10 U.S.C. § 4171 (ARMED FORCES)
§ 4171. Operational test and evaluation of defense acquisition programs
(a) Condition for Proceeding Beyond Low-rate Initial Production.—
(1) The Secretary of Defense shall provide that a covered major defense acquisition program, a covered designated major subprogram, or an element of the ballistic missile defense system may not proceed beyond low-rate initial production until initial operational test and evaluation of the program, subprogram, or element is completed.
(2) In this subsection:
(A) The term “covered major defense acquisition program” means a major defense acquisition program that involves the acquisition of a weapon system that is a major system.
(B) The term “covered designated major subprogram” means a major subprogram designated under section 4203(a)(1) of this title that is a major subprogram of a covered major defense acquisition program.
(b) Operational Test and Evaluation.—
(1) Operational testing of a major defense acquisition program may not be conducted until the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation of the Department of Defense approves (in writing) the adequacy of the plans (including the projected level of funding) for operational test and evaluation to be conducted in connection with that program.
(2) The Director shall analyze the results of the operational test and evaluation conducted for each major defense acquisition program. At the conclusion of such testing, the Director shall prepare a report stating—
(A) the opinion of the Director as to—
(i) whether the test and evaluation performed were adequate; and
(ii) whether the results of such test and evaluation confirm that the items or components actually tested are effective and suitable for combat; and
(B) additional information on the operational capabilities of the items or components that the Director considers appropriate based on the testing conducted.
(3) The Director shall submit each report under paragraph (2) to the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, and the congressional defense committees. Each such report shall be submitted to those committees in precisely the same form and with precisely the same content as the report originally was submitted to the Secretary and Under Secretary and shall be accompanied by such comments as the Secretary may wish to make on the report.
(4) A final decision within the Department of Defense to proceed with a major defense acquisition program beyond low-rate initial production may not be made until the Director has submitted to the Secretary of Defense the report with respect to that program under paragraph (2) and the congressional defense committees have received that report.
(5) If, before a final decision described in paragraph (4) is made for a major defense acquisition program, a decision is made within the Department of Defense to proceed to operational use of that program or to make procurement funds available for that program, the Director shall submit to the Secretary of Defense and the congressional defense committees the report with respect to that program under paragraph (2) as soon as practicable after the decision described in this paragraph is made.
(6) In this subsection, the term “major defense acquisition program” has the meaning given that term in section 139(a)(2)(B) of this title.
(c) Determination of Quantity of Articles Required for Operational Testing.—
The quantity of articles of a new system that are to be procured for operational testing shall be determined by—
(1) the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation of the Department of Defense, in the case of a new system that is a major defense acquisition program (as defined in section 139(a)(2)(B) of this title); or
(2) the operational test and evaluation agency of the military department concerned, in the case of a new system that is not a major defense acquisition program.
(d) Impartiality of Contractor Testing Personnel.—
In the case of a major defense acquisition program (as defined in subsection (a)(2)), no person employed by the contractor for the system being tested may be involved in the conduct of the operational test and evaluation required under subsection (a). The limitation in the preceding sentence does not apply to the extent that the Secretary of Defense plans for persons employed by that contractor to be involved in the operation, maintenance, and support of the system being tested when the system is deployed in combat.
(e) Impartial Contracted Advisory and Assistance Services.—
(1) The Director may not contract with any person for advisory and assistance services with regard to the test and evaluation of a system if that person participated in (or is participating in) the development, production, or testing of such system for a military department or Defense Agency (or for another contractor of the Department of Defense).
(2) The Director may waive the limitation under paragraph (1) in any case if the Director determines in writing that sufficient steps have been taken to ensure the impartiality of the contractor in providing the services. The Inspector General of the Department of Defense shall review each such waiver and shall include in the Inspector General’s semi-annual report an assessment of those waivers made since the last such report.
(3)
(A) A contractor that has participated in (or is participating in) the development, production, or testing of a system for a military department or Defense Agency (or for another contractor of the Department of Defense) may not be involved (in any way) in the establishment of criteria for data collection, performance assessment, or evaluation activities for the operational test and evaluation.
(B) The limitation in subparagraph (A) does not apply to a contractor that has participated in such development, production, or testing solely in testing for the Federal Government.
(f) Source of Funds for Testing.—
The costs for all tests required under subsection (a) shall be paid from funds available for the system being tested.
(g) Director’s Annual Report.—
As part of the annual report of the Director under section 139 of this title, the Director shall describe for each program covered in the report the status of test and evaluation activities in comparison with the test and evaluation master plan for that program, as approved by the Director. The Director shall include in such annual report a description of each waiver granted under subsection (e)(2) since the last such report.
(h) Operational Test and Evaluation Defined.—
In this section, the term “operational test and evaluation” has the meaning given that term in section 139(a)(2)(A) of this title. For purposes of subsection (a), that term does not include an operational assessment based exclusively on—
(1) computer modeling;
(2) simulation; or
(3) an analysis of system requirements, engineering proposals, design specifications, or any other information contained in program documents.
(Added Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title VIII, § 802(a)(1), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1484, § 2399; amended Pub. L. 102–484, div. A, title VIII, § 819, Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2458; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title IX, § 904(d)(1), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1728; Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title X, § 1070(a)(11), (f), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2856, 2859; Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title XV, § 1502(a)(19), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 504; Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title X, § 1067(1), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 774; Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title X, § 1048(b)(2), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1225; Pub. L. 107–314, div. A, title X, § 1062(a)(9), Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2650; Pub. L. 108–136, div. A, title X, § 1043(b)(14), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1611; Pub. L. 109–364, div. A, title II, § 231(a), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2131; Pub. L. 111–383, div. A, title VIII, § 814(d), Jan. 7, 2011, 124 Stat. 4267; Pub. L. 115–91, div. A, title XVI, § 1677(a), Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1774; Pub. L. 116–92, div. A, title IX, § 902(62), Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 1550; renumbered § 4171 and amended Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §§ 1845(b), 1883(b)(2), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4247, 4294; Pub. L. 117–81, div. A, title XVII, § 1701(d)(10), (u)(6)(B), Dec. 27, 2021, 135 Stat. 2137, 2154.)
heading: Editorial Notes
heading: Amendments
text: 2021—Pub. L. 116–283, § 1845(b), as amended by Pub. L. 117–81, § 1701(u)(6)(B), renumbered section 2399 of this title as this section.
Subsec. (a)(2)(A). Pub. L. 117–81, § 1701(d)(10)(A), struck out “within the meaning of that term in section 3041 of this title” before period at end.
Pub. L. 116–283, § 1883(b)(2), substituted “section 3041” for “section 2302(5)”.
Subsec. (a)(2)(B). Pub. L. 117–81, § 1701(d)(10)(B), which directed the substitution of “under section 4203(a)(1) of this title” for “under” and all that followed through “this title”, was not executed in light of the prior amendment by section 1883(b)(2) of Pub. L. 116—283, to reflect the probable intent of Congress. See note below.
Pub. L. 116–283, § 1883(b)(2), substituted “section 4203(a)(1)” for “section 2430a(a)(1)”.
2019—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 116–92 substituted “Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering,” for “Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics,”.
2017—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 115–91 substituted “, a covered designated major subprogram, or an element of the ballistic missile defense system” for “or a covered designated major subprogram” and “program, subprogram, or element” for “program or subprogram”.
2011—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 111–383 amended subsec. (a) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows:
“(1) The Secretary of Defense shall provide that a major defense acquisition program may not proceed beyond low-rate initial production until initial operational test and evaluation of the program is completed.
“(2) In this subsection, the term ‘major defense acquisition program’ means a conventional weapons system that—
“(A) is a major system within the meaning of that term in section 2302(5) of this title; and
“(B) is designed for use in combat.”
2006—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 109–364, § 231(a)(1), amended par. (2) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (2) read as follows: “The Director shall analyze the results of the operational test and evaluation conducted for each major defense acquisition program. At the conclusion of such testing, the Director shall prepare a report stating the opinion of the Director as to—
“(A) whether the test and evaluation performed were adequate; and
“(B) whether the results of such test and evaluation confirm that the items or components actually tested are effective and suitable for combat.”
Subsec. (b)(5), (6). Pub. L. 109–364, § 231(a)(2), (3), added par. (5) and redesignated former par. (5) as (6).
2003—Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 108–136 substituted “Operational Test and Evaluation Defined” for “Definitions” in heading, struck out introductory provisions which read “In this section:”, substituted “In this section, the term” for “(1) The term”, redesignated subpars. (A) to (C) of former par. (1) as pars. (1) to (3), respectively, realigned margins, and struck out former par. (2) which defined “congressional defense committees” to mean the Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
2002—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 107–314 substituted “means a conventional weapons system that” for “means” in introductory provisions and struck out “a conventional weapons system that” before “is a major system” in subpar. (A).
2001—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 107–107 substituted “Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics” for “Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology”.
1999—Subsec. (h)(2)(B). Pub. L. 106–65 substituted “Committee on Armed Services” for “Committee on National Security”.
1996—Subsec. (h)(2). Pub. L. 104–106 substituted “means—” and subpars. (A) and (B) for “means the Committees on Armed Services and the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives.”
1994—Subsecs. (b)(5), (c)(1). Pub. L. 103–337, § 1070(a)(11)(A), substituted “139(a)(2)(B)” for “138(a)(2)(B)”.
Subsec. (e)(3)(B). Pub. L. 103–337, § 1070(f), substituted “solely in testing for” for “solely as a representative of”.
Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 103–337, § 1070(a)(11)(B), substituted “139” for “138”.
Subsec. (h)(1). Pub. L. 103–337, § 1070(a)(11)(C), substituted “139(a)(2)(A)” for “138(a)(2)(A)”.
1993—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 103–160 substituted “Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology” for “Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition”.
1992—Subsec. (e)(3). Pub. L. 102–484 designated existing provisions as subpar. (A) and added subpar. (B).
heading: Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
heading: Effective Date of 2021 Amendment
text: Amendment by section 1701(d)(10) of Pub. L. 117–81 to take effect immediately after the amendments made by title XVIII of Pub. L. 116–283 have taken effect, see section 1701(a)(3) of Pub. L. 117–81, set out in a note preceding section 3001 of this title and note below.
Amendment by section 1701(u)(6)(B) of Pub. L. 117–81 applicable as if included in the enactment of title XVIII of Pub. L. 116–283 as enacted, see section 1701(a)(2) of Pub. L. 117–81, set out in a note preceding section 3001 of this title and note below.
Amendment by Pub. L. 116–283 effective Jan. 1, 2022, with additional provisions for delayed implementation and applicability of existing law, see section 1801(d) of Pub. L. 116–283, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
heading: Termination of Reporting Requirements
text: For termination, effective Dec. 31, 2021, of provisions in subsec. (g) of this section requiring submittal of annual report to Congress, see section 1061 of Pub. L. 114–328, set out as a note under section 111 of this title.
heading: Alternative Test and Evaluation Pathway for Designated Defense Acquisition Programs
text: Pub. L. 119–60, div. A, title II, § 218, Dec. 18, 2025, 139 Stat. 776, provided that:
“(a) Authority.—
The Secretary of Defense shall establish an alternative test and evaluation pathway as described in subsection (b) for covered programs to enhance agility, accelerate delivery of capabilities, and ensure data-driven decisionmaking, while maintaining independent oversight of evaluation outcomes.
“(b) Elements.—
The pathway required by subsection (a) shall include the following elements:
“(1) For each covered program, the Secretary of the military department concerned, through its service test activities, shall—
“(A) develop and implement a unified test and evaluation strategy that aligns developmental testing and operational testing to a single set of test objectives that build system understanding throughout the test program to more effectively support capability delivery within rapid prototyping and iterative updates with early and continuous operational feedback;
“(B) develop and implement a test data strategy that includes—
“(i) collection of raw data from system components during test events and operational activities, including submission of industry-derived data from their development and testing evolutions;
“(ii) evaluation criteria to assess the mission effects and suitability of the system based on the data to be collected, including from live-fire test events, if applicable;
“(iii) a process for independently validating industry-derived data, if needed;
“(iv) provision of resources for automated data collection, storage, and access; and
“(v) automated analytics tools to assess performance trends, reliability, and maintenance needs;
“(C) incorporate, to the maximum extent practicable, best practices such as—
“(i) hardware-in-the-loop testing to validate system integration;
“(ii) continuous data collection from prototypes and fielded systems to refine designs and update lifecycle costs;
“(iii) testing subsystem prototypes throughout system development to assess their contribution to the mission effect of the fielded system; and
“(iv) integration of supporting or complementary data from digital twins or other model-based systems engineering tools;
“(D) define general test and evaluation objectives and data needs while allowing detailed execution plans to evolve based on test results and emerging requirements, avoiding rigid milestone-driven schedules; and
“(E) ensure all raw test data and associated analytics are owned by the Federal Government, stored in accessible repositories, and available to authorized Department entities, including the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, throughout the program lifecycle.
“(2) Each such covered program shall be exempt from—
“(A) any requirement in law, regulation, or policy, including Department of Defense Instruction 5000.02 or other policies, to develop and submit a test and evaluation master plan, as long as a unified test and evaluation strategy and test data strategy are implemented, as required by subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1);
“(B) any requirement in law, regulation, or policy to conduct any milestone-specific operational test event, such as the requirement in section 4171 of title 10, United States Code, to conduct initial operational test and evaluation; and
“(C) any other test and evaluation documentation or approval process that the Secretary determines is inconsistent with the agile and iterative nature of this pathway.
“(c) Role of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.—
For each covered program designated for oversight by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation shall—
“(1) provide independent evaluation of test data across all phases of the program lifecycle, including—
“(A) assessing the sufficiency of the program’s test and evaluation strategy and data strategy to demonstrate military effectiveness;
“(B) evaluating whether the program collects and analyzes sufficient raw data, learns from test results at a pace relevant to operational needs, and converges on military effectiveness based on data trends;
“(C) identifying deficiencies in test and evaluation strategies that risk system performance, suitability, or survivability; and
“(D) providing continuous oversight through ongoing analysis of test data;
“(2) have unrestricted access to all raw test data, data repositories, and analytics maintained by the military departments for the covered program;
“(3) not require of the covered program—
“(A) any specific test plan, execution method, or documentation format, or any pre-approval of test and evaluation activities, as a condition of testing, data collection, or evaluation; or
“(B) any Director of Operational Test and Evaluation-approved test and evaluation master plan or other pre-execution documentation under existing policies; and
“(4) include in the annual report required under section 139(h) of title 10, United States Code, a summary of the adequacy of data strategies, rates of learning, and risks that aligns with the evaluation processes established in this section.
“(d) Guidance Required.—
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 18, 2025], the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments and the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, shall issue guidance to implement the alternative test and evaluation pathway under this section, including standards for data strategies and modern testing practices and procedures to support evaluation by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation under subsection (c).
“(e) Report.—
Not later than three years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees [Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives] a report on the implementation of this section, including an assessment of the effectiveness of the pathway in accelerating capability delivery and improving system performance and any recommendations for expanding or modifying the pathway.
“(f) Covered Program Defined.—
In this section, the term ‘covered program’ means the following:
“(1) A defense acquisition program that the Secretary of Defense designates, on or after the date on which guidance is issued under subsection (d), for use of the alternative test and evaluation pathway under this section.
“(2) A defense acquisition program relating to software and covered hardware initiated on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.”
heading: Application of Software Innovation To Modernize Test and Evaluation Infrastructure
text: Pub. L. 119–60, div. A, title II, § 220, Dec. 18, 2025, 139 Stat. 778, provided that:
“(a) Establishment of Digital Test and Evaluation Environment.—
“(1) Program.—
The Director of the Test Resource Management Center, in coordination with the officials specified in paragraph (4), shall establish and maintain a digital test and evaluation environment for developmental and operational testing of warfighting capabilities.
“(2) Requirements.—
The digital test and evaluation environment required under paragraph (1) shall—
“(A) incorporate commercially-derived data management, analysis, and operations software tools to enable rapid test and evaluation;
“(B) enable real-time and iterative data collection, management, analysis, and feedback loops across the life cycle of tested systems;
“(C) provide secure environments for testing systems with operational security sensitivities; and
“(D) use a modular open system approach (as defined in section 4401 of title 10, United States Code) to ensure the environment can be accessed by multiple vendors and is interoperable with multiple data sources, data formats, and digital tools.
“(3) Use of software acquisition pathway.—
In procuring software and covered hardware (as defined in section 3603 of title 10, United States Code) for the digital test and evaluation environment required under paragraph (1), the Director of the Test Resource Management center shall use a software acquisition pathway described in section 3603 of title 10, United States Code.
“(4) Officials specified.—
The officials specified in this paragraph are—
“(A) the Director of the Defense Innovation Unit;
“(B) the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation; and
“(C) each chief of a covered Armed Force.
“(b) Pilot Program to Accelerate Test.—
“(1) In general.—
The Director of the Defense Innovation Unit and the Director of the Test Resource Management Center, in coordination with the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, shall jointly carry out a pilot program to determine how commercial software can be used to accelerate and improve testing efforts—
“(A) to accelerate continuous integration and continuous testing of warfighting capabilities by applying industry best practices and tooling for scalability, advanced analysis, and data sharing; and
“(B) to enable continuous and iterative testing throughout capability design, development, engineering, and fielding.
“(2) Reports required.—
The Director of the Defense Innovation Unit and the Director of the Test Resource Management Center, in coordination with the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, shall—
“(A) not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 18, 2025], submit to the congressional defense committees [Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives] an interim report that includes an implementation plan for the pilot program under paragraph (1); and
“(B) following submittal of the report under subparagraph (A), but not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, submit to the committees a report on the progress of the pilot program, which shall include a description of—
“(i) the metrics used to measure the performance of commercial software under the program;
“(ii) the initial findings of the program; and
“(iii) based on such findings, any identified roadblocks or limitations to using commercial software and digital tools for accelerated testing.
“(3) Termination.—
The authority to carry out the pilot program under this subsection shall terminate five years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
“(c) Covered Armed Force Defined.—
In this section, the term ‘covered Armed Force’ means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Space Force.”
heading: Digital Engineering Capability To Automate Testing and Evaluation
text: Pub. L. 116–92, div. A, title II, § 231, Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 1274, provided that:
“(a) Digital Engineering Capability.—
“(1) In general.—
The Secretary of Defense shall establish a digital engineering capability to be used—
“(A) for the development and deployment of digital engineering models for use in the defense acquisition process; and
“(B) to provide testing infrastructure and software to support automated approaches for testing, evaluation, and deployment throughout the defense acquisition process.
“(2) Requirements.—
The capability developed under subsection (a) shall meet the following requirements:
“(A) The capability will be accessible to, and useable by, individuals throughout the Department of Defense who have responsibilities relating to capability design, development, testing, evaluation, and operation.
“(B) The capability will provide for the development, validation, use, curation, and maintenance of technically accurate digital systems, models of systems, subsystems, and their components, at the appropriate level of fidelity to ensure that test activities adequately simulate the environment in which a system will be deployed.
“(C) The capability will include software to automate testing throughout the program life cycle, including to satisfy developmental test requirements and operational test requirements. Such software may be developed in accordance with the authorities provided under section 800 [of Pub. L. 116–92, formerly set out as a note under section 4571 of this title], and shall support—
“(i) security testing that includes vulnerability scanning and penetration testing performed by individuals, including threat-based red team exploitations and assessments with zero-trust assumptions; and
“(ii) high-confidence distribution of software to the field on a time-bound, repeatable, frequent, and iterative basis.
“(b) Demonstration Activities.—
“(1) In general.—
In developing the capability required under subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall carry out activities to demonstrate digital engineering approaches to automated testing that—
“(A) enable continuous software development and delivery;
“(B) satisfy developmental test requirements for the software-intensive programs of the Department of Defense; and
“(C) satisfy operational test and evaluation requirements for such programs.
“(2) Program selection.—
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 20, 2019], the Secretary of Defense shall assess and select not fewer than four and not more than ten programs of the Department of Defense to participate in the demonstration activities under paragraph (1), including—
“(A) at least one program participating in the pilot program authorized under section 873 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91; 10 U.S.C. 2223a note [now former 10 U.S.C. 4571 note]);
“(B) at least one program participating in the pilot program authorized under section 874 of such Act (Public Law 115–91; 10 U.S.C. 2302 note);
“(C) at least one major defense acquisition program (as defined in section 2430 of title 10, United States Code [now 10 U.S.C. 4201]);
“(D) at least one command and control program;
“(E) at least one defense business system (as defined in section 2222(i) of title 10, United States Code); and
“(F) at least one program from each military service.
“(3) Additional requirements.—
As part of the demonstration activities under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall—
“(A) conduct a comparative analysis that assesses the risks and benefits of the digital engineering supported automated testing approaches of the programs participating in the demonstration activities relative to traditional testing approaches that are not supported by digital engineering;
“(B) ensure that the intellectual property strategy for each of the programs participating in the demonstration activities is best aligned to meet the goals of the program; and
“(C) develop a workforce and infrastructure plan to support any new policies and guidance implemented in connection with the demonstration activities, including any policies and guidance implemented after the completion of such activities.
“(c) Policies and Guidance Required.—
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 20, 2019], based on the results of the demonstration activities carried out under subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense shall issue or modify policies and guidance to—
“(1) promote the use of digital engineering capabilities for development and for automated testing; and
“(2) address roles, responsibilities, and procedures relating to such capabilities.
“(d) Steering Committee.—
“(1) In general.—
The Secretary of Defense shall establish a steering committee to assist the Secretary in carrying out subsections (a) through (c).
“(2) Membership.—
The steering committee shall be composed of the following members or their designees:
“(A) The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering.
“(B) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment.
“(C) The Chief Information Officer.
“(D) The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.
“(E) The Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation.
“(F) The Service Acquisition Executives.
“(G) The Service testing commands.
“(H) The Director of the Defense Digital Service.
“(e) Reports Required.—
“(1) Implementation.—
Not later than March 15, 2020, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees [Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives] a report on the progress of the Secretary in implementing subsections (a) through (c). The report shall include an explanation of how the results of the demonstration activities carried out under subsection (b) will be incorporated into the policy and guidance required under subsection (c), particularly the policy and guidance of the members of the steering committee established under subsection (d).
“(2) Legislative recommendations.—
Not later than October 15, 2020, the Secretary of Defense shall provide to the congressional defense committees a briefing that identifies any changes to existing law that may be necessary to facilitate the implementation of subsections (a) through (c).
“(f) Independent Assessment.—
“(1) In general.—
Not later than March 15, 2021, the Defense Innovation Board and the Defense Science Board shall jointly complete an independent assessment of the progress of the Secretary in implementing subsections (a) through (c). The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Defense Innovation Board and the Defense Science Board have access to the resources, data, and information necessary to complete the assessment.
“(2) Information to congress.—
Not later than 30 days after the date on which the assessment under paragraph (1) is completed, the Defense Innovation Board and the Defense Science Board shall jointly provide to the congressional defense committees—
“(A) a report summarizing the assessment; and
“(B) a briefing on the findings of the assessment.”
heading: Enhancements to Transparency in Test and Evaluation Processes and Data
text: Pub. L. 115–91, div. A, title VIII, § 839, Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1475, provided that:
“(a) Additional Test and Evaluation Duties of Military Secretaries and Defense Agency Heads.—
“(1) Report on comparison of operational test and evaluation results to legacy items or components.—
Concurrent with the submission of a report required under section 2399(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code [now 10 U.S.C. 4171(b)(2)], the Secretary of a military department or the head of a Defense Agency may provide to the congressional defense committees [Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives] and the Secretary of Defense a report describing of the performance of the items or components evaluated as part of the operational test and evaluation for each major defense acquisition program conducted under such section by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation in relation to comparable legacy items or components, if such items or components exist and relevant data are available without requiring additional testing.
“(2) Additional report on operational test and evaluation activities.—
Within 45 days after the submission of an annual report required by section 139(h) of title 10, United States Code, the Secretaries of the military departments may each submit to the congressional defense committees a report addressing any concerns related to information included in the annual report, or providing updated or additional information, as appropriate.
“(b) Requirements for Collection of Cost Data on Test and Evaluation.—
“(1) In general.—
Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 12, 2017] and subject to paragraph (2), the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the senior official of the Department of Defense with responsibility for developmental testing, and the Director of the Test Resource Management Center shall jointly develop policies, procedures, guidance, and a method to collect data that ensures that consistent and high quality data are collected on the full range of estimated and actual developmental, live fire, and operational testing costs for major defense acquisition programs.
“(2) Concurrence and coordination required.—
Before implementing the policies, procedures, guidance, and method developed under paragraph (1), the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the senior official of the Department of Defense with responsibility for developmental testing, and the Director of the Test Resource Management Center shall—
“(A) obtain the concurrence of the Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation; and
“(B) coordinate with the Secretaries of the military departments.
“(3) Data requirements.—
“(A) Electronic database.—
Data on estimated and actual developmental, live fire, and operational testing costs shall be maintained in an electronic database maintained by the Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation or another appropriate official of the Department of Defense, and shall be made available for analysis by testing, acquisition, and other appropriate officials of the Department of Defense, as determined by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the senior official of the Department of Defense with responsibility for developmental testing, or the Director of the Test Resource Management Center.
“(B) Diaggregation [sic] by costs.—
To the maximum extent practicable, data collected under this subsection shall be set forth separately by costs for developmental testing, operational testing, and training.
“(c) Major Defense Acquisition Program Defined.—
In this section, the term ‘major defense acquisition program’ has the meaning provided in section 2430 of title 10, United States Code [now 10 U.S.C. 4201].”