Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009
PL 111-23 (S.454), enacted 05/22/2009

123 STAT. 1704 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
Public Law 111–23 
111th Congress 
An Act 
To improve the organization and procedures of the Department of Defense for 
the acquisition of major weapon systems, and for other purposes. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Weapon Sys-
tems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009’’. 
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act 
is as follows: 
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 
Sec. 2. Definitions. 
TITLE I—ACQUISITION ORGANIZATION 
Sec. 101. Cost assessment and program evaluation. 
Sec. 102. Directors of Developmental Test and Evaluation and Systems Engineer-
ing. 
Sec. 103. Performance assessments and root cause analyses for major defense ac-
quisition programs. 
Sec. 104. Assessment of technological maturity of critical technologies of major de-
fense acquisition programs by the Director of Defense Research and En-
gineering. 
Sec. 105. Role of the commanders of the combatant commands in identifying joint 
military requirements. 
TITLE II—ACQUISITION POLICY 
Sec. 201. Consideration of trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objec-
tives in Department of Defense acquisition programs. 
Sec. 202. Acquisition strategies to ensure competition throughout the lifecycle of 
major defense acquisition programs. 
Sec. 203. Prototyping requirements for major defense acquisition programs. 
Sec. 204. Actions to identify and address systemic problems in major defense acqui-
sition programs prior to Milestone B approval. 
Sec. 205. Additional requirements for certain major defense acquisition programs. 
Sec. 206. Critical cost growth in major defense acquisition programs. 
Sec. 207. Organizational conflicts of interest in major defense acquisition programs. 
TITLE III—ADDITIONAL ACQUISITION PROVISIONS 
Sec. 301. Awards for Department of Defense personnel for excellence in the acquisi-
tion of products and services. 
Sec. 302. Earned value management. 
Sec. 303. Expansion of national security objectives of the national technology and 
industrial base. 
Sec. 304. Comptroller General of the United States reports on costs and financial 
information regarding major defense acquisition programs. 
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 
In this Act: 
(1) The term ‘‘congressional defense committees’’ has the 
meaning given that term in section 101(a)(16) of title 10, United 
States Code. 
10 USC 2430 
note. 
10 USC 101 note. 
Weapon Systems 
Acquisition 
Reform Act of 
2009. 
May 22, 2009 
[S. 454] 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00248
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1705 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
(2) The term ‘‘major defense acquisition program’’ has the 
meaning given that term in section 2430 of title 10, United 
States Code. 
(3) The term ‘‘major weapon system’’ has the meaning 
given that term in section 2379(d) of title 10, United States 
Code. 
TITLE I—ACQUISITION ORGANIZATION 
SEC. 101. COST ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM EVALUATION. 
(a) DIRECTOR
OF COST ASSESSMENT
AND PROGRAM EVALUA-
TION.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 4 of title 10, United States Code, 
is amended by inserting after section 139b the following new 
section: 
‘‘§ 139c. Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation 
‘‘(a) APPOINTMENT.—There is a Director of Cost Assessment 
and Program Evaluation in the Department of Defense, appointed 
by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. 
‘‘(b) INDEPENDENT ADVICE TO SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.—(1) The 
Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation is the prin-
cipal advisor to the Secretary of Defense and other senior officials 
of the Department of Defense, and shall provide independent anal-
ysis and advice to such officials, on the following matters: 
‘‘(A) Matters assigned to the Director pursuant to this 
section and section 2334 of this title. 
‘‘(B) Matters assigned to the Director by the Secretary 
pursuant to section 113 of this title. 
‘‘(2) The Director may communicate views on matters within 
the responsibility of the Director directly to the Secretary of Defense 
and the Deputy Secretary of Defense without obtaining the approval 
or concurrence of any other official within the Department of 
Defense. 
‘‘(c) DEPUTY DIRECTORS.—There are two Deputy Directors 
within the Office of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program 
Evaluation, as follows: 
‘‘(1) The Deputy Director for Cost Assessment. 
‘‘(2) The Deputy Director for Program Evaluation. 
‘‘(d) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The Director of Cost Assessment and 
Program Evaluation shall serve as the principal official within 
the senior management of the Department of Defense for the fol-
lowing: 
‘‘(1) Cost estimation and cost analysis for acquisition pro-
grams of the Department of Defense, and carrying out the 
duties assigned pursuant to section 2334 of this title. 
‘‘(2) Analysis and advice on matters relating to the planning 
and programming phases of the Planning, Programming, Budg-
eting and Execution system, and the preparation of materials 
and guidance for such system, as directed by the Secretary 
of Defense, working in coordination with the Under Secretary 
of Defense (Comptroller). 
‘‘(3) Analysis and advice for resource discussions relating 
to requirements under consideration in the Joint Requirements 
Oversight Council pursuant to section 181 of this title. 
President. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00249
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1706 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
‘‘(4) Formulation of study guidance for analyses of alter-
natives for major defense acquisition programs and performance 
of such analyses, as directed by the Secretary of Defense 
‘‘(5) Review, analysis, and evaluation of programs for exe-
cuting approved strategies and policies, ensuring that informa-
tion on programs is presented accurately and completely, and 
assessing the effect of spending by the Department of Defense 
on the United States economy. 
‘‘(6) Assessments of special access and compartmented 
intelligence programs, in coordination with the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and in accordance 
with applicable policies. 
‘‘(7) Assessments of alternative plans, programs, and poli-
cies with respect to the acquisition programs of the Department 
of Defense. 
‘‘(8) Leading the development of improved analytical skills 
and competencies within the cost assessment and program 
evaluation workforce of the Department of Defense and 
improved tools, data, and methods to promote performance, 
economy, and efficiency in analyzing national security planning 
and the allocation of defense resources.’’. 
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the 
beginning of chapter 4 of such title is amended by inserting 
after the item relating to section 139b the following new item: 
‘‘139c. Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation.’’. 
(3) EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE LEVEL IV.—Section 5315 of title 
5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 
relating to the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, 
Department of Defense the following new item: 
‘‘Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, 
Department of Defense.’’. 
(b) INDEPENDENT COST ESTIMATION AND COST ANALYSIS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 137 of title 10, United States 
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
section: 
‘‘§ 2334. Independent cost estimation and cost analysis 
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of Cost Assessment and Pro-
gram Evaluation shall ensure that the cost estimation and cost 
analysis processes of the Department of Defense provide accurate 
information and realistic estimates of cost for the acquisition pro-
grams of the Department of Defense. In carrying out that responsi-
bility, the Director shall— 
‘‘(1) prescribe, by authority of the Secretary of Defense, 
policies and procedures for the conduct of cost estimation and 
cost analysis for the acquisition programs of the Department 
of Defense; 
‘‘(2) provide guidance to and consult with the Secretary 
of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics, the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller), the Secretaries of the military departments, and 
the heads of the Defense Agencies with respect to cost esti-
mation in the Department of Defense in general and with 
respect to specific cost estimates and cost analyses to be con-
ducted in connection with a major defense acquisition program 
Consultation. 
Policies. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00250
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1707 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
under chapter 144 of this title or a major automated information 
system program under chapter 144A of this title; 
‘‘(3) issue guidance relating to the proper selection of con-
fidence levels in cost estimates generally, and specifically, for 
the proper selection of confidence levels in cost estimates for 
major defense acquisition programs and major automated 
information system programs; 
‘‘(4) issue guidance relating to full consideration of life- 
cycle management and sustainability costs in major defense 
acquisition programs and major automated information system 
programs; 
‘‘(5) review all cost estimates and cost analyses conducted 
in connection with major defense acquisition programs and 
major automated information system programs; 
‘‘(6) conduct independent cost estimates and cost analyses 
for major defense acquisition programs and major automated 
information system programs for which the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics is the 
Milestone Decision Authority— 
‘‘(A) in advance of— 
‘‘(i) any certification under section 2366a or 2366b 
of this title; 
‘‘(ii) any decision to enter into low-rate initial 
production or full-rate production; 
‘‘(iii) any certification under section 2433a of this 
title; and 
‘‘(iv) any report under section 2445c(f) of this title; 
and 
‘‘(B) at any other time considered appropriate by the 
Director or upon the request of the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and 
‘‘(7) periodically assess and update the cost indexes used 
by the Department to ensure that such indexes have a sound 
basis and meet the Department’s needs for realistic cost esti-
mation. 
‘‘(b) REVIEW OF COST ESTIMATES, COST ANALYSES, AND RECORDS 
OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS AND DEFENSE AGENCIES.—The Sec-
retary of Defense shall ensure that the Director of Cost Assessment 
and Program Evaluation— 
‘‘(1) promptly receives the results of all cost estimates and 
cost analyses conducted by the military departments and 
Defense Agencies, and all studies conducted by the military 
departments and Defense Agencies in connection with such 
cost estimates and cost analyses, for major defense acquisition 
programs and major automated information system programs 
of the military departments and Defense Agencies; and 
‘‘(2) has timely access to any records and data in the 
Department of Defense (including the records and data of each 
military department and Defense Agency and including classi-
fied and proprietary information) that the Director considers 
necessary to review in order to carry out any duties under 
this section. 
‘‘(c) PARTICIPATION, CONCURRENCE, AND APPROVAL
IN COST 
ESTIMATION.—The Director of Cost Assessment and Program 
Evaluation may— 
‘‘(1) participate in the discussion of any discrepancies 
between an independent cost estimate and the cost estimate 
Assessments. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00251
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1708 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
of a military department or Defense Agency for a major defense 
acquisition program or major automated information system 
program of the Department of Defense; 
‘‘(2) comment on deficiencies in the methodology or execu-
tion of any cost estimate or cost analysis developed by a military 
department or Defense Agency for a major defense acquisition 
program or major automated information system program; 
‘‘(3) concur in the choice of a cost estimate within the 
baseline description or any other cost estimate (including the 
confidence level for any such cost estimate) for use at any 
event specified in subsection (a)(6); and 
‘‘(4) participate in the consideration of any decision to 
request authorization of a multiyear procurement contract for 
a major defense acquisition program. 
‘‘(d) DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENCE LEVELS FOR BASELINE ESTI-
MATES OF MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.—The Director 
of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, and the Secretary 
of the military department concerned or the head of the Defense 
Agency concerned (as applicable), shall each— 
‘‘(1) disclose in accordance with paragraph (2) the con-
fidence level used in establishing a cost estimate for a major 
defense acquisition program or major automated information 
system program, the rationale for selecting such confidence 
level, and, if such confidence level is less than 80 percent, 
the justification for selecting a confidence level of less than 
80 percent; and 
‘‘(2) include the disclosure required by paragraph (1)— 
‘‘(A) in any decision documentation approving a cost 
estimate within the baseline description or any other cost 
estimate for use at any event specified in subsection (a)(6); 
and 
‘‘(B) in the next Selected Acquisition Report pursuant 
to section 2432 of this title in the case of a major defense 
acquisition program, or the next quarterly report pursuant 
to section 2445c of this title in the case of a major auto-
mated information system program. 
‘‘(e) ANNUAL REPORT
ON COST ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES.—(1) 
The Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shall 
prepare an annual report summarizing the cost estimation and 
cost analysis activities of the Department of Defense during the 
previous year and assessing the progress of the Department in 
improving the accuracy of its cost estimates and analyses. Each 
report shall include, for the year covered by such report, an assess-
ment of— 
‘‘(A) the extent to which each of the military departments 
and Defense Agencies have complied with policies, procedures, 
and guidance issued by the Director with regard to the prepara-
tion of cost estimates for major defense acquisition programs 
and major automated information systems; 
‘‘(B) the overall quality of cost estimates prepared by each 
of the military departments and Defense Agencies for major 
defense acquisition programs and major automated information 
system programs; and 
‘‘(C) any consistent differences in methodology or approach 
among the cost estimates prepared by the military departments, 
the Defense Agencies, and the Director. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00252
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1709 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
‘‘(2) Each report under this subsection shall be submitted 
concurrently to the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Under Sec-
retary of Defense (Comptroller), and the congressional defense 
committees not later than 10 days after the transmittal to Congress 
of the budget of the President for the next fiscal year (as submitted 
pursuant to section 1105 of title 31). 
‘‘(3)(A) Each report submitted to the congressional defense 
committees under this subsection shall be submitted in unclassified 
form, but may include a classified annex. 
‘‘(B) The Director shall ensure that a report submitted under 
this subsection does not include any information, such as propri-
etary or source selection sensitive information, that could under-
mine the integrity of the acquisition process. 
‘‘(C) The unclassified version of each report submitted to the 
congressional defense committees under this subsection shall be 
posted on an Internet website of the Department of Defense that 
is available to the public. 
‘‘(4) The Secretary of Defense may comment on any report 
of the Director to the congressional defense committees under this 
subsection. 
‘‘(f) STAFF.—The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the 
Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation has sufficient 
professional staff of military and civilian personnel to enable the 
Director to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the Director 
under this section.’’. 
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the 
beginning of chapter 137 of such title is amended by adding 
at the end the following new item: 
‘‘2334. Independent cost estimation and cost analysis.’’. 
(c) TRANSFER OF PERSONNEL AND FUNCTIONS.— 
(1) TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS.—The functions of the Office 
of Program Analysis and Evaluation of the Department of 
Defense, including the functions of the Cost Analysis Improve-
ment Group, are hereby transferred to the Office of the Director 
of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation. 
(2) TRANSFER OF PERSONNEL TO DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR INDE-
PENDENT COST ASSESSMENT.—The personnel of the Cost Anal-
ysis Improvement Group are hereby transferred to the Deputy 
Director for Cost Assessment in the Office of the Director 
of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation. 
(3) TRANSFER OF PERSONNEL TO DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PRO-
GRAM ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION.—The personnel (other than 
the personnel transferred under paragraph (2)) of the Office 
of Program Analysis and Evaluation are hereby transferred 
to the Deputy Director for Program Evaluation in the Office 
of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation. 
(d) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 
(1) Section 181(d) of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended by striking ‘‘Director of the Office of Program Analysis 
and Evaluation’’ and inserting ‘‘Director of Cost Assessment 
and Program Evaluation’’. 
(2) Section 2306b(i)(1)(B) of such title is amended by 
striking ‘‘Cost Analysis Improvement Group of the Department 
of Defense’’ and inserting ‘‘Director of Cost Assessment and 
Program Analysis’’. 
10 USC 139c 
note. 
Web posting. 
Public 
information. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00253
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1710 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
(3) Section 2366a(a)(4) of such title is amended by inserting 
‘‘, with the concurrence of the Director of Cost Assessment 
and Program Evaluation,’’ after ‘‘has been submitted’’. 
(4) Section 2366b(a)(1)(C) of such title is amended by 
inserting ‘‘, with the concurrence of the Director of Cost Assess-
ment and Program Evaluation,’’ after ‘‘have been developed 
to execute’’. 
(5) Subparagraph (A) of section 2434(b)(1) of such title 
is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘(A) be prepared or approved by the Director of Cost Assessment 
and Program Evaluation; and’’. 
(6) Section 2445c(f)(3) of such title is amended by striking 
‘‘are reasonable’’ and inserting ‘‘have been determined, with 
the concurrence of the Director of Cost Assessment and Pro-
gram Evaluation, to be reasonable’’. 
(e) REPORT ON MONITORING OF OPERATING AND SUPPORT COSTS 
FOR MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.— 
(1) REPORT TO SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.—Not later than 
one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation under 
section 139c of title 10 United States Code (as added by sub-
section (a)), shall review existing systems and methods of the 
Department of Defense for tracking and assessing operating 
and support costs on major defense acquisition programs and 
submit to the Secretary of Defense a report on the finding 
and recommendations of the Director as a result of the review, 
including an assessment by the Director of the feasibility and 
advisability of establishing baselines for operating and support 
costs under section 2435 of title 10, United States Code. 
(2) TRANSMITTAL TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 30 days 
after receiving the report required by paragraph (1), the Sec-
retary shall transmit the report to the congressional defense 
committees, together with any comments on the report the 
Secretary considers appropriate. 
SEC. 102. DIRECTORS OF DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION 
AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING. 
(a) IN GENERAL.— 
(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF POSITIONS.—Chapter 4 of title 10, 
United States Code, as amended by section 101(a) of this Act, 
is further amended by inserting after section 139c the following 
new section: 
‘‘§ 139d. Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation; 
Director of Systems Engineering: joint guidance 
‘‘(a) DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION.— 
‘‘(1) APPOINTMENT.—There is a Director of Developmental 
Test and Evaluation, who shall be appointed by the Secretary 
of Defense from among individuals with an expertise in test 
and evaluation. 
‘‘(2) PRINCIPAL
ADVISOR
FOR
DEVELOPMENTAL
TEST
AND 
EVALUATION.—The Director shall be the principal advisor to 
the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics on developmental 
test and evaluation in the Department of Defense. 
‘‘(3) SUPERVISION.—The Director shall be subject to the 
supervision of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Review. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00254
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1711 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
Technology, and Logistics and shall report to the Under Sec-
retary. 
‘‘(4) 
COORDINATION
WITH
DIRECTOR
OF
SYSTEMS 
ENGINEERING.—The Director of Developmental Test and 
Evaluation shall closely coordinate with the Director of Systems 
Engineering to ensure that the developmental test and evalua-
tion activities of the Department of Defense are fully integrated 
into and consistent with the systems engineering and develop-
ment planning processes of the Department. 
‘‘(5) DUTIES.—The Director shall— 
‘‘(A) develop policies and guidance for— 
‘‘(i) the conduct of developmental test and evalua-
tion in the Department of Defense (including integra-
tion and developmental testing of software); 
‘‘(ii) in coordination with the Director of Oper-
ational Test and Evaluation, the integration of develop-
mental test and evaluation with operational test and 
evaluation; 
‘‘(iii) the conduct of developmental test and evalua-
tion conducted jointly by more than one military 
department or Defense Agency; 
‘‘(B) review and approve the developmental test and 
evaluation plan within the test and evaluation master plan 
for each major defense acquisition program of the Depart-
ment of Defense; 
‘‘(C) monitor and review the developmental test and 
evaluation activities of the major defense acquisition pro-
grams; 
‘‘(D) provide advocacy, oversight, and guidance to ele-
ments of the acquisition workforce responsible for develop-
mental test and evaluation; 
‘‘(E) periodically review the organizations and capabili-
ties of the military departments with respect to develop-
mental test and evaluation and identify needed changes 
or improvements to such organizations and capabilities, 
and provide input regarding needed changes or improve-
ments for the test and evaluation strategic plan developed 
in accordance with section 196(d) of this title; and 
‘‘(F) perform such other activities relating to the 
developmental test and evaluation activities of the Depart-
ment of Defense as the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics may prescribe. 
‘‘(6) ACCESS TO RECORDS.—The Secretary of Defense shall 
ensure that the Director has access to all records and data 
of the Department of Defense (including the records and data 
of each military department and including classified and pro-
priety information, as appropriate) that the Director considers 
necessary in order to carry out the Director’s duties under 
this subsection. 
‘‘(7) CONCURRENT SERVICE AS DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT 
OF DEFENSE TEST RESOURCES MANAGEMENT CENTER.—The indi-
vidual serving as the Director of Developmental Test and 
Evaluation may also serve concurrently as the Director of the 
Department of Defense Test Resource Management Center 
under section 196 of this title. 
‘‘(b) DIRECTOR OF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.— 
Policies. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00255
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1712 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
‘‘(1) APPOINTMENT.—There is a Director of Systems 
Engineering, who shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense 
from among individuals with an expertise in systems 
engineering and development planning. 
‘‘(2) PRINCIPAL
ADVISOR
FOR
SYSTEMS
ENGINEERING
AND 
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING.—The Director shall be the principal 
advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics on systems 
engineering and development planning in the Department of 
Defense. 
‘‘(3) SUPERVISION.—The Director shall be subject to the 
supervision of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics and shall report to the Under Sec-
retary. 
‘‘(4) COORDINATION
WITH
DIRECTOR
OF
DEVELOPMENTAL 
TEST AND EVALUATION.—The Director of Systems Engineering 
shall closely coordinate with the Director of Developmental 
Test and Evaluation to ensure that the developmental test 
and evaluation activities of the Department of Defense are 
fully integrated into and consistent with the systems 
engineering and development planning processes of the Depart-
ment. 
‘‘(5) DUTIES.—The Director shall— 
‘‘(A) develop policies and guidance for— 
‘‘(i) the use of systems engineering principles and 
best practices, generally; 
‘‘(ii) the use of systems engineering approaches 
to enhance reliability, availability, and maintainability 
on major defense acquisition programs; 
‘‘(iii) the development of systems engineering 
master plans for major defense acquisition programs 
including systems engineering considerations in sup-
port of lifecycle management and sustainability; and 
‘‘(iv) the inclusion of provisions relating to systems 
engineering and reliability growth in requests for pro-
posals; 
‘‘(B) review and approve the systems engineering 
master plan for each major defense acquisition program; 
‘‘(C) monitor and review the systems engineering and 
development planning activities of the major defense 
acquisition programs; 
‘‘(D) provide advocacy, oversight, and guidance to ele-
ments of the acquisition workforce responsible for systems 
engineering, development planning, and lifecycle manage-
ment and sustainability functions; 
‘‘(E) provide input on the inclusion of systems 
engineering requirements in the process for consideration 
of joint military requirements by the Joint Requirements 
Oversight Council pursuant to section 181 of this title, 
including specific input relating to each capabilities 
development document; 
‘‘(F) periodically review the organizations and capabili-
ties of the military departments with respect to systems 
engineering, development planning, and lifecycle manage-
ment and sustainability, and identify needed changes or 
improvements to such organizations and capabilities; and 
Policies. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00256
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1713 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
‘‘(G) perform such other activities relating to the sys-
tems engineering and development planning activities of 
the Department of Defense as the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics may pre-
scribe. 
‘‘(6) ACCESS TO RECORDS.—The Director shall have access 
to any records or data of the Department of Defense (including 
the records and data of each military department and including 
classified and proprietary information as appropriate) that the 
Director considers necessary to review in order to carry out 
the Director’s duties under this subsection. 
‘‘(c) JOINT ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than March 31 each 
year, beginning in 2010, the Director of Developmental Test and 
Evaluation and the Director of Systems Engineering shall jointly 
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the 
activities undertaken pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) during 
the preceding year. Each report shall include a section on activities 
relating to the major defense acquisition programs which shall 
set forth, at a minimum, the following: 
‘‘(1) A discussion of the extent to which the major defense 
acquisition programs are fulfilling the objectives of their sys-
tems engineering master plans and developmental test and 
evaluation plans. 
‘‘(2) A discussion of the waivers of and deviations from 
requirements in test and evaluation master plans, systems 
engineering master plans, and other testing requirements that 
occurred during the preceding year with respect to such pro-
grams, any concerns raised by such waivers or deviations, 
and the actions that have been taken or are planned to be 
taken to address such concerns. 
‘‘(3) An assessment of the organization and capabilities 
of the Department of Defense for systems engineering, develop-
ment planning, and developmental test and evaluation with 
respect to such programs. 
‘‘(4) Any comments on such report that the Secretary of 
Defense considers appropriate. 
‘‘(d) JOINT GUIDANCE.—The Director of Developmental Test and 
Evaluation and the Director of Systems Engineering shall jointly, 
in coordination with the official designated by the Secretary of 
Defense under section 103 of the Weapon Systems Acquisition 
Reform Act of 2009, issue guidance on the following: 
‘‘(1) The development and tracking of detailed measurable 
performance criteria as part of the systems engineering master 
plans and the developmental test and evaluation plans within 
the test and evaluation master plans of major defense acquisi-
tion programs. 
‘‘(2) The use of developmental test and evaluation to 
measure the achievement of specific performance objectives 
within a systems engineering master plan. 
‘‘(3) A system for storing and tracking information relating 
to the achievement of the performance criteria and objectives 
specified pursuant to this subsection. 
‘‘(e) MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAM DEFINED.—In this 
section, the term ‘major defense acquisition program’ has the 
meaning given that term in section 2430 of this title.’’. 
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the 
beginning of chapter 4 of such title, as amended by section 
Effective date. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00257
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1714 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
101(a) of this Act, is further amended by inserting after the 
item relating to section 139c the following new item: 
‘‘139d. Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation; Director of Systems Engi-
neering: joint guidance.’’. 
(b) DEVELOPMENTAL
TEST
AND
EVALUATION
AND
SYSTEMS 
ENGINEERING IN THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS AND DEFENSE AGEN-
CIES.— 
(1) PLANS.—The service acquisition executive of each mili-
tary department and each Defense Agency with responsibility 
for a major defense acquisition program shall develop and 
implement plans to ensure the military department or Defense 
Agency concerned has provided appropriate resources for each 
of the following: 
(A) Developmental testing organizations with adequate 
numbers of trained personnel in order to— 
(i) ensure that developmental testing requirements 
are appropriately addressed in the translation of oper-
ational requirements into contract specifications, in the 
source selection process, and in the preparation of 
requests for proposals on all major defense acquisition 
programs; 
(ii) participate in the planning of developmental 
test and evaluation activities, including the prepara-
tion and approval of a developmental test and evalua-
tion plan within the test and evaluation master plan 
for each major defense acquisition program; and 
(iii) participate in and oversee the conduct of 
developmental testing, the analysis of data, and the 
preparation of evaluations and reports based on such 
testing. 
(B) Development planning and systems engineering 
organizations with adequate numbers of trained personnel 
in order to— 
(i) support key requirements, acquisition, and 
budget decisions made for each major defense acquisi-
tion program prior to Milestone A approval and Mile-
stone B approval through a rigorous systems analysis 
and systems engineering process; 
(ii) include a robust program for improving reli-
ability, availability, maintainability, and sustainability 
as an integral part of design and development within 
the systems engineering master plan for each major 
defense acquisition program; and 
(iii) identify systems engineering requirements, 
including reliability, availability, maintainability, and 
lifecycle management and sustainability requirements, 
during the Joint Capabilities Integration Development 
System 
process, 
and 
incorporate 
such 
systems 
engineering requirements into contract requirements 
for each major defense acquisition program. 
(2) REPORTS
BY
SERVICE
ACQUISITION
EXECUTIVES.—Not 
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the service acquisition executive of each military depart-
ment and each Defense Agency with responsibility for a major 
defense acquisition program shall submit to the Director of 
10 USC 2430 
note. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00258
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1715 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
Developmental Test and Evaluation and the Director of Systems 
Engineering a report on the extent to which— 
(A) such military department or Defense Agency has 
implemented, or is implementing, the plan required by 
paragraph (1); and 
(B) additional authorities or resources are needed to 
attract, develop, retain, and reward developmental test 
and evaluation personnel and systems engineers with 
appropriate levels of hands-on experience and technical 
expertise to meet the needs of such military department 
or Defense Agency. 
(3) ASSESSMENT OF REPORTS BY DIRECTORS OF DEVELOP-
MENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.— 
The first annual report submitted to Congress by the Director 
of Developmental Test and Evaluation and the Director of 
Systems Engineering under section 139d(c) of title 10, United 
States Code (as added by subsection (a)), shall include an 
assessment by the Directors of the reports submitted by the 
service acquisition executives to the Directors under paragraph 
(2). 
SEC. 103. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS AND ROOT CAUSE ANALYSES 
FOR MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 
(a) DESIGNATION
OF SENIOR OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY
FOR 
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS AND ROOT CAUSE ANALYSES.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall designate 
a senior official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense as 
the principal official of the Department of Defense responsible 
for conducting and overseeing performance assessments and 
root cause analyses for major defense acquisition programs. 
(2) NO
PROGRAM
EXECUTION
RESPONSIBILITY.—The Sec-
retary shall ensure that the senior official designated under 
paragraph (1) is not responsible for program execution. 
(3) STAFF AND RESOURCES.—The Secretary shall assign to 
the senior official designated under paragraph (1) appropriate 
staff and resources necessary to carry out official’s function 
under this section. 
(b) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The senior official designated under sub-
section (a) shall be responsible for the following: 
(1) Carrying out performance assessments of major defense 
acquisition programs in accordance with the requirements of 
subsection (c) periodically or when requested by the Secretary 
of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology and Logistics, the Secretary of a military depart-
ment, or the head of a Defense Agency. 
(2) Conducting root cause analyses for major defense 
acquisition programs in accordance with the requirements of 
subsection (d) when required by section 2433a(a)(1) of title 
10, United States Code (as added by section 206(a) of this 
Act), or when requested by the Secretary of Defense, the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, 
the Secretary of a military department, or the head of a Defense 
Agency. 
(3) Issuing policies, procedures, and guidance governing 
the conduct of performance assessments and root cause analyses 
by the military departments and the Defense Agencies. 
10 USC 2430 
note. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00259
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1716 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
(4) Evaluating the utility of performance metrics used to 
measure the cost, schedule, and performance of major defense 
acquisition programs, and making such recommendations to 
the Secretary of Defense as the official considers appropriate 
to improve such metrics. 
(5) Advising acquisition officials on performance issues 
regarding a major defense acquisition program that may arise— 
(A) prior to certification under section 2433a of title 
10, United States Code (as so added); 
(B) prior to entry into full-rate production; or 
(C) in the course of consideration of any decision to 
request authorization of a multiyear procurement contract 
for the program. 
(c) PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS.—For purposes of this section, 
a performance assessment with respect to a major defense acquisi-
tion program is an evaluation of the following: 
(1) The cost, schedule, and performance of the program, 
relative to current metrics, including performance requirements 
and baseline descriptions. 
(2) The extent to which the level of program cost, schedule, 
and performance predicted relative to such metrics is likely 
to result in the timely delivery of a level of capability to the 
warfighter that is consistent with the level of resources to 
be expended and provides superior value to alternative 
approaches that may be available to meet the same military 
requirement. 
(d) ROOT CAUSE ANALYSES.—For purposes of this section and 
section 2433a of title 10, United States Code (as so added), a 
root cause analysis with respect to a major defense acquisition 
program is an assessment of the underlying cause or causes of 
shortcomings in cost, schedule, or performance of the program, 
including the role, if any, of— 
(1) unrealistic performance expectations; 
(2) unrealistic baseline estimates for cost or schedule; 
(3) immature technologies or excessive manufacturing or 
integration risk; 
(4) unanticipated design, engineering, manufacturing, or 
technology integration issues arising during program perform-
ance; 
(5) changes in procurement quantities; 
(6) inadequate program funding or funding instability; 
(7) poor performance by government or contractor personnel 
responsible for program management; or 
(8) any other matters. 
(e) SUPPORT OF APPLICABLE CAPABILITIES AND EXPERTISE.— 
The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the senior official des-
ignated under subsection (a) has the support of other Department 
of Defense officials with relevant capabilities and expertise needed 
to carry out the requirements of this section. 
(f) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than March 1 each year, begin-
ning in 2010, the official responsible for conducting and overseeing 
performance assessments and root cause analyses for major defense 
acquisition programs shall submit to the congressional defense 
committees a report on the activities undertaken under this section 
during the preceding year. 
Effective date. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00260
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1717 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
SEC. 104. ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGICAL MATURITY OF CRITICAL 
TECHNOLOGIES OF MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PRO-
GRAMS BY THE DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND 
ENGINEERING. 
(a) ASSESSMENT
BY DIRECTOR
OF DEFENSE RESEARCH
AND 
ENGINEERING.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 139a of title 10, United States 
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection: 
‘‘(c)(1) The Director of Defense Research and Engineering, in 
consultation with the Director of Developmental Test and Evalua-
tion, shall periodically review and assess the technological maturity 
and integration risk of critical technologies of the major defense 
acquisition programs of the Department of Defense and report 
on the findings of such reviews and assessments to the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. 
‘‘(2) The Director shall submit to the Secretary of Defense 
and to the congressional defense committees by March 1 of each 
year a report on the technological maturity and integration risk 
of critical technologies of the major defense acquisition programs 
of the Department of Defense.’’. 
(2) FIRST ANNUAL REPORT.—The first annual report under 
subsection (c)(2) of section 139a of title 10, United States Code 
(as added by paragraph (1)), shall be submitted to the congres-
sional defense committees not later than March 1, 2010, and 
shall address the results of reviews and assessments conducted 
by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering pursuant 
to subsection (c)(1) of such section (as so added) during the 
preceding calendar year. 
(b) REPORT ON RESOURCES FOR IMPLEMENTATION.—Not later 
than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Director of Defense Research and Engineering shall submit to the 
congressional defense committees a report describing any additional 
resources that may be required by the Director, and by other 
research and engineering elements of the Department of Defense, 
to carry out the following: 
(1) The requirements under the amendment made by sub-
section (a)(1). 
(2) The technological maturity assessments required by 
section 2366b(a) of title 10, United States Code. 
(3) The requirements of Department of Defense Instruction 
5000, as revised. 
(c) TECHNOLOGICAL MATURITY STANDARDS.—Not later than 180 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director 
of Defense Research and Engineering, in consultation with the 
Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation, shall develop 
knowledge-based standards against which to measure the techno-
logical maturity and integration risk of critical technologies at key 
stages in the acquisition process for purposes of conducting the 
reviews and assessments of major defense acquisition programs 
required by subsection (c) of section 139a of title 10, United States 
Code (as so added). 
SEC. 105. ROLE OF THE COMMANDERS OF THE COMBATANT COM-
MANDS IN IDENTIFYING JOINT MILITARY REQUIREMENTS. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 181(d) of title 10, United States Code, 
as amended by section 101(d) of this Act, is further amended— 
Deadline. 
10 USC 139a 
note. 
10 USC 139a 
note. 
Deadline. 
Reports. 
Review. 
Reports. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00261
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1718 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
(1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘The Under Secretary’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 
‘‘(2) The Council shall seek and consider input from the com-
manders of the combatant commands in carrying out its mission 
under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) and in conducting 
periodic reviews in accordance with the requirements of subsection 
(e).’’. 
(b) INPUT FROM COMMANDERS OF COMBATANT COMMANDS.— 
The Joint Requirements Oversight Council in the Department of 
Defense shall seek and consider input from the commanders of 
combatant commands, in accordance with section 181(d) of title 
10, United States Code (as amended by subsection (a)). Such input 
may include, but is not limited to, an assessment of the following: 
(1) Any current or projected missions or threats in the 
theater of operations of the commander of a combatant com-
mand that would inform the assessment of a new joint military 
requirement. 
(2) The necessity and sufficiency of a proposed joint military 
requirement in terms of current and projected missions or 
threats. 
(3) The relative priority of a proposed joint military require-
ment in comparison with other joint military requirements 
within the theater of operations of the commander of a combat-
ant command. 
(4) The ability of partner nations in the theater of oper-
ations of the commander of a combatant command to assist 
in meeting the joint military requirement or the benefit, if 
any, of a partner nation assisting in development or use of 
technologies developed to meet the joint military requirement. 
(c) COMPTROLLER GENERAL
OF
THE UNITED STATES REVIEW 
OF IMPLEMENTATION.— 
(1) REQUIREMENT.—Not later than two years after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
United States shall submit to the Committees on Armed Serv-
ices of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report 
on the implementation of the requirements of— 
(A) subsection (d)(2) of section 181 of title 10, United 
States Code (as amended by subsection (a)), for the Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council to solicit and consider 
input from the commanders of the combatant commands; 
(B) the amendments to subsection (b) of section 181 
of title 10, United States Code, made by section 942 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008 (Public Law 110–181; 122 Stat. 287) and by section 
201(b) of this Act; and 
(C) the requirements of section 201(c) of this Act. 
(2) MATTERS COVERED.—The report shall include, at a min-
imum, an assessment of— 
(A) the extent to which the Council has effectively 
sought, and the commanders of the combatant commands 
have provided, meaningful input on proposed joint military 
requirements; 
(B) the quality and effectiveness of efforts to estimate 
the level of resources needed to fulfill joint military require-
ments; and 
Deadline. 
Reports. 
10 USC 181 note. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00262
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1719 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
(C) the extent to which the Council has considered 
trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objec-
tives. 
TITLE II—ACQUISITION POLICY 
SEC. 201. CONSIDERATION OF TRADE-OFFS AMONG COST, SCHEDULE, 
AND PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES IN DEPARTMENT OF 
DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 
(a) CONSIDERATION OF TRADE-OFFS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall ensure 
that mechanisms are developed and implemented to require 
consideration of trade-offs among cost, schedule, and perform-
ance objectives as part of the process for developing require-
ments for Department of Defense acquisition programs. 
(2) ELEMENTS.—The mechanisms required under this sub-
section shall ensure, at a minimum, that— 
(A) Department of Defense officials responsible for 
acquisition, budget, and cost estimating functions are pro-
vided an appropriate opportunity to develop estimates and 
raise cost and schedule matters before performance objec-
tives are established for capabilities for which the Chair-
man of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council is the 
validation authority; and 
(B) the process for developing requirements is struc-
tured to enable incremental, evolutionary, or spiral acquisi-
tion approaches, including the deferral of technologies that 
are not yet mature and capabilities that are likely to signifi-
cantly increase costs or delay production until later incre-
ments or spirals. 
(b) DUTIES OF JOINT REQUIREMENTS OVERSIGHT COUNCIL.— 
Section 181(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended— 
(1) in paragraph (1)— 
(A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (A); 
(B) by inserting ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph 
(B) after the semicolon; and 
(C) by adding at the end the following new subpara-
graph: 
‘‘(C) in ensuring the consideration of trade-offs among 
cost, schedule, and performance objectives for joint military 
requirements in consultation with the advisors specified 
in subsection (d);’’. 
(2) in paragraph (3)— 
(A) by inserting ‘‘, in consultation with the Under Sec-
retary of Defense (Comptroller), the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the 
Director of Cost Assessment and Performance Evaluation,’’ 
after ‘‘assist the Chairman’’; and 
(B) by striking ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon at the end; 
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end 
and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 
‘‘(5) assist the Chairman, in consultation with the com-
manders of the combatant commands and the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in estab-
lishing an objective for the overall period of time within which 
10 USC 2302 
note. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00263
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1720 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
an initial operational capability should be delivered to meet 
each joint military requirement.’’. 
(c) REVIEW OF JOINT MILITARY REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary 
of Defense shall ensure that each new joint military requirement 
recommended by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council is 
reviewed to ensure that the Joint Requirements Oversight Council 
has, in making such recommendation— 
(1) taken appropriate action to seek and consider input 
from the commanders of the combatant commands, in accord-
ance with the requirements of section 181(d) of title 10, United 
States Code (as amended by section 105(a) of this Act); 
(2) engaged in consideration of trade-offs among cost, 
schedule, and performance objectives in accordance with the 
requirements of section 181(b)(1)(C) of title 10, United States 
Code (as added by subsection (b)); and 
(3) engaged in consideration of issues of joint portfolio 
management, including alternative material and non-material 
solutions, as provided in Department of Defense instructions 
for the development of joint military requirements. 
(d) STUDY GUIDANCE FOR ANALYSES OF ALTERNATIVES.—The 
Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shall take 
the lead in the development of study guidance for an analysis 
of alternatives for each joint military requirement for which the 
Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council is the 
validation authority. In developing the guidance, the Director shall 
solicit the advice of appropriate officials within the Department 
of Defense and ensure that the guidance requires, at a minimum— 
(1) full consideration of possible trade-offs among cost, 
schedule, and performance objectives for each alternative 
considered; and 
(2) an assessment of whether or not the joint military 
requirement can be met in a manner that is consistent with 
the cost and schedule objectives recommended by the Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council. 
(e) ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES IN CERTIFICATION FOR MILE-
STONE A.—Section 2366a(a) of title 10, United States Code, as 
amended by section 101(d)(3) of this Act, is further amended— 
(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (3); 
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and 
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new para-
graph (4): 
‘‘(4) that an analysis of alternatives has been performed 
consistent with study guidance developed by the Director of 
Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation; and’’. 
(f) DUTIES
OF
MILESTONE
DECISION
AUTHORITY.—Section 
2366b(a)(1)(B) of such title is amended by inserting ‘‘appropriate 
trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives have 
been made to ensure that’’ before ‘‘the program is affordable’’. 
SEC. 202. ACQUISITION STRATEGIES TO ENSURE COMPETITION 
THROUGHOUT THE LIFECYCLE OF MAJOR DEFENSE 
ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 
(a) ACQUISITION STRATEGIES TO ENSURE COMPETITION.—The 
Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the acquisition strategy 
for each major defense acquisition program includes— 
(1) measures to ensure competition, or the option of com-
petition, at both the prime contract level and the subcontract 
10 USC 2430 
note. 
10 USC 181 note. 
10 USC 181 note. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00264
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1721 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
level (at such tier or tiers as are appropriate) of such program 
throughout the life-cycle of such program as a means to improve 
contractor performance; and 
(2) adequate documentation of the rationale for the selec-
tion of the subcontract tier or tiers under paragraph (1). 
(b) MEASURES TO ENSURE COMPETITION.—The measures to 
ensure competition, or the option of competition, for purposes of 
subsection (a)(1) may include measures to achieve the following, 
in appropriate cases if such measures are cost-effective: 
(1) Competitive prototyping. 
(2) Dual-sourcing. 
(3) Unbundling of contracts. 
(4) Funding of next-generation prototype systems or sub-
systems. 
(5) Use of modular, open architectures to enable competi-
tion for upgrades. 
(6) Use of build-to-print approaches to enable production 
through multiple sources. 
(7) Acquisition of complete technical data packages. 
(8) Periodic competitions for subsystem upgrades. 
(9) Licensing of additional suppliers. 
(10) Periodic system or program reviews to address long- 
term competitive effects of program decisions. 
(c) ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO ENSURE COMPETITION AT SUB-
CONTRACT LEVEL.—The Secretary shall take actions to ensure fair 
and objective ‘‘make-buy’’ decisions by prime contractors on major 
defense acquisition programs by— 
(1) requiring prime contractors to give full and fair consid-
eration to qualified sources other than the prime contractor 
for the development or construction of major subsystems and 
components of major weapon systems; 
(2) providing for government surveillance of the process 
by which prime contractors consider such sources and deter-
mine whether to conduct such development or construction 
in-house or through a subcontract; and 
(3) providing for the assessment of the extent to which 
a contractor has given full and fair consideration to qualified 
sources other than the contractor in sourcing decisions as a 
part of past performance evaluations. 
(d) CONSIDERATION OF COMPETITION THROUGHOUT OPERATION 
AND SUSTAINMENT OF MAJOR WEAPON SYSTEMS.—Whenever a deci-
sion regarding source of repair results in a plan to award a contract 
for performance of maintenance and sustainment of a major weapon 
system, the Secretary shall take actions to ensure that, to the 
maximum extent practicable and consistent with statutory require-
ments, contracts for such maintenance and sustainment are 
awarded on a competitive basis and give full consideration to all 
sources (including sources that partner or subcontract with public 
or private sector repair activities). 
(e) APPLICABILITY.— 
(1) STRATEGY AND MEASURES TO ENSURE COMPETITION.— 
The requirements of subsections (a) and (b) shall apply to 
any acquisition plan for a major defense acquisition program 
that is developed or revised on or after the date that is 60 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00265
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1722 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
(2) ADDITIONAL
ACTIONS.—The actions required by sub-
sections (c) and (d) shall be taken within 180 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act. 
SEC. 203. PROTOTYPING REQUIREMENTS FOR MAJOR DEFENSE 
ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 
(a) COMPETITIVE PROTOTYPING.—Not later than 90 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 
shall modify the guidance of the Department of Defense relating 
to the operation of the acquisition system with respect to competi-
tive prototyping for major defense acquisition programs to ensure 
the following: 
(1) That the acquisition strategy for each major defense 
acquisition program provides for competitive prototypes before 
Milestone B approval (or Key Decision Point B approval in 
the case of a space program) unless the Milestone Decision 
Authority for such program waives the requirement pursuant 
to paragraph (2). 
(2) That the Milestone Decision Authority may waive the 
requirement in paragraph (1) only— 
(A) on the basis that the cost of producing competitive 
prototypes exceeds the expected life-cycle benefits (in con-
stant dollars) of producing such prototypes, including the 
benefits of improved performance and increased techno-
logical and design maturity that may be achieved through 
competitive prototyping; or 
(B) on the basis that, but for such waiver, the Depart-
ment would be unable to meet critical national security 
objectives. 
(3) That whenever a Milestone Decision Authority author-
izes a waiver pursuant to paragraph (2), the Milestone Decision 
Authority— 
(A) shall require that the program produce a prototype 
before Milestone B approval (or Key Decision Point B 
approval in the case of a space program) if the expected 
life-cycle benefits (in constant dollars) of producing such 
prototype exceed its cost and its production is consistent 
with achieving critical national security objectives; and 
(B) shall notify the congressional defense committees 
in writing not later than 30 days after the waiver is author-
ized and include in such notification the rationale for the 
waiver and the plan, if any, for producing a prototype. 
(4) That prototypes may be required under paragraph (1) 
or (3) for the system to be acquired or, if prototyping of the 
system is not feasible, for critical subsystems of the system. 
(b) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW OF CERTAIN WAIVERS.— 
(1) NOTICE TO COMPTROLLER GENERAL.—Whenever a Mile-
stone Decision Authority authorizes a waiver of the requirement 
for prototypes pursuant to paragraph (2) of subsection (a) on 
the basis of excessive cost, the Milestone Decision Authority 
shall submit the notification of the waiver, together with the 
rationale, to the Comptroller General of the United States 
at the same time it is submitted to the congressional defense 
committees. 
(2) COMPTROLLER
GENERAL
REVIEW.—Not later than 60 
days after receipt of a notification of a waiver under paragraph 
(1), the Comptroller General shall— 
Notification. 
Waiver authority. 
Deadlines. 
10 USC 2430 
note. 
Deadline. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00266
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1723 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
(A) review the rationale for the waiver; and 
(B) submit to the congressional defense committees 
a written assessment of the rationale for the waiver. 
SEC. 204. ACTIONS TO IDENTIFY AND ADDRESS SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS 
IN MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS PRIOR TO 
MILESTONE B APPROVAL. 
(a) MODIFICATION
TO
CERTIFICATION
REQUIREMENT.—Sub-
section (a) of section 2366a of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended by striking ‘‘may not receive Milestone A approval, or 
Key Decision Point A approval in the case of a space program,’’ 
and inserting ‘‘may not receive Milestone A approval, or Key Deci-
sion Point A approval in the case of a space program, or otherwise 
be initiated prior to Milestone B approval, or Key Decision Point 
B approval in the case of a space program,’’. 
(b) MODIFICATION TO NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.—Subsection 
(b) of such section is amended— 
(1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘With respect to’’; 
(2) in paragraph (1), as so designated, by striking ‘‘by 
at least 25 percent,’’ and inserting ‘‘by at least 25 percent, 
or the program manager determines that the period of time 
required for the delivery of an initial operational capability 
is likely to exceed the schedule objective established pursuant 
to section 181(b)(5) of this title by more than 25 percent,’’; 
and 
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 
‘‘(2) Not later than 30 days after a program manager submits 
a notification to the Milestone Decision Authority pursuant to para-
graph (1) with respect to a major defense acquisition program, 
the Milestone Decision Authority shall submit to the congressional 
defense committees a report that— 
‘‘(A) identifies the root causes of the cost or schedule growth 
in accordance with applicable policies, procedures, and guid-
ance; 
‘‘(B) identifies appropriate acquisition performance meas-
ures for the remainder of the development of the program; 
and 
‘‘(C) includes one of the following: 
‘‘(i) A written certification (with a supporting expla-
nation) stating that— 
‘‘(I) the program is essential to national security; 
‘‘(II) there are no alternatives to the program that 
will provide acceptable military capability at less cost; 
‘‘(III) new estimates of the development cost or 
schedule, as appropriate, are reasonable; and 
‘‘(IV) the management structure for the program 
is adequate to manage and control program develop-
ment cost and schedule. 
‘‘(ii) A plan for terminating the development of the 
program or withdrawal of Milestone A approval, or Key 
Decision Point A approval in the case of a space program, 
if the Milestone Decision Authority determines that such 
action is in the interest of national defense.’’. 
(c) APPLICATION TO ONGOING PROGRAMS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Each major defense acquisition program 
described in paragraph (2) shall be certified in accordance with 
the requirements of section 2366a of title 10, United States 
Certification. 
Deadline. 
10 USC 2366a 
note. 
Plans. 
Certification. 
Deadline. 
Reports. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00267
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1724 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
Code (as amended by this section), within one year after the 
date of the enactment of this Act. 
(2) COVERED PROGRAMS.—The requirement in paragraph 
(1) shall apply to any major defense acquisition program that— 
(A) was initiated before the date of the enactment 
of this Act; and 
(B) as of the date of certification under paragraph 
(1) has not otherwise been certified pursuant to either 
section 2366a (as so amended) or 2366b of title 10, United 
States Code. 
SEC. 205. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN MAJOR DEFENSE 
ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 
(a) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS RELATING
TO MILESTONE B 
APPROVAL.—Section 2366b of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended— 
(1) in subsection (d)— 
(A) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘The milestone decision 
authority may’’; and 
(B) by striking the second sentence and inserting the 
following: 
‘‘(2) Whenever the milestone decision authority makes such 
a determination and authorizes such a waiver— 
‘‘(A) the waiver, the determination, and the reasons for 
the determination shall be submitted in writing to the congres-
sional defense committees within 30 days after the waiver 
is authorized; and 
‘‘(B) the milestone decision authority shall review the pro-
gram not less often than annually to determine the extent 
to which such program currently satisfies the certification 
components specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection 
(a) until such time as the milestone decision authority deter-
mines that the program satisfies all such certification compo-
nents.’’; 
(2) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections 
(f) and (g), respectively, and inserting after subsection (d) the 
following new subsection (e): 
‘‘(e) DESIGNATION OF CERTIFICATION STATUS IN BUDGET DOCU-
MENTATION.—Any budget request, budget justification material, 
budget display, reprogramming request, Selected Acquisition 
Report, or other budget documentation or performance report sub-
mitted by the Secretary of Defense to the President regarding 
a major defense acquisition program receiving a waiver pursuant 
to subsection (d) shall prominently and clearly indicate that such 
program has not fully satisfied the certification requirements of 
this section until such time as the milestone decision authority 
makes the determination that such program has satisfied all such 
certification components.’’; and 
(3) in subsection (a)— 
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 
(B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); 
(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
paragraph (2): 
Determination. 
Waiver authority. 
Deadline. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00268
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1725 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
‘‘(2) has received a preliminary design review and conducted 
a formal post-preliminary design review assessment, and cer-
tifies on the basis of such assessment that the program dem-
onstrates a high likelihood of accomplishing its intended mis-
sion; and’’; and 
(D) in paragraph (3), as redesignated by subparagraph 
(B) of this paragraph— 
(i) in subparagraph (D), by striking the semicolon 
and inserting ‘‘, as determined by the Milestone Deci-
sion Authority on the basis of an independent review 
and assessment by the Director of Defense Research 
and Engineering; and’’; 
(ii) by striking subparagraph (E); and 
(iii) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subpara-
graph (E). 
(b) CERTIFICATION
AND
REVIEW
OF
PROGRAMS
ENTERING 
DEVELOPMENT PRIOR TO ENACTMENT OF SECTION 2366B OF TITLE 
10.— 
(1) DETERMINATION.—Not later than 270 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, for each major defense 
acquisition program that received Milestone B approval before 
January 6, 2006, and has not received Milestone C approval, 
and for each space program that received Key Decision Point 
B approval before January 6, 2006, and has not received Key 
Decision Point C approval, the Milestone Decision Authority 
shall determine whether or not such program satisfies all of 
the certification components specified in paragraphs (1) and 
(2) of subsection (a) of section 2366b of title 10, United States 
Code (as amended by subsection (a) of this section). 
(2) ANNUAL
REVIEW.—The Milestone Decision Authority 
shall review any program determined pursuant to paragraph 
(1) not to satisfy any of the certification components of sub-
section (a) of section 2366b of title 10, United States Code 
(as so amended), not less often than annually thereafter to 
determine the extent to which such program currently satisfies 
such certification components until such time as the Milestone 
Decision Authority determines that such program satisfies all 
such certification components. 
(3) DESIGNATION
OF
CERTIFICATION
STATUS
IN
BUDGET 
DOCUMENTATION.—Any budget request, budget justification 
material, budget display, reprogramming request, Selected 
Acquisition Report, or other budget documentation or perform-
ance report submitted by the Secretary of Defense to the Presi-
dent regarding a major defense acquisition program which the 
Milestone Decision Authority determines under paragraph (1) 
does not satisfy all of the certification components of subsection 
(a) of section 2366b of title 10, United States Code, (as so 
amended) shall prominently and clearly indicate that such pro-
gram has not fully satisfied such certification components until 
such time as the Milestone Decision Authority makes the deter-
mination that such program has satisfied all such certification 
components. 
(c) REVIEWS OF PROGRAMS RESTRUCTURED AFTER EXPERIENCING 
CRITICAL COST GROWTH.—The official designated to perform over-
sight of performance assessment pursuant to section 103 of this 
Act, shall assess the performance of each major defense acquisition 
Assessment. 
10 USC 2433a 
note. 
Deadline. 
10 USC 2366b 
note. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00269
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1726 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
program that has exceeded critical cost growth thresholds estab-
lished pursuant to section 2433(e) of title 10, United States Code, 
but has not been terminated in accordance with section 2433a 
of such title (as added by section 206(a) of this Act) not less 
often than semi-annually until one year after the date on which 
such program receives a new milestone approval, in accordance 
with section 2433a(c)(3) of such title (as so added). The results 
of reviews performed under this subsection shall be reported to 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 
Logistics and summarized in the next annual report of such des-
ignated official. 
SEC. 206. CRITICAL COST GROWTH IN MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION 
PROGRAMS. 
(a) ACTIONS FOLLOWING CRITICAL COST GROWTH.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 144 of title 10, United States 
Code, is amended by inserting after section 2433 the following 
new section: 
‘‘§ 2433a. Critical cost growth in major defense acquisition 
programs 
‘‘(a) REASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM.—If the program acquisition 
unit cost or procurement unit cost of a major defense acquisition 
program or designated subprogram (as determined by the Secretary 
under section 2433(d) of this title) increases by a percentage equal 
to or greater than the critical cost growth threshold for the program 
or subprogram, the Secretary of Defense, after consultation with 
the Joint Requirements Oversight Council regarding program 
requirements, shall— 
‘‘(1) determine the root cause or causes of the critical cost 
growth in accordance with applicable statutory requirements 
and Department of Defense policies, procedures, and guidance; 
and 
‘‘(2) in consultation with the Director of Cost Assessment 
and Program Evaluation, carry out an assessment of— 
‘‘(A) the projected cost of completing the program if 
current requirements are not modified; 
‘‘(B) the projected cost of completing the program based 
on reasonable modification of such requirements; 
‘‘(C) the rough order of magnitude of the costs of any 
reasonable alternative system or capability; and 
‘‘(D) the need to reduce funding for other programs 
due to the growth in cost of the program. 
‘‘(b) PRESUMPTION OF TERMINATION.—(1) After conducting the 
reassessment required by subsection (a) with respect to a major 
defense acquisition program, the Secretary shall terminate the pro-
gram unless the Secretary submits to Congress, before the end 
of the 60-day period beginning on the day the Selected Acquisition 
Report containing the information described in section 2433(g) of 
this title is required to be submitted under section 2432(f) of this 
title, a written certification in accordance with paragraph (2). 
‘‘(2) A certification described by this paragraph with respect 
to a major defense acquisition program is a written certification 
that— 
‘‘(A) the continuation of the program is essential to the 
national security; 
Deadline. 
Certification. 
Determination. 
Consultations. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00270
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1727 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
‘‘(B) there are no alternatives to the program which will 
provide acceptable capability to meet the joint military require-
ment (as defined in section 181(g)((1) of this title) at less 
cost; 
‘‘(C) the new estimates of the program acquisition unit 
cost or procurement unit cost have been determined by the 
Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to be 
reasonable; 
‘‘(D) the program is a higher priority than programs whose 
funding must be reduced to accommodate the growth in cost 
of the program; and 
‘‘(E) the management structure for the program is adequate 
to manage and control program acquisition unit cost or procure-
ment unit cost. 
‘‘(3) A written certification under paragraph (2) shall be accom-
panied by a report presenting the root cause analysis and assess-
ment carried out pursuant to subsection (a) and the basis for 
each determination made in accordance with subparagraphs (A) 
through (E) of paragraph (2), together with supporting documenta-
tion. 
‘‘(c) ACTIONS IF PROGRAM NOT TERMINATED.—(1) If the Sec-
retary elects not to terminate a major defense acquisition program 
pursuant to subsection (b), the Secretary shall— 
‘‘(A) restructure the program in a manner that addresses 
the root cause or causes of the critical cost growth, as identified 
pursuant to subsection (a), and ensures that the program has 
an appropriate management structure as set forth in the certifi-
cation submitted pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(E); 
‘‘(B) rescind the most recent Milestone approval, or Key 
Decision Point approval in the case of a space program, for 
the program and withdraw any associated certification under 
section 2366a or 2366b of this title; 
‘‘(C) require a new Milestone approval, or Key Decision 
Point approval in the case of a space program, for the program 
before taking any contract action to enter a new contract, 
exercise an option under an existing contract, or otherwise 
extend the scope of an existing contract under the program, 
except to the extent determined necessary by the Milestone 
Decision Authority, on a non-delegable basis, to ensure that 
the program can be restructured as intended by the Secretary 
without unnecessarily wasting resources; 
‘‘(D) include in the report specified in paragraph (2) a 
description of all funding changes made as a result of the 
growth in cost of the program, including reductions made in 
funding for other programs to accommodate such cost growth; 
and 
‘‘(E) conduct regular reviews of the program in accordance 
with the requirements of section 205 of the Weapon Systems 
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. 
‘‘(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)(D), the report specified in 
this paragraph is the first Selected Acquisition Report for the pro-
gram submitted pursuant to section 2432 of this title after the 
President submits a budget pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, 
in the calendar year following the year in which the program 
was restructured. 
Reports. 
Reports. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00271
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1728 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
‘‘(d) ACTIONS IF PROGRAM TERMINATED.—If a major defense 
acquisition program is terminated pursuant to subsection (b), the 
Secretary shall submit to Congress a written report setting forth— 
‘‘(1) an explanation of the reasons for terminating the pro-
gram; 
‘‘(2) the alternatives considered to address any problems 
in the program; and 
‘‘(3) the course the Department plans to pursue to meet 
any continuing joint military requirements otherwise intended 
to be met by the program.’’. 
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the 
beginning of chapter 144 of such title is amended by inserting 
after the item relating to section 2433 the following new item: 
‘‘2433a. Critical cost growth in major defense acquisition programs.’’. 
(3) CONFORMING
AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (2) of section 
2433(e) of such title 10 is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘(2) If the program acquisition unit cost or procurement unit 
cost of a major defense acquisition program or designated major 
subprogram (as determined by the Secretary under subsection (d)) 
increases by a percentage equal to or greater than the critical 
cost growth threshold for the program or subprogram, the Secretary 
of Defense shall take actions consistent with the requirements 
of section 2433a of this title.’’. 
(b) TREATMENT
AS MDAP.—Section 2430 of such title is 
amended— 
(1) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting ‘‘, including all planned 
increments or spirals,’’ after ‘‘an eventual total expenditure 
for procurement’’; and 
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection: 
‘‘(c) For purposes of subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall con-
sider, as applicable, the following: 
‘‘(1) The estimated level of resources required to fulfill 
the relevant joint military requirement, as determined by the 
Joint Requirements Oversight Council pursuant to section 181 
of this title. 
‘‘(2) The cost estimate referred to in section 2366a(a)(4) 
of this title. 
‘‘(3) The cost estimate referred to in section 2366b(a)(1)(C) 
of this title. 
‘‘(4) The cost estimate within a baseline description as 
required by section 2435 of this title.’’. 
SEC. 207. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN MAJOR 
DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 
(a) REVISED REGULATIONS REQUIRED.—Not later than 270 days 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 
shall revise the Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation to provide uniform guidance and tighten existing 
requirements for organizational conflicts of interest by contractors 
in major defense acquisition programs. 
(b) ELEMENTS.—The revised regulations required by subsection 
(a) shall, at a minimum— 
(1) address organizational conflicts of interest that could 
arise as a result of— 
(A) lead system integrator contracts on major defense 
acquisition programs and contracts that follow lead system 
Deadline. 
10 USC 2430 
note. 
Reports. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00272
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1729 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
integrator contracts on such programs, particularly con-
tracts for production; 
(B) the ownership of business units performing systems 
engineering and technical assistance functions, professional 
services, or management support services in relation to 
major defense acquisition programs by contractors who 
simultaneously own business units competing to perform 
as either the prime contractor or the supplier of a major 
subsystem or component for such programs; 
(C) the award of major subsystem contracts by a prime 
contractor for a major defense acquisition program to busi-
ness units or other affiliates of the same parent corporate 
entity, and particularly the award of subcontracts for soft-
ware integration or the development of a proprietary soft-
ware system architecture; or 
(D) the performance by, or assistance of, contractors 
in technical evaluations on major defense acquisition pro-
grams; 
(2) ensure that the Department of Defense receives advice 
on systems architecture and systems engineering matters with 
respect to major defense acquisition programs from federally 
funded research and development centers or other sources inde-
pendent of the prime contractor; 
(3) require that a contract for the performance of systems 
engineering and technical assistance functions for a major 
defense acquisition program contains a provision prohibiting 
the contractor or any affiliate of the contractor from partici-
pating as a prime contractor or a major subcontractor in the 
development or construction of a weapon system under the 
program; and 
(4) establish such limited exceptions to the requirement 
in paragraphs (2) and (3) as may be necessary to ensure that 
the Department of Defense has continued access to advice on 
systems architecture and systems engineering matters from 
highly-qualified contractors with domain experience and exper-
tise, while ensuring that such advice comes from sources that 
are objective and unbiased. 
(c) CONSULTATION IN REVISION OF REGULATIONS.— 
(1) RECOMMENDATIONS OF PANEL ON CONTRACTING INTEG-
RITY.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act, the Panel on Contracting Integrity established 
pursuant to section 813 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364; 
120 Stat. 2320) shall present recommendations to the Secretary 
of Defense on measures to eliminate or mitigate organizational 
conflicts of interest in major defense acquisition programs. 
(2) CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS.—In developing 
the revised regulations required by subsection (a), the Secretary 
shall consider the following: 
(A) The recommendations presented by the Panel on 
Contracting Integrity pursuant to paragraph (1). 
(B) Any findings and recommendations of the Adminis-
trator for Federal Procurement Policy and the Director 
of the Office of Government Ethics pursuant to section 
841(b) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authoriza-
tion Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417; 122 
Stat. 4539). 
Deadline. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00273
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1730 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
(d) EXTENSION OF PANEL ON CONTRACTING INTEGRITY.—Sub-
section (e) of section 813 of the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 is amended to read as 
follows: 
‘‘(e) TERMINATION.— 
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the panel shall 
continue to serve until the date that is 18 months after the 
date on which the Secretary of Defense notifies the congres-
sional defense committees of an intention to terminate the 
panel based on a determination that the activities of the panel 
no longer justify its continuation and that concerns about con-
tracting integrity have been mitigated. 
‘‘(2) MINIMUM CONTINUING SERVICE.—The panel shall con-
tinue to serve at least until December 31, 2011.’’. 
TITLE III—ADDITIONAL ACQUISITION 
PROVISIONS 
SEC. 301. AWARDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL FOR 
EXCELLENCE IN THE ACQUISITION OF PRODUCTS AND 
SERVICES. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall commence 
carrying out a program to recognize excellent performance by 
individuals and teams of members of the Armed Forces and civilian 
personnel of the Department of Defense in the acquisition of prod-
ucts and services for the Department of Defense. 
(b) ELEMENTS.—The program required by subsection (a) shall 
include the following: 
(1) Procedures for the nomination by the personnel of the 
military departments and the Defense Agencies of individuals 
and teams of members of the Armed Forces and civilian per-
sonnel of the Department of Defense for eligibility for recogni-
tion under the program. 
(2) Procedures for the evaluation of nominations for recogni-
tion under the program by one or more panels of individuals 
from the Government, academia, and the private sector who 
have such expertise, and are appointed in such manner, as 
the Secretary shall establish for purposes of the program. 
(c) AWARD OF CASH BONUSES.—As part of the program required 
by subsection (a), the Secretary may award to any individual recog-
nized pursuant to the program a cash bonus authorized by any 
other provision of law to the extent that the performance of such 
individual so recognized warrants the award of such bonus under 
such provision of law. 
SEC. 302. EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT. 
(a) MODIFICATION OF ELEMENTS IN REPORT ON IMPLEMENTA-
TION.—Subsection (a) of section 887 of the Duncan Hunter National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110– 
417; 122 Stat. 4562) is amended by striking paragraph (7) and 
inserting the following new paragraphs: 
‘‘(7) A discussion of the methodology used to establish 
appropriate baselines for earned value management at the 
award of a contract or commencement of a program, whichever 
is earlier. 
Procedures. 
Deadline. 
10 USC 2302 
note. 
Notification. 
10 USC 2304 
note. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00274
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1731 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
‘‘(8) A discussion of the manner in which the Department 
ensures that personnel responsible for administering and over-
seeing earned value management systems have the training 
and qualifications needed to perform that responsibility. 
‘‘(9) A discussion of mechanisms to ensure that contractors 
establish and use approved earned value management systems, 
including mechanisms such as the consideration of the quality 
of contractor earned value management performance in past 
performance evaluations. 
‘‘(10) 
Recommendations 
for 
improving 
earned 
value 
management and its implementation within the Department, 
including— 
‘‘(A) a discussion of the merits of possible alternatives; 
and 
‘‘(B) a plan for implementing any improvements the 
Secretary determines to be appropriate.’’. 
(b) MODIFICATION OF REPORT DATE.—Subsection (b) of such 
section is amended by striking ‘‘270 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘October 14, 2009’’. 
SEC. 303. EXPANSION OF NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES OF THE 
NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL BASE. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2501(a) of title 10, United States 
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 
‘‘(6) Maintaining critical design skills to ensure that the 
armed forces are provided with systems capable of ensuring 
technological superiority over potential adversaries.’’. 
(b) ASSESSMENT
OF
EFFECT
OF
TERMINATION
OF
MAJOR 
DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS ON TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL 
CAPABILITIES.—Section 2505(b) of such title is amended— 
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end 
and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 
‘‘(4) consider the effects of the termination of major defense 
acquisition programs (as the term is defined in section 2430 
of this title) in the previous fiscal year on the sectors and 
capabilities in the assessment.’’. 
SEC. 304. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES REPORTS 
ON COSTS AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING 
MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS. 
(a) REVIEW
OF OPERATING
AND SUPPORT COSTS
OF MAJOR 
WEAPON SYSTEMS.— 
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
United States shall submit to the congressional defense commit-
tees a report on growth in operating and support costs for 
major weapon systems. 
(2) ELEMENTS.—In preparing the report required by para-
graph (1), the Comptroller General shall, at a minimum— 
(A) identify the original estimates for operating and 
support costs for major weapon systems selected by the 
Comptroller General for purposes of the report; 
(B) assess the actual operating and support costs for 
such major weapon systems; 
(C) analyze the rate of growth for operating and sup-
port costs for such major weapon systems; 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00275
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1732 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
(D) for such major weapon systems that have experi-
enced the highest rate of growth in operating and support 
costs, assess the factors contributing to such growth; 
(E) assess measures taken by the Department of 
Defense to reduce operating and support costs for major 
weapon systems; and 
(F) make such recommendations as the Comptroller 
General considers appropriate. 
(b) REVIEW OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION RELATING TO MAJOR 
DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.— 
(1) REVIEW.—The Comptroller General of the United States 
shall perform a review of weaknesses in operations affecting 
the reliability of financial information on the systems and assets 
to be acquired under major defense acquisition programs. 
(2) ELEMENTS.—The review required under paragraph (1) 
shall— 
(A) identify any weaknesses in operations under major 
defense acquisition programs that hinder the capacity to 
assemble reliable financial information on the systems and 
assets to be acquired under such programs in accordance 
with applicable accounting standards; 
(B) identify any mechanisms developed by the Depart-
ment of Defense to address weaknesses in operations under 
major defense acquisition programs identified pursuant to 
subparagraph (A); and 
(C) assess the implementation of the mechanisms set 
forth pursuant to subparagraph (B), including— 
(i) the actions taken, or planned to be taken, to 
implement such mechanisms; 
(ii) the schedule for carrying out such mechanisms; 
and 
(iii) the metrics, if any, instituted to assess 
progress in carrying out such mechanisms. 
(3) CONSULTATION.—In performing the review required by 
paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall seek and consider 
input from each of the following: 
(A) The Chief Management Officer of the Department 
of Defense. 
(B) The Chief Management Officer of the Department 
of the Army. 
(C) The Chief Management Officer of the Department 
of the Navy. 
(D) The Chief Management Officer of the Department 
of the Air Force. 
(4) REPORT.—Not later than one year after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00276
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6581
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB
123 STAT. 1733 
PUBLIC LAW 111–23—MAY 22, 2009 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 454 (H.R. 2101): 
HOUSE REPORTS: Nos. 111–101 (Comm. on Armed Services) and 111–124 
(Comm. of Conference) accompanying H.R. 2101. 
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009): 
May 6, 7, considered and passed Senate. 
May 13, considered and passed House, amended, in lieu of H.R. 2101 pursu-
ant to H. Res. 432. 
May 20, Senate agreed to conference report. 
May 21, House agreed to conference report. 
DAILY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS (2009): 
May 22, Presidential remarks. 
to the congressional defense committees a report on the results 
of the review required by paragraph (1). 
Approved May 22, 2009. 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
08:02 Sep 19, 2011
Jkt 079194
PO 00000
Frm 00277
Fmt 6580
Sfmt 6580
G:\GSDD\STATUTES\2009\79194PT2.001
MCNODE
jbender on DSKFWWRZC1 with $$_JOB