, asset, or subsystem of the capability 
or asset is approved for production; and
H. R. 3619—40 
‘‘(B) require that adequate developmental tests and 
evaluations and operational tests and evaluations estab-
lished under subparagraph (A) are performed to inform 
production decisions. 
‘‘(3) OTHER COMPONENTS OF THE MASTER PLAN.—At a min-
imum, the master plan shall identify— 
‘‘(A) the key performance parameters to be resolved 
through the integrated test and evaluation strategy; 
‘‘(B) critical operational issues to be assessed in addi-
tion to the key performance parameters; 
‘‘(C) specific development test and evaluation phases 
and the scope of each phase; 
‘‘(D) modeling and simulation activities to be per-
formed, if any, and the scope of such activities; 
‘‘(E) early operational assessments to be performed, 
if any, and the scope of such assessments; 
‘‘(F) operational test and evaluation phases; 
‘‘(G) an estimate of the resources, including funds, 
that will be required for all test, evaluation, assessment, 
modeling, and simulation activities; and 
‘‘(H) the Government entity or independent entity that 
will perform the test, evaluation, assessment, modeling, 
and simulation activities. 
‘‘(4) UPDATE.—The Chief Acquisition Officer must approve 
an updated master plan whenever there is a revision to project 
or program test and evaluation strategy, scope, or phasing. 
‘‘(5) LIMITATION.—The Coast Guard may not— 
‘‘(A) proceed beyond that phase of the acquisition 
process that entails approving the supporting acquisition 
of a capability or asset before the master plan is approved 
by the Chief Acquisition Officer; or 
‘‘(B) award any production contract for a capability, 
asset, or subsystem for which a master plan is required 
under this subsection before the master plan is approved 
by the Chief Acquisition Officer. 
‘‘(e) LIFE-CYCLE COST ESTIMATES.— 
‘‘(1) IN
GENERAL.—The Commandant shall implement 
mechanisms to ensure the development and regular updating 
of life-cycle cost estimates for each acquisition with a total 
acquisition cost that equals or exceeds $10,000,000 and an 
expected service life of 10 or more years, and to ensure that 
these estimates are considered in decisions to develop or 
produce new or enhanced capabilities and assets. 
‘‘(2) TYPES
OF
ESTIMATES.—In addition to life-cycle cost 
estimates that may be developed by acquisition program offices, 
the Commandant shall require that an independent life-cycle 
cost estimate be developed for each Level 1 or Level 2 acquisi-
tion project or program. 
‘‘(3) REQUIRED
UPDATES.—For each Level 1 or Level 2 
acquisition project or program the Commandant shall require 
that life-cycle cost estimates shall be updated before each mile-
stone decision is concluded and the project or program enters 
a new acquisition phase. 
‘‘§ 573. Preliminary development and demonstration 
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Commandant shall ensure that develop-
mental test and evaluation, operational test and evaluation, life-
H. R. 3619—41 
cycle cost estimates, and the development and demonstration 
requirements applied by this chapter to acquisition projects and 
programs are met to confirm that the projects or programs meet 
the requirements identified in the mission-analysis and affordability 
assessment prepared under section 571(a)(2), the operational 
requirements developed under section 572(a)(1) and the following 
development and demonstration objectives: 
‘‘(1) To demonstrate that the design, manufacturing, and 
production solution is based upon a stable, producible, and 
cost-effective product design. 
‘‘(2) To ensure that the product capabilities meet contract 
specifications, acceptable operational performance require-
ments, and system security requirements. 
‘‘(3) To ensure that the product design is mature enough 
to commit to full production and deployment. 
‘‘(b) TESTS AND EVALUATIONS.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commandant shall ensure that the 
Coast Guard conducts developmental tests and evaluations and 
operational tests and evaluations of a capability or asset and 
the subsystems of the capability or asset in accordance with 
the master plan prepared for the capability or asset under 
section 572(d)(1). 
‘‘(2) USE OF THIRD PARTIES.—The Commandant shall ensure 
that the Coast Guard uses independent third parties with 
expertise in testing and evaluating the capabilities or assets 
and the subsystems of the capabilities or assets being acquired 
to conduct developmental tests and evaluations and operational 
tests and evaluations whenever the Coast Guard lacks the 
capability to conduct the tests and evaluations required by 
a master plan. 
‘‘(3) COMMUNICATION
OF
SAFETY
CONCERNS.—The Com-
mandant shall require that safety concerns identified during 
developmental or operational tests and evaluations or through 
independent or Government-conducted design assessments of 
capabilities or assets and subsystems of capabilities or assets 
to be acquired by the Coast Guard shall be communicated 
as soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days after the 
completion of the test or assessment event or activity that 
identified the safety concern, to the program manager for the 
capability or asset and the subsystems concerned and to the 
Chief Acquisition Officer. 
‘‘(4) REPORTING OF SAFETY CONCERNS.—Any safety concerns 
that have been reported to the Chief Acquisition Officer for 
an acquisition program or project shall be reported by the 
Commandant to the appropriate congressional committees at 
least 90 days before the award of any contract or issuance 
of any delivery order or task order for low, initial, or full- 
rate production of the capability or asset concerned if they 
will remain uncorrected or unmitigated at the time such a 
contract is awarded or delivery order or task order is issued. 
The report shall include a justification for the approval of 
that level of production of the capability or asset before the 
safety concerns are corrected or mitigated. The report shall 
also include an explanation of the actions that will be taken 
to correct or mitigate the safety concerns, the date by which 
those actions will be taken, and the adequacy of current funding 
to correct or mitigate the safety concerns.