2011 US Code
Title 10 - Armed Forces
Subtitle A - General Military Law (§§ 101 - 2925)
Part IV - SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT (§§ 2201 - 2925)
Chapter 141 - MISCELLANEOUS PROCUREMENT PROVISIONS (§§ 2381 - 2410q)
Section 2399 - Operational test and evaluation of defense acquisition programs
View MetadataPublication Title | United States Code, 2006 Edition, Supplement 5, Title 10 - ARMED FORCES |
Category | Bills and Statutes |
Collection | United States Code |
SuDoc Class Number | Y 1.2/5: |
Contained Within | Title 10 - ARMED FORCES Subtitle A - General Military Law PART IV - SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT CHAPTER 141 - MISCELLANEOUS PROCUREMENT PROVISIONS Sec. 2399 - Operational test and evaluation of defense acquisition programs |
Contains | section 2399 |
Date | 2011 |
Laws in Effect as of Date | January 3, 2012 |
Positive Law | Yes |
Disposition | standard |
Source Credit | Added Pub. L. 101-189, div. A, title VIII, §802(a)(1), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1484; 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. |
Statutes at Large References | 96 Stat. 1293 102 Stat. 846 103 Stat. 1484, 1483 106 Stat. 2458 107 Stat. 1728 108 Stat. 2856 110 Stat. 504 113 Stat. 774 115 Stat. 1225 116 Stat. 2650 117 Stat. 1611 120 Stat. 2131 124 Stat. 4267 |
Public Law References | Public Law 97-295, Public Law 100-370, Public Law 101-189, Public Law 102-484, Public Law 103-160, Public Law 103-337, Public Law 104-106, Public Law 106-65, Public Law 107-107, Public Law 107-314, Public Law 108-136, Public Law 109-364, Public Law 111-383 |
Download PDF
(a)
(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 within the meaning of that term in section 2302(5) of this title.
(B) The term “covered designated major subprogram” means a major subprogram designated under section 2430a(a)(1) of this title that is a major subprogram of a covered major defense acquisition program.
(b)
(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, Technology, and Logistics, 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)
(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)
(e)
(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)
(g)
(h)
(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; 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.)
Prior ProvisionsA prior section 2399, added Pub. L. 97–295, §1(29)(A), Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1293, which related to limitation on availability of appropriations to reimburse a contractor for the cost of commercial insurance, was repealed by Pub. L. 100–370, §1(f)(2)(B), July 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 846, and was restated in section 2324(e)(1)(L) of this title by section 1(f)(2)(A) of Pub. L. 100–370.
Amendments2011—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).
Assessment of Risk in Concurrent Development of Major Defense Acquisition SystemsPub. L. 101–189, div. A, title VIII, §801, Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1483, provided that:
“(a)
“(1) determining the degree of concurrency that is appropriate for the development of major defense acquisition systems; and
“(2) assessing the degree of risk associated with various degrees of concurrency.
“(b)
“(c)
“(2) The report shall include consideration of the following matters with respect to each such program:
“(A) The degree of confidence in the enemy threat assessment for establishing the system's requirements.
“(B) The type of contract involved.
“(C) The degree of stability in program funding.
“(D) The level of maturity of technology involved in the system.
“(E) The availability of adequate test assets, including facilities and ranges.
“(F) The plans for transition from development to production.
“(d)
“(e)
Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. The United States Government Printing Office may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the US site. Please check official sources.