2011 US Code
Title 10 - Armed Forces
Subtitle A - General Military Law (§§ 101 - 2925)
Part IV - SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT (§§ 2201 - 2925)
Chapter 144 - MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS (§§ 2430 - 2440)
Section 2430 - Major defense acquisition program defined
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 144 - MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS Sec. 2430 - Major defense acquisition program defined |
Contains | section 2430 |
Date | 2011 |
Laws in Effect as of Date | January 3, 2012 |
Positive Law | Yes |
Disposition | standard |
Source Credit | Added Pub. L. 100-26, §7(b)(2)(A), Apr. 21, 1987, 101 Stat. 279; amended Pub. L. 102-484, div. A, title VIII, §817(b), Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2455; Pub. L. 104-106, div. A, title XV, §1502(a)(1), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 502; Pub. L. 106-65, div. A, title X, §1067(1), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 774; Pub. L. 111-23, title II, §206(b), May 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1728. |
Statutes at Large References | 101 Stat. 279 104 Stat. 1593 106 Stat. 2455, 2450 107 Stat. 1715, 1716, 1717, 1718 108 Stat. 2819, 2822, 3350, 3359, 3360 110 Stat. 502, 2604 111 Stat. 1845 113 Stat. 774 114 Stat. 1654 116 Stat. 2603 117 Stat. 1576 120 Stat. 2312, 2320, 2342 122 Stat. 278, 4528, 4530, 4539 123 Stat. 1728, 1704, 1714, 1715, 1720, 1722, 2403 124 Stat. 4264, 4265, 4321 125 Stat. 1482, 1504, 1506, 1509 |
Public Law References | Public Law 100-26, Public Law 101-510, Public Law 102-484, Public Law 103-160, Public Law 103-337, Public Law 103-355, Public Law 104-106, Public Law 104-201, Public Law 105-85, Public Law 106-65, Public Law 106-398, Public Law 107-314, Public Law 108-136, Public Law 109-364, Public Law 110-181, Public Law 110-417, Public Law 111-23, Public Law 111-84, Public Law 111-383, Public Law 112-81 |
Download PDF
(a) In this chapter, the term “major defense acquisition program” means a Department of Defense acquisition program that is not a highly sensitive classified program (as determined by the Secretary of Defense) and—
(1) that is designated by the Secretary of Defense as a major defense acquisition program; or
(2) that is estimated by the Secretary of Defense to require an eventual total expenditure for research, development, test, and evaluation of more than $300,000,000 (based on fiscal year 1990 constant dollars) or an eventual total expenditure for procurement, including all planned increments or spirals, of more than $1,800,000,000 (based on fiscal year 1990 constant dollars).
(b) The Secretary of Defense may adjust the amounts (and the base fiscal year) provided in subsection (a)(2) on the basis of Department of Defense escalation rates. An adjustment under this subsection shall be effective after the Secretary transmits a written notification of the adjustment to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.
(c) For purposes of subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall consider, 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) 1 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.
(Added Pub. L. 100–26, §7(b)(2)(A), Apr. 21, 1987, 101 Stat. 279; amended Pub. L. 102–484, div. A, title VIII, §817(b), Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2455; Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title XV, §1502(a)(1), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 502; Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title X, §1067(1), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 774; Pub. L. 111–23, title II, §206(b), May 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1728.)
References in TextSection 2366a(a)(4) of this title, referred to in subsec. (c)(2), was redesignated section 2366a(a)(7) of this title by Pub. L. 112–81, div. A, title VIII, §801(a)(1)(B), Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1482.
Amendments2009—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 111–23, §206(b)(1), inserted “, including all planned increments or spirals,” after “an eventual total expenditure for procurement”.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 111–23, §206(b)(2), added subsec. (c).
1999—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 106–65 substituted “and the Committee on Armed Services” for “and the Committee on National Security”.
1996—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–106 substituted “Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives” for “Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives”.
1992—Pub. L. 102–484 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), in par. (2) substituted “$300,000,000” for “$200,000,000”, “1990” for “1980” in two places, and “$1,800,000,000” for “$1,000,000,000”, and added subsec. (b).
Assessment, Management, and Control of Operating and Support Costs for Major Weapon SystemsPub. L. 112–81, div. A, title VIII, §832, Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1504, provided that:
“(a)
“(b)
“(1) be issued in conjunction with the comprehensive guidance on life-cycle management and the development and implementation of product support strategies for major weapon systems required by section 805 of the National Defenese [sic] Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84; 123 Stat. 2403; 10 U.S.C. 2301 [2302] note);
“(2) require the military departments to retain each estimate of operating and support costs that is developed at any time during the life cycle of a major weapon system, together with supporting documentation used to develop the estimate;
“(3) require the military departments to update estimates of operating and support costs periodically throughout the life cycle of a major weapon system, to determine whether preliminary information and assumptions remain relevant and accurate, and identify and record reasons for variances;
“(4) establish standard requirements for the collection of data on operating and support costs for major weapon systems and require the military departments to revise their Visibility and Management of Operating and Support Costs (VAMOSC) systems to ensure that they collect complete and accurate data in compliance with such requirements and make such data available in a timely manner;
“(5) establish standard requirements for the collection and reporting of data on operating and support costs for major weapon systems by contractors performing weapon system sustainment functions in an appropriate format, and develop contract clauses to ensure that contractors comply with such requirements;
“(6) require the military departments—
“(A) to collect and retain data from operational and developmental testing and evaluation on the reliability and maintainability of major weapon systems; and
“(B) to use such data to inform system design decisions, provide insight into sustainment costs, and inform estimates of operating and support costs for such systems;
“(7) require the military departments to ensure that sustainment factors are fully considered at key life cycle management decision points and that appropriate measures are taken to reduce operating and support costs by influencing system design early in development, developing sound sustainment strategies, and addressing key drivers of costs;
“(8) require the military departments to conduct an independent logistics assessment of each major weapon system prior to key acquisition decision points (including milestone decisions) to identify features that are likely to drive future operating and support costs, changes to system design that could reduce such costs, and effective strategies for managing such costs;
“(9) include—
“(A) reliability metrics for major weapon systems; and
“(B) requirements on the use of metrics under subparagraph (A) as triggers—
“(i) to conduct further investigation and analysis into drivers of those metrics; and
“(ii) to develop strategies for improving reliability, availability, and maintainability of such systems at an affordable cost; and
“(10) require the military departments to conduct periodic reviews of operating and support costs of major weapon systems after such systems achieve initial operational capability to identify and address factors resulting in growth in operating and support costs and adapt support strategies to reduce such costs.
“(c)
“(1)
“(2)
“(A) promptly receives the results of all cost estimates and cost analyses conducted by the military departments with regard to operating and support costs of major weapon systems;
“(B) has timely access to any records and data of the military departments (including classified and proprietary information) that the Director considers necessary to carry out such responsibility; and
“(C) with the concurrence of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, may direct the military departments to collect and retain information necessary to support the database.
“(d)
Pub. L. 111–383, div. A, title VIII, §812, Jan. 7, 2011, 124 Stat. 4264, as amended by Pub. L. 112–81, div. A, title VIII, §834, Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1506, provided that:
“(a)
“(b)
“(1) require the use of manufacturing readiness levels or other manufacturing readiness standards as a basis for measuring, assessing, reporting, and communicating manufacturing readiness and risk on major defense acquisition programs throughout the Department of Defense;
“(2) provide guidance on the definition of manufacturing readiness levels or other manufacturing readiness standards and how manufacturing readiness levels or other manufacturing readiness standards should be used to assess manufacturing risk and readiness in major defense acquisition programs;
“(3) specify manufacturing readiness levels or other manufacturing readiness standards that should be achieved at key milestones and decision points for major defense acquisition programs;
“(4) provide for the tailoring of manufacturing readiness levels or other manufacturing readiness standards to address the unique characteristics of specific industry sectors or weapon system portfolios;
“(5) identify tools and models that may be used to assess, manage, and reduce risks that are identified in the course of manufacturing readiness assessments for major defense acquisition programs; and
“(6) require appropriate consideration of the manufacturing readiness and manufacturing readiness processes of potential contractors and subcontractors as a part of the source selection process for major defense acquisition programs.
“(c)
“(1) the acquisition workforce chapter of the annual strategic workforce plan required by section 115b of title 10, United States Code, includes an assessment of the critical manufacturing readiness knowledge and skills needed in the acquisition workforce and a plan of action for addressing any gaps in such knowledge and skills; and
“(2) the need of the Department for manufacturing readiness knowledge and skills is given appropriate consideration, comparable to the consideration given to other program management functions, as the Department identifies areas of need for funding through the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund established in accordance with the requirements of section 1705 of title 10, United States Code.
“(d)
Pub. L. 111–23, title I, §102(b), May 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1714, as amended by Pub. L. 111–383, div. A, title VIII, §813(a), title IX, §901(l)(1), Jan. 7, 2011, 124 Stat. 4265, 4326, provided that:
“(1)
“(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 operational 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 preparation and approval of a developmental test and evaluation 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 acquisition program prior to Milestone A approval and Milestone B approval through a rigorous systems analysis and systems engineering process;
“(ii) include a robust program for improving reliability, 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)
“(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)
Pub. L. 111–23, title I, §103, May 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1715, which authorized the Secretary of Defense to designate a senior official as responsible for performance assessments and root cause analyses for major defense acquisition programs, was transferred to chapter 144 of this title and redesignated as section 2438 by Pub. L. 111–383, div. A, title IX, §901(d), Jan. 7, 2011, 124 Stat. 4321.
Acquisition Strategies To Ensure Competition Throughout the Lifecycle of Major Defense Acquisition ProgramsPub. L. 111–23, title II, §202, May 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1720, as amended by Pub. L. 112–81, div. A, title VIII, §837, Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1509, provided that:
“(a)
“(1) measures to ensure competition, or the option of competition, at both the prime contract level and the subcontract 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 selection of the subcontract tier or tiers under paragraph (1).
“(b)
“(1) Competitive prototyping.
“(2) Dual-sourcing.
“(3) Unbundling of contracts.
“(4) Funding of next-generation prototype systems or subsystems.
“(5) Use of modular, open architectures to enable competition 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)
“(1) requiring prime contractors to give full and fair consideration 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 determine 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)
“(e)
“(1)
“(2)
Pub. L. 111–23, title II, §203, May 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1722, as amended by Pub. L. 111–383, div. A, title VIII, §813(b), Jan. 7, 2011, 124 Stat. 4265, provided that:
“(a)
“(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 constant dollars) of producing such prototypes, including the benefits of improved performance and increased technological and design maturity that may be achieved through competitive prototyping; or
“(B) on the basis that, but for such waiver, the Department would be unable to meet critical national security objectives.
“(3) That whenever a Milestone Decision Authority authorizes 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 authorized and include in such notification the rationale for the waiver and the plan, if any, for producing a prototype.
“(4) That prototypes—
“(A) 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; and
“(B) may be acquired from commercial, government, or academic sources.
“(b)
“(1)
“(2)
“(A) review the rationale for the waiver; and
“(B) submit to the congressional defense committees a written assessment of the rationale for the waiver.”
Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Major Defense Acquisition ProgramsPub. L. 111–23, title II, §207(a)–(c), May 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1728, 1729, provided that:
“(a)
“(b)
“(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 integrator contracts on such programs, particularly contracts 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 business units or other affiliates of the same parent corporate entity, and particularly the award of subcontracts for software integration or the development of a proprietary software system architecture; or
“(D) the performance by, or assistance of, contractors in technical evaluations on major defense acquisition programs;
“(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 independent 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 participating 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 expertise, while ensuring that such advice comes from sources that are objective and unbiased.
“(c)
“(1)
“(2)
“(A) The recommendations presented by the Panel on Contracting Integrity pursuant to paragraph (1).
“(B) Any findings and recommendations of the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy and the Director of the Office of Government Ethics pursuant to section 841(b) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417; 122 Stat. 4539) [41 U.S.C. 2303 note].”
Configuration Steering Boards for Cost Control Under Major Defense Acquisition ProgramsPub. L. 110–417, [div. A], title VIII, §814, Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4528, provided that:
“(a)
“(b)
“(1)
“(2)
“(A) The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
“(B) The Chief of Staff of the Armed Force concerned.
“(C) Other Armed Forces, as appropriate.
“(D) The Joint Staff.
“(E) The Comptroller of the military department concerned.
“(F) The military deputy to the service acquisition executive concerned.
“(G) The program executive officer for the major defense acquisition program concerned.
“(H) Other senior representatives of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military department concerned, as appropriate.
“(c)
“(1)
“(A) Preventing unnecessary changes to program requirements and system configuration that could have an adverse impact on program cost or schedule.
“(B) Mitigating the adverse cost and schedule impact of any changes to program requirements or system configuration that may be required.
“(C) Ensuring that the program delivers as much planned capability as possible, at or below the relevant program baseline.
“(2)
“(A) review and approve or disapprove any proposed changes to program requirements or system configuration that have the potential to adversely impact program cost or schedule; and
“(B) review and recommend proposals to reduce program requirements that have the potential to improve program cost or schedule in a manner consistent with program objectives.
“(3)
“(4)
“(5)
“(A) increase the cost (including any increase for expected inflation or currency exchange rates) for system development and demonstration by more than 25 percent; or
“(B) extend the schedule for key events by more than 15 percent of the total number of months between the award of the system development and demonstration contract and the scheduled Milestone C approval date,
unless the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics certifies to the congressional defense committees [Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives], and includes in the certification supporting rationale, that approving such alteration to program requirements or system configuration is in the best interest of the Department of Defense despite the cost and schedule impacts to system development and demonstration of such program.
“(d)
“(1)
“(2)
“(e)
“(1) [Amended section 853(d)(2) of Pub. L. 109–364, set out below.]
“(2)
“(f)
Pub. L. 110–417, [div. A], title VIII, §815, Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4530, provided that:
“(a)
“(1) require that the milestone decision authority approve a plan, including the identification of any contract clauses, facilities, and funding required, for the preservation and storage of such tooling prior to Milestone C approval;
“(2) require that the milestone decision authority periodically review the plan required by paragraph (1) prior to the end of the service life of the end item, to ensure that the preservation and storage of such tooling remains adequate and in the best interest of the Department of Defense;
“(3) provide a mechanism for the Secretary to waive the requirement for preservation and storage of unique production tooling, or any category of unique production tooling, if the Secretary—
“(A) makes a written determination that such a waiver is in the best interest of the Department of Defense; and
“(B) notifies the congressional defense committees [Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives] of the waiver upon making such determination; and
“(4) provide such criteria as necessary to guide a determination made pursuant to paragraph (3)(A).
“(b)
“(1)
“(2)
“(3)
Pub. L. 110–181, div. A, title IX, §908(d), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 278, provided that: “Each Principal Military Deputy to a service acquisition executive shall be responsible for keeping the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces concerned informed of the progress of major defense acquisition programs.”
Requirements Management Certification Training ProgramPub. L. 109–364, div. A, title VIII, §801, Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2312, provided that:
“(a)
“(1)
“(2)
“(b)
“(c)
Pub. L. 109–364, div. A, title VIII, §853, Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2342, as amended by Pub. L. 110–417, [div. A], title VIII, §814(e)(1), Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4530, provided that:
“(a)
“(b)
“(1) enhanced training and educational opportunities for program managers;
“(2) increased emphasis on the mentoring of current and future program managers by experienced senior executives and program managers within the Department;
“(3) improved career paths and career opportunities for program managers;
“(4) additional incentives for the recruitment and retention of highly qualified individuals to serve as program managers;
“(5) improved resources and support (including systems engineering expertise, cost estimating expertise, and software development expertise) for program managers;
“(6) improved means of collecting and disseminating best practices and lessons learned to enhance program management throughout the Department;
“(7) common templates and tools to support improved data gathering and analysis for program management and oversight purposes;
“(8) increased accountability of program managers for the results of defense acquisition programs; and
“(9) enhanced monetary and nonmonetary awards for successful accomplishment of program objectives by program managers.
“(c)
“(d)
“(1) the need for a performance agreement between a program manager and the milestone decision authority for the program, setting forth expected parameters for cost, schedule, and performance, and appropriate commitments by the program manager and the milestone decision authority to ensure that such parameters are met;
“(2) authorities available to the program manager, including—
“(A) the authority to object to the addition of new program requirements that would be inconsistent with the parameters established at Milestone B (or Key Decision Point B in the case of a space program) and reflected in the performance agreement, unless such requirements are approved by the appropriate Configuration Steering Board; and
“(B) the authority to recommend to the appropriate Configuration Steering Board reduced program requirements that have the potential to improve program cost or schedule in a manner consistent with program objectives; and
“(3) the extent to which a program manager for such period should continue in the position without interruption until the delivery of the first production units of the program.
“(e)
“(1)
“(2)
Pub. L. 108–136, div. A, title IX, §924, Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1576, provided that:
“(a)
“(b)
“(2) The Secretary of Defense (acting through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) shall designate those projects under the National Security Agency Modernization Program that are to be managed as major defense acquisition programs.
“(c)
“(A) Each project of the National Security Agency Modernization Program that is to be managed as a major defense acquisition program, as designated under subsection (b).
“(B) Each major system under the National Security Agency Modernization Program.
“(2) The limitation in paragraph (1) shall terminate on, and the Under Secretary may delegate the milestone decision authority referred to in paragraph (1) to the Director of the National Security Agency at any time after, the date that is the later of—
“(A) September 30, 2005, or
“(B) the date on which the Under Secretary submits to the appropriate committees of Congress a notification described in paragraph (3).
“(3) A notification described in this paragraph is a notification by the Under Secretary of the Under Secretary's intention to delegate the milestone decision authority referred to in paragraph (1) to the Director of the National Security Agency, together with a detailed discussion of the justification for that delegation. Such a notification may not be submitted until—
“(A) the Under Secretary has determined (after consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence for Community Management) that the Director has implemented acquisition management policies, procedures, and practices that are sufficient to ensure that acquisitions by the National Security Agency are conducted in a manner consistent with sound, efficient acquisition practices;
“(B) the Under Secretary has consulted with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence for Community Management on the delegation of such milestone decision authority to the Director; and
“(C) the Secretary of Defense has approved the delegation of such milestone decision authority to the Director.
“(d)
“(1) The Trailblazer project.
“(2) The Groundbreaker project.
“(3) Each cryptological mission management project.
“(4) Each other project of that Agency that—
“(A) meets either of the dollar thresholds in effect under paragraph (2) of section 2430(a) of title 10, United States Code; and
“(B) is determined by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics as being a major project that is within, or properly should be within, the National Security Agency Modernization Project.
“(e)
“(1)
“(2)
“(A) The Committee on Armed Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
“(B) The Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.”
Spiral Development Under Major Defense Acquisition ProgramsPub. L. 107–314, div. A, title VIII, §803, Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2603, provided that:
“(a)
“(b)
“(c)
“(1) A rationale for dividing the research and development program into separate spirals, together with a preliminary identification of the spirals to be included.
“(2) A program strategy, including overall cost, schedule, and performance goals for the total research and development program.
“(3) Specific cost, schedule, and performance parameters, including measurable exit criteria, for the first spiral to be conducted.
“(4) A testing plan to ensure that performance goals, parameters, and exit criteria are met.
“(5) An appropriate limitation on the number of prototype units that may be produced under the research and development program.
“(6) Specific performance parameters, including measurable exit criteria, that must be met before the major defense acquisition program proceeds into production of units in excess of the limitation on the number of prototype units.
“(d)
“(e)
“(f)
“(g)
“(1) The term ‘spiral development program’, with respect to a research and development program, means a program that—
“(A) is conducted in discrete phases or blocks, each of which will result in the development of fieldable prototypes; and
“(B) will not proceed into acquisition until specific performance parameters, including measurable exit criteria, have been met.
“(2) The term ‘spiral’ means one of the discrete phases or blocks of a spiral development program.
“(3) The term ‘major defense acquisition program’ has the meaning given such term in section 139(a)(2)(B) of title 10, United States Code.”
Environmental Consequence Analysis of Major Defense Acquisition ProgramsPub. L. 103–337, div. A, title VIII, §815, Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2819, provided that:
“(a)
“(1) how to achieve the purposes and intent of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) by ensuring timely compliance for major defense acquisition programs (as defined in section 2430 of title 10, United States Code) through (A) initiation of compliance efforts before development begins, (B) appropriate environmental impact analysis in support of each milestone decision, and (C) accounting for all direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects before proceeding toward production; and
“(2) how to analyze, as early in the process as feasible, the life-cycle environmental costs for such major defense acquisition programs, including the materials to be used, the mode of operations and maintenance, requirements for demilitarization, and methods of disposal, after consideration of all pollution prevention opportunities and in light of all environmental mitigation measures to which the department expressly commits.
“(b)
“(c)
Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title VIII, §837, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1718, as amended by Pub. L. 103–355, title V, §5064(b)(2), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3360, provided that: “The Secretary of Defense shall take any additional actions that the Secretary considers necessary to waive regulations not required by statute that affect the efficiency of the contracting process within the Department of Defense. Such actions shall include, in the Secretary's discretion, developing methods to streamline the procurement process, streamlining the period for entering into contracts, and defining alternative techniques to reduce reliance on military specifications and standards, in contracts for the defense acquisition programs participating in the Defense Acquisition Pilot Program.”
Contract Administration: Performance Based Contract ManagementPub. L. 103–160, div. A, title VIII, §838, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1718, as amended by Pub. L. 103–355, title V, §5064(b)(3), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3360, provided that: “For at least one participating defense acquisition program for which a determination is made to make payments for work in progress under the authority of section 2307 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of Defense should define payment milestones on the basis of quantitative measures of results.”
Defense Acquisition Pilot ProgramPub. L. 104–201, div. A, title VIII, §803, Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2604, as amended by Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title VIII, §847(b)(2), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1845, provided that:
“(a)
“(b)
“(1) determines (without delegation) that such test would be unreasonably expensive or impractical;
“(2) develops a suitable alternate operational test program for the system concerned;
“(3) describes in the test and evaluation master plan, as approved by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the method of evaluation that will be used to evaluate whether the system will be effective and suitable for combat; and
“(4) submits to the congressional defense committees [Committees on Armed Services and on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives] a report containing the determination that was made under paragraph (1), a justification for that determination, and a copy of the plan required by paragraph (3).
“(c)
Pub. L. 103–355, title V, §5064, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3359, as amended by Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [[div. A], title VIII, §801(a), (b)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–202, 1654A–203, provided that:
“(a)
“(1)
“(2)
“(3)
“(4)
“(A) All contracts directly related to the acquisition or upgrading of commercial-derivative aircraft for use in meeting airlift and tanker requirements and the air vehicle component for airborne warning and control systems.
“(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘commercial-derivative aircraft’ means any of the following:
“(i) Any aircraft (including spare parts, support services, support equipment, technical manuals, and data related thereto) that is or was of a type customarily used in the course of normal business operations for other than Federal Government purposes, that has been issued a type certificate by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, and that has been sold or leased for use in the commercial marketplace or that has been offered for sale or lease for use in the commercial marketplace.
“(ii) Any aircraft that, but for modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace, or minor modifications made to meet Federal Government requirements, would satisfy or would have satisfied the criteria in subclause (I).
“(iii) For purposes of a potential complement or alternative to the C–17 program, any nondevelopmental airlift aircraft, other than the C–17 or any aircraft derived from the C–17, shall be considered a commercial-derivative aircraft.
“(5)
“(b)
“(2) [Amended section 837 of Pub. L. 103–160, set out above.]
“(3) [Amended section 838 of Pub. L. 103–160, set out above.]
“(4) Not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 [Oct. 13, 1994], the Secretary of Defense shall identify for each defense acquisition program participating in the pilot program quantitative measures and goals for reducing acquisition management costs.
“(5) For each defense acquisition program participating in the pilot program, the Secretary of Defense shall establish a review process that provides senior acquisition officials with reports on the minimum necessary data items required to ensure the appropriate expenditure of funds appropriated for the program and that—
“(A) contain essential information on program results at appropriate intervals, including the criteria to be used in measuring the success of the program; and
“(B) reduce data requirements from the current program review reporting requirements.
“(c)
“(1) to apply any amendment or repeal of a provision of law made in this Act [see Tables for classification] to the pilot programs before the effective date of such amendment or repeal [see Effective Date of 1994 Amendment note set out under section 2302 of this title]; and
“(2) to apply to a procurement of items other than commercial items under such programs—
“(A) any authority provided in this Act (or in an amendment made by a provision of this Act) to waive a provision of law in the case of commercial items, and
“(B) any exception applicable under this Act (or an amendment made by a provision of this Act) in the case of commercial items,
before the effective date of such provision (or amendment) to the extent that the Secretary determines necessary to test the application of such waiver or exception to procurements of items other than commercial items.
“(d)
“(A) a contract that is awarded or modified during the period described in paragraph (2); and
“(B) a contract that is awarded before the beginning of such period and is to be performed (or may be performed), in whole or in part, during such period.
“(2) The period referred to in paragraph (1) is the period that begins on October 13, 1994, and ends on October 1, 2007.
“(e)
Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title VIII, §819, Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2822, provided that: “The Secretary of Defense is authorized to designate the following defense acquisition programs for participation, to the extent provided in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 [Pub. L. 103–355, see Tables for classification], in the defense acquisition pilot program authorized by section 809 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 [Pub. L. 101–510] (10 U.S.C. 2430 note):
“(1) The Fire Support Combined Arms Tactical Trainer program.
“(2) The Joint Direct Attack Munition program.
“(3) The Joint Primary Aircraft Training System.
“(4) Commercial-derivative aircraft.
“(5) Commercial-derivative engine.”
Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title VIII, §833, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1716, as amended by Pub. L. 103–355, title V, §5064(b)(1), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3360, provided that:
“(a)
“(b)
Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title VIII, §835(b), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1717, related to funding for Defense Acquisition Pilot Program, and authorized the Secretary of Defense to expend appropriated sums as necessary to carry out next phase of acquisition program cycle after Secretary determined that objective quantifiable performance expectations relating to execution of that phase had been identified, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–355, title V, §5002(b), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3350.
Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title VIII, §839, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1718, provided that:
“(a)
“(b)
Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title VIII, §809, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1593, as amended by Pub. L. 102–484, div. A, title VIII, §811, Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2450; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title VIII, §832, Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1715, provided that:
“(a)
“(b)
“(2) The Secretary may designate for participation in the pilot program only those defense acquisition programs specifically authorized to be so designated in a law authorizing appropriations for such program enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 5, 1990].
“(c)
“(A) shall conduct the program in accordance with standard commercial, industrial practices; and
“(B) may waive or limit the applicability of any provision of law that is specifically authorized to be waived in the law authorizing appropriations referred to in subsection (b)(2) and that prescribes—
“(i) procedures for the procurement of supplies or services;
“(ii) a preference or requirement for acquisition from any source or class of sources;
“(iii) any requirement related to contractor performance;
“(iv) any cost allowability, cost accounting, or auditing requirements; or
“(v) any requirement for the management of, testing to be performed under, evaluation of, or reporting on a defense acquisition program.
“(2) The waiver authority provided in paragraph (1)(B) does not apply to a provision of law if, as determined by the Secretary—
“(A) a purpose of the provision is to ensure the financial integrity of the conduct of a Federal Government program; or
“(B) the provision relates to the authority of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense.
“(d)
“(e)
“(2) If the Secretary proposes to waive or limit the applicability of any provision of law to a defense acquisition program under the pilot program in accordance with this section, the Secretary shall include in the notification regarding that acquisition program—
“(A) the provision of law proposed to be waived or limited;
“(B) the effects of such provision of law on the acquisition, including specific examples;
“(C) the actions taken to ensure that the waiver or limitation will not reduce the efficiency, integrity, and effectiveness of the acquisition process used for the defense acquisition program; and
“(D) a discussion of the efficiencies or savings, if any, that will result from the waiver or limitation.
“(f)
“(1) The requirements of this section.
“(2) The requirements contained in any law enacted on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 5, 1990] if that law designates such defense acquisition program as a participant in the pilot program, except to the extent that a waiver of such requirement is specifically authorized for such defense acquisition program in a law enacted on or after such date.
“(g)
Pub. L. 111–23, §2, May 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 1704, provided that: “In this Act [see Short Title of 2009 Amendment note set out under section 101 of this title]:
“(1) The term ‘congressional defense committees’ has the meaning given that term in section 101(a)(16) of title 10, United States Code.
“(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) [probably means section 2379(f)] of title 10, United States Code.”
1 See References in Text note below.
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.