14 U.S.C. § 1133 (COAST GUARD)
§ 1133. Preliminary development and demonstration
(a) In General.—
The Commandant shall ensure that developmental test and evaluation, operational test and evaluation, life-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 1131(a)(2), the operational requirements developed under section 1132(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 requirements, 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 1132(d)(1).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 Commandant shall ensure that independent third parties and Government employees that identify safety concerns 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 communicate such concerns 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.—
The Commandant shall ensure that any safety concerns that have been communicated under paragraph (3) for an acquisition program or project are reported 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.
(5) Asset already in low, initial, or full-rate production.—
The Commandant shall ensure that if an independent third party or a Government employee identifies a safety concern with a capability or asset or any subsystems of a capability or asset not previously identified during operational test and evaluation of a capability or asset already in low, initial, or full-rate production—
(A) the Commandant, through the Assistant Commandant for Capability, shall notify the program manager and the Chief Acquisition Officer of the safety concern as soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days after the completion of the test and evaluation event or activity that identified the safety concern; and
(B) the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support shall notify the Commandant and the Deputy Commandant for Operations of the safety concern within 50 days after the notification required under subparagraph (A), and include in such notification—
(i) an explanation of the actions that will be taken to correct or mitigate the safety concern in all capabilities or assets and subsystems of the capabilities or assets yet to be produced, and the date by which those actions will be taken;
(ii) an explanation of the actions that will be taken to correct or mitigate the safety concern in previously produced capabilities or assets and subsystems of the capabilities or assets, and the date by which those actions will be taken; and
(iii) an assessment of the adequacy of current funding to correct or mitigate the safety concern in capabilities or assets and subsystems of the capabilities or assets and in previously produced capabilities or assets and subsystems.
(c) Technical Certification.—
(1) In general.—
The Commandant shall ensure that any Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition project or program is certified by the technical authority of the Coast Guard after review by an independent third party with capabilities in the mission area, asset, or particular asset component.
(2) TEMPEST testing.—
The Commandant shall—
(A) cause all electronics on all aircraft, surface, and shore capabilities and assets that require TEMPEST certification to be tested in accordance with TEMPEST standards and communications security (comsec) standards by an independent third party that is authorized by the Federal Government to perform such testing; and
(B) certify that the assets meet all applicable TEMPEST requirements.
(3) Cutter classification.—
(A) In general.—
The Commandant shall cause each cutter, other than a National Security Cutter, acquired by the Coast Guard and delivered after the date of enactment of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 to be classed by the American Bureau of Shipping before final acceptance.
[(B) Repealed. Pub. L. 112–213, title II, § 210(c)(2)(B), Dec. 20, 2012, 126 Stat. 1551.]
(4) Other vessels.—
The Commandant shall cause the design and construction of each National Security Cutter, other than National Security Cutters 1, 2, and 3, to be assessed by an independent third party with expertise in vessel design and construction certification.
(5) Aircraft airworthiness.—
The Commandant shall cause all aircraft and aircraft engines acquired by the Coast Guard to be assessed for airworthiness by an independent third party with expertise in aircraft and aircraft engine certification before final acceptance.
(Added Pub. L. 111–281, title IV, § 402(a), Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 2944, § 573; amended Pub. L. 112–213, title II, § 210(c)(2)(B), Dec. 20, 2012, 126 Stat. 1551; Pub. L. 115–232, div. C, title XXXV, § 3522, Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 2314; renumbered § 1133 and amended Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §§ 108(b), 123(b)(2), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4208, 4240.)
heading: Editorial Notes
heading: References in Text
text: Section 1132(d)(1), referred to in subsec. (b)(1), was, prior to amendment of this section by Pub. L. 115–282, a reference to section 572(d)(1) of this title, which was redesignated section 572(f)(1) of this title by Pub. L. 114–120, title II, § 204(a)(1), Feb. 8, 2016, 130 Stat. 34. Section 572 of this title was renumbered section 1132 of this title by Pub. L. 115–282, title I, § 108(b)(2), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4208.
The date of enactment of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, referred to in subsec. (c)(3)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 111–281, which was approved Oct. 15, 2010.
heading: Amendments
text: 2018—Pub. L. 115–282, § 108(b), renumbered section 573 of this title as this section.
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 115–282, § 123(b)(2), in introductory provisions, substituted “section 1131(a)(2)” for “section 571(a)(2)” and “section 1132(a)(1)” for “section 572(a)(1)”.
Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 115–282, § 123(b)(2), substituted “section 1132(d)(1)” for “section 572(d)(1)”.
Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 115–232, § 3522(1), substituted “ensure that independent third parties and Government employees that identify safety concerns” for “require that safety concerns identified” and “Coast Guard communicate such concerns as” for “Coast Guard shall be communicated as”.
Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 115–232, § 3522(2), substituted “The Commandant shall ensure that any safety concerns that have been communicated under paragraph (3) for an acquisition program or project are reported” for “Any safety concerns that have been reported to the Chief Acquisition Officer for an acquisition program or project shall be reported by the Commandant”.
Subsec. (b)(5). Pub. L. 115–232, § 3522(3)(A), added introductory provisions and struck out former introductory provisions which read as follows: “If operational test and evaluation of a capability or asset already in low, initial, or full-rate production identifies a safety concern with the capability or asset or any subsystems of the capability or asset not previously identified during developmental or operational test and evaluation, the Commandant shall—”.
Subsec. (b)(5)(A). Pub. L. 115–232, § 3522(3)(B), inserted “the Commandant, through the Assistant Commandant for Capability, shall” before “notify”.
Subsec. (b)(5)(B). Pub. L. 115–232, § 3522(3)(C), substituted “the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support shall notify the Commandant and the Deputy Commandant for Operations of the safety concern within 50 days after the notification required under subparagraph (A), and include in such notification” for “notify the Chief Acquisition Officer and include in such notification” in introductory provisions.
Subsec. (c)(2)(A). Pub. L. 115–232, § 3522(4)(A), struck out “and that are delivered after the date of enactment of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010” after “TEMPEST certification”.
Subsec. (c)(5). Pub. L. 115–232, § 3522(4)(B), struck out “and delivered after the date of enactment of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010” after “acquired by the Coast Guard”.
2012—Subsec. (c)(3)(B). Pub. L. 112–213 struck out subpar. (B). Text read as follows: “Not later than December 31, 2011, and biennially thereafter, the Commandant shall provide a report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate identifying which, if any, Coast Guard cutters that have been issued a certificate of classification by the American Bureau of Shipping have not been maintained in class and detailing the reasons why they have not been maintained in class.”
heading: Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
heading: National Security Cutters
text: Pub. L. 115–282, title III, § 311(f), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4249, provided that: “The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating is authorized to enter into a multiyear contract for the procurement of a tenth, eleventh, and twelfth National Security Cutter and associated government-furnished equipment.”
Pub. L. 115–282, title VIII, § 818(a), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4307, provided that:
“The Commandant of the Coast Guard may not certify an eighth National Security Cutter as Ready for Operations before the date on which the Commandant provides to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate—
“(1) a notification of a new standard method for tracking operational employment of Coast Guard major cutters that does not include time during which such a cutter is away from its homeport for maintenance or repair; and
“(2) a report analyzing cost and performance for different approaches to achieving varied levels of operational employment using the standard method required by paragraph (1) that, at a minimum—
“(A) compares over a 30-year period the average annualized baseline cost and performances for a certified National Security Cutter that operated for 185 days away from homeport or an equivalent alternative measure of operational tempo—
“(i) against the cost of a 15 percent increase in days away from homeport or an equivalent alternative measure of operational tempo for a National Security Cutter; and
“(ii) against the cost of the acquisition and operation of an additional National Security Cutter; and
“(B) examines the optimal level of operational employment of National Security Cutters to balance National Security Cutter cost and mission performance.”