How To Use the NDAA Pages

Back to NDAA Contents

TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS

Legislative Provisions Not Adopted

House Conference Report. 115-404

Sections of Senate and House Bills Not Adapted

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 801) that would repeal section 325 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2253), one year after the date of enactment of this Act.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 807) that would require the Secretary of Defense to establish and implement a policy that would ensure the acquisition programs of major systems establish cost, schedule, and performance goals at the onset of the program, as well as throughout the program.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 811) that would add a new subsection to section 2304 of title 10, United States Code, that would grant discretionary authority to the Secretary of Defense to expand competition for Department of Defense (DOD) contracts where there is only one responsible bidder for any provision of law other than subsection 2304(c) of title 10, United States Code.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 815) that would amend section 2372 of title 10, United States Code, to modify the requirements for the Secretary of Defense to create an Advisory Panel Related to the Goal for Reimbursable Bid and Proposal Costs. The panel should be established if the amount of reimbursable bid and proposal costs paid by the Department of Defense for a fiscal year exceeds 0.75 percent of the total aggregate industry sales to the Department for the fiscal year and it should be created by the Secretary within 180 days of exceeding such threshold.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

The conferees direct the 809 Panel to review the amount of reimbursable bid and proposal costs paid by the Department of Defense and make recommendations as part of its current activities.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 816) that would amend section 2302(9) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the definition of a nontraditional contractor to better align with the definition of an entity, which was intended to be interpreted as allowing specific business units within a corporation to be considered as nontraditional contractors.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

The conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to undertake an analysis and provide a one-time report to the congressional defense committees describing the cases in which the Department of Defense should recognize nontraditional contractors, current approaches for doing so, and recommendations for improvements to streamline access to commercial business entities, including through the defense industrial base, in support of defense technology needs.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 817) that would clarify that the domestic source restrictions authorized under the Berry Amendment do not apply to wearable electronics. The committee notes that these technologies will provide advanced communications, sensing, and medical diagnostics capabilities to operational forces.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

The conferees note that these technologies continue to mature and create opportunities to provide advanced communications, sensing, and medical diagnostics capabilities to operational forces. The conferees urge the Department of Defense to continue to explore opportunities to leverage the best wearable electronics and advanced fabrics available to equip our nation’s war-fighters with the most modern capabilities to increase their ability to survive and their effectiveness.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 820) that would amend section 876 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) to require the Secretary of Defense to identify those industry subcategories in facilities-related services, knowledge-based services (excluding engineering services), construction services, medical services, or transportation services in which there are significant numbers of commercial services providers able to meet the requirements of the Department of Defense.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

The conferees expect the Secretary of Defense, when promulgating regulations in accordance with section 876 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328), to identify subcategories in facilities-related services, knowledge-based services, construction services, medical services, or transportation services in which there are significant numbers of commercial services providers able to meet the requirements of the Department of Defense.

(1) by striking “Not later than” and inserting “(a) In General.—Not later than”; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

“(b) Identification Of Industry Subcategories.—In preparing the guidance required under subsection (a), the Secretary shall identify those industry subcategories in facilities-related services, knowledge-based services (except engineering services), construction services, medical services, or transportation services in which there are significant numbers of commercial services providers able to meet the requirements of the Department of Defense.”.

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 824) that would amend sections 3014, 5014, and 8014 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to exceed statutory personnel caps for civilian employees when hiring acquisition oversight personnel from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics or requirements personnel from the Joint Staff that supported the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The House recedes.

The conferees note that the Department should make every effort to retain experienced acquisition and technical talent, especially when executing budget reductions, office reorganization, and mandatory headquarters personnel reductions.

(a) Office Of The Secretary Of The Army Maximum Number Of Personnel.—Section 3014(f) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

“(6) The limitation in paragraph (1) may be exceeded if a civilian employee is assigned on permanent duty in the Office of the Secretary of the Army or on the Army Staff and—

“(A) the employee was employed immediately preceding that assignment either—

“(i) in a position within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics that had responsibility for oversight of acquisition programs or processes prior to February 1, 2018, and that was determined to be no longer needed as a result of section 901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328; 130 Stat. 2339) and the amendments made by that section; or

“(ii) in a Joint Staff position that supported the Joint Requirements Oversight Council prior to December 23, 2016, and that was determined to be no longer needed as a result of section 925 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328; 130 Stat. 2359) and the amendments made by that section; and

“(B) the position described in subparagraph (A) is not filled by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment or the Joint Staff after the employee’s permanent duty assignment.”.

(b) Office Of The Secretary Of The Navy Maximum Number Of Personnel.—Section 5014(f) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

“(6) The limitation in paragraph (1) may be exceeded if a civilian employee is assigned on permanent duty in the Department of the Navy or assigned or detailed to permanent duty in the Office of the Secretary of the Navy, the Office of Chief of Naval Operations, or the Headquarters, Marine Corps, and—

“(A) the employee was employed immediately preceding that assignment either—

“(i) in a position within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics that had responsibility for oversight of acquisition programs or processes prior to February 1, 2018, and that was determined to be no longer needed as a result of section 901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328; 130 Stat. 2339) and the amendments made by that section; or

“(ii) in a Joint Staff position that supported the Joint Requirements Oversight Council prior to December 23, 2016, and that was determined to be no longer needed as a result of section 925 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328; 130 Stat. 2359) and the amendments made by that section; and

“(B) the position described in subparagraph (A) is not filled by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment or the Joint Staff after the employee’s permanent duty assignment.”.

(c) Office Of The Secretary Of The Air Force Maximum Number Of Personnel.—Section 8014(f) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

“(6) The limitation in paragraph (1) may be exceeded if a civilian employee is assigned on permanent duty in the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force or on the Air Staff and—

“(A) the employee was employed immediately preceding that assignment either—

“(i) in a position within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics that had responsibility for oversight of acquisition programs or processes prior to February 1, 2018, and that was determined to be no longer needed as a result of section 901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328; 130 Stat. 2339) and the amendments made by that section; or

“(ii) in a Joint Staff position that supported the Joint Requirements Oversight Council prior to December 23, 2016, and that was determined to be no longer needed as a result of section 925 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328; 130 Stat. 2359) and the amendments made by that section; and

“(B) the position described in subparagraph (A) is not filled by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment or the Joint Staff after the employee’s permanent duty assignment.”.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 824) that would amend section 814 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) in order to restrict the Department of Defense (DOD) from the use of reverse auctions and lowest price technically acceptable contracting methods when procuring critical safety equipment.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

(1) in the section heading, by inserting “AND SAFETY EQUIPMENT” after “PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT”; and

(2) by inserting “and safety equipment” after “personal protective equipment”.

(b) Conforming Amendments.—The tables of sections in section 2(b) of such Act and at the beginning of title VIII of such Act are amended in the item relating to section 814 by inserting “and safety equipment” after “personal protective equipment”.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 831) that would express the Sense of Congress with respect to Department of Defense promotion of contractor compliance with existing law.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

The conferees note the following: (1) the Department of Defense should aim to ensure that parties contracting with the Federal Government abide by existing law, including worker protection laws; (2) worker protection laws, including chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code (commonly known as the “Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994” or “USERRA”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), were enacted to ensure equitable workplace practices; (3) identifying and helping to improve the compliance of contractors with worker protection violations will help avoid setbacks and delays stemming from contracting with non-compliant contractors; and (4) the Secretary of Defense has the authority to ensure contractors’ compliance with existing laws and should establish a goal to work with responsible contractors who are in compliance with worker protection laws.

(1) the Department of Defense should aim to ensure that parties contracting with the Federal Government abide by existing law, including worker protection laws;

(2) worker protection laws, including chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code (commonly known as the “Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994” or “USERRA”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), were enacted to ensure equitable workplace practices;

(3) identifying and helping to improve the compliance of contractors with worker protection violations will help avoid setbacks and delays stemming from contracting with noncompliant contractors; and

(4) the Secretary of Defense has the authority to ensure contractors’ compliance with existing laws and should establish a goal to work with responsible contractors who are in compliance with worker protection laws.

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 832) that would amend require greater transparency in the budget requests for major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs). This provision would also require Budget justification documents for MDAPs to separately depict funding for developmental and operational testing and evaluation, the purchase of cost data from contractors, and the purchase or license of technical data.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The House recedes.

(a) In General.—Chapter 144 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2433a the following new section:

Ҥ 2434. Major defense acquisition programs: display of budget information

“(a) In General.—In the defense budget materials for fiscal year 2020 and each subsequent fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the funding requirements listed in subsection (b) are displayed separately for major defense acquisition programs, as defined in section 2340 of title 10, United States Code.

“(b) Requirements For Budget Display.—The budget justification display for a fiscal year shall include the funding requirement for each major defense acquisition program, including all sources of appropriations—

“(1) for developmental test and evaluation;

“(2) for operational test and evaluation;

“(3) for the purchase of cost data from contractors; and

“(4) for the purchase or license of technical data.

“(c) Definitions.—In this section, the terms ‘budget’ and ‘defense budget materials’ have the meaning given those terms in section 234 of this title.”.

(b) Clerical Amendment.—The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2433a following new item:

“2434. Major defense acquisition programs: display of budget information.”.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 851) that would amend section 2376 of title 10, United States Code, to amend the definition of "commercial item" for minor modifications to ensure that government-unique systems and technologies are not treated as commercial items.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking “‘commercial item’,”; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

“(4) The term ‘commercial item’ has the meaning given the term in section 103 of title 41, except that it does not include an item referred to in paragraph (3)(B) of such section if, after the minor modifications made to meet Federal Government requirements referred to in such paragraph, the item includes a preponderance of government-unique functions or essential characteristics.”.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 854) that would amend section 2377(b) of title 10, United States Code, to ensure that the acquisition of commercial items and nondevelopmental items take priority over any small business set-aside program that would result in a non-commercial offering but to clarify that contracts for commercial items may be set aside for small business.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (6) as subparagraphs (A) through (F), respectively, and moving such subparagraphs, as so redesignated, two ems to the right;

(2) by striking “The head” and inserting “(1) The head”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

“(2) The preference for the acquisition of commercial items and nondevelopmental items under this section shall take priority over any small business set-aside program, and shall require, to the maximum extent practicable, the acquisition of commercial items or nondevelopmental items other than commercial items in accordance with the terms of this section. If the requirements of an agency with respect to a procurement of supplies or services can be met with commercial items or nondevelopmental items other than commercial items provided by a small business concern, the small business concern may be awarded the contract in accordance with the requirements of a set-aside program.”.

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 860A) that would amend subparagraph (B) of section 1908(b)(2) of title 41, United States Code, by inserting “3131 to 3134,” after “sections”.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The House recedes.

Subparagraph (B) of section 1908(b)(2) of title 41, United States Code, is amended by inserting “3131 to 3134,” after “sections”.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 865) that would amend section 2533a of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that the requirement pertaining to procurement of items grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States does not preclude the acquisition of items as part of a weapon system if the acquisition is necessary in furtherance of an agreement with a foreign government in which both governments agree to remove barriers to purchases of supplies produced in the other country or services performed by sources of the other country.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

(1) in subsection (a), by striking “subsections (c) through (h)” and inserting “subsections (c) through (i)”;

(2) by redesignating subsections (i), (j), and (k) as subsections (j), (k), and (l), respectively; and

(3) by inserting after subsection (h) the following new subsection:

“(i) Exception Relating To Agreements With Foreign Governments.—Subsection (a) does not preclude the acquisition of items described in subsection (b) as part of a weapon system if the acquisition is necessary in furtherance of an agreement with a foreign government in which both governments agree to remove barriers to purchases of supplies produced in the other country or services performed by sources of the other country.”.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 867) that would require the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to establish a structure implementing a revised program export licensing framework in order to provide comprehensive export licensing authorization to support large international cooperative defense programs between multiple nations and determine what, if any, regulatory authorities require modification.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

The conferees note that large international cooperative defense programs between multiple nations, such as the Joint Strike Fighter, have the potential to overwhelm current program licensing systems. The conferees therefore direct the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and Secretary of Commerce, to undertake a review of the program export licensing framework to identify the changes, if any, required to support these types of programs and recommendations on how to implement such changes. The conferees further direct the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Commerce, jointly to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on the results of the review.

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 870) that would extend the cap on spending for services contracts by the Department of Defense through fiscal year 2018.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The House recedes.

(a) Limitation.—Except as provided in subsection (b)(1), the total amount obligated by the Department of Defense for contract services in fiscal year 2018 may not exceed the total amount requested for the Department for contract services in the budget of the President for fiscal year 2010 (as submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code) adjusted for net transfers from funding for overseas contingency operations.

(b) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) CONTRACT SERVICES.—The term “contract services” has the meaning given that term in section 235 of title 10, United States Code, except that the term does not include services that are funded out of amounts available for overseas contingency operations.

(2) TRANSFERS FROM FUNDING FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.—The term “transfers from funding for overseas contingency operations” means amounts funded out of amounts available for overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 that are funded out of amounts other than amounts so available in fiscal year 2018.

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 872) that would express the sense of Congress that a strong domestic iron ore and steel industry is vital to the national security of the United States.

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

The House recedes.

(a) Findings.—Congress finds the following:

(1) Frequent surges in unfairly trade steel imports have materially injured the iron ore and steel industries in the United States, putting our national, economic, and energy security at risk.

(2) High-quality American steel products are vital to the success of the United States military and are used in a variety of applications from aircraft carriers to armor plate for tanks.

(3) Domestic producers of defense-related steel products are dependent on the overall financial health of the iron ore and steel industries in the United States.

(4) The loss of a strong domestic iron ore and steel industry would make the United States dangerously dependent upon foreign sources of steel, such as China.

(b) Sense Of Congress.—It is the sense of Congress that a strong domestic iron ore and steel industry is vital to the national security of the United States.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 891) that would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from entering into a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement for congressional special interest medical research program under the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program of the Department of Defense unless there is sufficient compliance with cost accounting standards and other specified requirements.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

(1) Compliance with the cost and price data requirements under section 2306a of title 10, United States Code.

(2) Compliance with the cost accounting standards under section 1502 of title 41, United States Code.

(3) Compliance with requirements for full and open competition under section 2304 of title 10, United States Code, without reliance on one of the exceptions set forth in subsection (c) of such section.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 892) that would require special interest medical research programs under the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program of the Department of Defense to include agreements that provide the United States Government with the same rights to the technical data that apply to items or processes developed under the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement as applicable under section 2320(a)(2)(A) of title 10, United States Code, to items and processes developed exclusively with federal funds.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 893) that would require the Defense Contract Audit Agency to certify the adequacy of the accounting systems and perform an incurred cost audit prior to the obligation of funds for congressional special interest medical research programs under the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program of the Department of Defense.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

(1) Prior to obligation of any funds, review by and certification from the Defense Contract Audit Agency regarding the adequacy of the accounting systems of the proposed awardee, including a forward pricing review of the awardee's proposal.

(2) Prior to any payment on the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement, performance by the Defense Contract Audit Agency of an incurred cost audit.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 896) that would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a pilot program for the United States Army Corps of Engineers for purposes of adopting an acquisition strategy for insurance required by the Defense Base Act (32 U.S.C. 1651, et seq.) in order the minimize the cost of such insurance to the Department of Defense. The contract entered into under this authority would be effective for at least 3 years, or as considered appropriate by the Secretary. The committee notes that this provision is not intended to change policies on support of workmen’s compensation or reduce compensation practices. The committee believes that the provision should result in a more efficient acquisition strategy that reduces costs to the Department of Defense.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

The conferees encourage the Department of Defense to continue working on innovative programmatic improvements for savings and efficiencies relative to the insurance required under the Defense Base Act.

(1) Minimize overhead costs associated with obtaining insurance required by the Defense Base Act, such as direct or indirect costs for contract management and contract administration.

(2) Minimize costs for coverage of such insurance consistent with realistic assumptions regarding the likelihood of incurred claims by contractors of the Department and USACE.

(3) Provide for a correlation of premiums paid in relation to claims incurred that is modeled on best practices in government and industry for similar kinds of insurance.

(4) Provide for a competitive marketplace for insurance required by the Defense Base Act to the maximum extent practicable.

(c) Single Contract.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In adopting the pilot program acquisition strategy pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary shall enter into a single Defense Base Act insurance contract for USACE for contracts involving performance in all theaters, and potentially including combat operations.

(2) SCOPE.—The contract shall extend to all categories of insurance coverage, including construction, aviation, security, and services contracts.

(3) TERM.—The contract entered into under this subsection shall be in effect for at least 3 years, or as considered appropriate by the Secretary.

(d) Report.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the pilot program and the acquisition strategy adopted pursuant to subsection (a).

(2) ELEMENTS.—The report required under paragraph (1) shall include—

(A) a discussion of each of the options considered and the extent to which each option addresses the criteria identified under subsection (b); and

(B) a plan to implement within 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act the acquisition strategy adopted by the Secretary.

(e) Review And Renewal Of Pilot Program And Acquisition Strategy.—The Secretary shall review the pilot program and may renew the program, provided that the objectives have been reached.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 899) that would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees, no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act and annually for 5 years afterwards, a report listing all contracts entered into during the previous fiscal year using procedures under part 15 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation where the prime contractor limited the intellectual property rights of one or more subcontractors without being required to do so by the United States Government.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

The conferees note that prime contractors may not limit subcontractor intellectual property rights except when required by the Department of Defense.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 6608) that would require the Comptroller General of the United States to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on any telecommunications equipment, technologies, or services used by the Department of Defense or its subcontractors that is manufactured by, or from an entity that incorporates information technology manufactured by a foreign supplier or contractor associated with, a leading cyber-threat actor.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

(1) manufactured by a foreign supplier, or a contractor or subcontractor of such supplier, that is closely linked to a leading cyber-threat actor; or

(2) from an entity that incorporates or utilizes information technology manufactured by a foreign supplier, or a contractor or subcontractor of such supplier, that is closely linked to a leading cyber-threat actor.

(b) Form.—The report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

(c) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) The term “leading cyber-threat actor” means a country identified as a leading threat actor in cyberspace in the report entitled “Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community”, dated May 11, 2017, and includes the People's Republic of China, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation.

(2) The term “closely linked”, with respect to a foreign supplier, contractor, or subcontrator and a leading cyber-threat actor, means the foreign supplier, contractor, or subcontractor—

(A) has ties to the military forces of such actor;

(B) has ties to the intelligence services of such actor;

(C) is the beneficiary of significant low interest or no-interest loans, loan forgiveness, or other support of such actor; or

(D) is incorporated or headquartered in the territory of such actor.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 10302) that would express the Sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should allocate funding to sustain the F107 turbine engine and contract with multiple, capable engine manufacturers to stabilize the United States small turbine engine industrial base.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

The conferees recognize the importance of low cost turbine engines in powering munitions that support operations in the various combatant command areas of responsibility, and are aware that technology for high-efficiency, low-cost systems may be available. Low-cost is driven by competition, as well as small business participation. Therefore, the conferees encourage the Department of Defense to adequately resource efforts to identify low-cost, small engine technologies capable of powering missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles, and directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee and House Armed Services Committee by September 1, 2018, on current research and development efforts and the industrial base which supports this area.

(1) The United States small turbine engine industry has been innovating, developing, producing, and sustaining small gas turbine engines in a competitive market for more than 75 years.

(2) The United States small turbine engine industrial base has made the United States the knowledge leader in low cost, no maintenance engine designs with unmatched field reliability.

(3) The United States small turbine engine industrial base is at a critical juncture, as military requirements have tapered and missile programs, in misguided attempts to save money, are narrowing production contracts to a single vendor causing two of the three existing small turbine engine manufacturers to go out of business.

(4) The departure of these companies from the United States small turbine engine industry will leave only one viable, proven source for small turbine engines for the Department of Defense.

(5) In 2016, a number of engine failures were encountered that severely diminished the throughput of the F107–WR–101 engine maintenance process for the AGM–86 Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM), thereby putting the weapon system at major readiness risk.

(6) The narrowing of the United States small turbine engine industrial base would leave the Department with a sole source United States supplier resulting in a loss of manufacturing and testing capability that would be extremely detrimental to both the United States industrial base and national security by creating a single point of failure, increasing engine procurement and testing prices by eliminating competition, raising new engine development and air vehicle program risk, and eliminating capabilities and expertise that would require decades and millions of dollars to reconstitute.

(b) Sense Of Congress.—It is the sense of the Congress that the Department of Defense should—

(1) allocate sufficient funding to properly sustain the F107 turbine engine in order to ensure this vital weapon is viable until a replacement is fielded; and

(2) contract with multiple, capable engine manufacturers to stabilize and revitalize the United States small turbine engine industrial base.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 10802) that would amend section 3(p)(4)(C) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)(4)(C)) to expand the ability of small businesses in rural areas to participate in the Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) program.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 14008) that would require a Comptroller General review of Buy America training for the defense acquisition workforce.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The Senate recedes.

The conferees note that the Inspector General of the Department of Defense has found deficiencies in the adherence to the provisions of the Buy America Act and has recommended improvements in training for the Defense acquisition workforce. Therefore, the conferees direct the Secretary of Defense to develop a report to Congress on Buy American training policies for the defense acquisition workforce. The report shall include a summary and assessment of mandated training courses for Department of Defense acquisition personnel responsible for procuring items that are subject to the Berry Amendment and Buy America Act. The report shall be delivered to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act.

(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 committees a report evaluating Buy American training policies for the Defense acquisition workforce.

(2) ELEMENTS.—The report shall include the following elements:

(A) A summary and assessment of mandated training courses for Department of Defense acquisition personnel responsible for procuring items that are subject to the Berry Amendment and Buy American Act.

(B) Options for alternative training models for contracting personnel on Buy American and Berry Amendment requirements.