Back to NDAA 2008 Contents

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

Subtitle B — Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs

NDAA Section

House Conference Report 110-477

SEC. 813. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE FOR MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.

(a) Report Required- 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 on potential modifications of the organization and structure of the Department of Defense for major defense acquisition programs.

(b) Elements- The report required by subsection (a) shall include the results of a review, conducted by the Comptroller General for purposes of the report, regarding the feasibility and advisability of, at a minimum, the following:

(1) Revising the acquisition process for major defense acquisition programs by establishing shorter, more frequent acquisition program milestones.

(2) Requiring certifications of program status to the defense acquisition executive and Congress prior to milestone approval for major defense acquisition programs.

(3) Establishing a new office (to be known as the `Office of Independent Assessment') to provide independent cost estimates and performance estimates for major defense acquisition programs.

(4) Requiring the milestone decision authority for a major defense acquisition program to specify, at the time of Milestone B approval, or Key Decision Point B approval, as applicable, the period of time that will be required to deliver an initial operational capability to the relevant combatant commanders.

(5) Establishing a materiel solutions process for addressing identified gaps in critical warfighting capabilities, under which process the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics circulates among the military departments and appropriate Defense Agencies a request for proposals for technologies and systems to address such gaps.

(6) Modifying the role played by chiefs of staff of the Armed Forces in the requirements, resource allocation, and acquisition processes.

(7) Establishing a process in which the commanders of combatant commands assess, and provide input on, the capabilities needed to successfully accomplish the missions in the operational and contingency plans of their commands over a long-term planning horizon of 15 years or more, taking into account expected changes in threats, the geo-political environment, and doctrine, training, and operational concepts.

(c) Consultation- In conducting the review required under subsection (b) for the report required by subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall obtain the views of the following:

(1) Senior acquisition officials currently serving in the Department of Defense.

(2) Senior military officers involved in setting requirements for the joint staff, the Armed Forces, and the combatant commands currently serving in the Department of Defense.

(3) Individuals who formerly served as senior acquisition officials in the Department of Defense.

(4) Participants in previous reviews of the organization and structure of the Department of Defense for the acquisition of major weapon systems, including the President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management in 1986.

(5) Other experts on the acquisition of major weapon systems.

(6) Appropriate experts in the Government Accountability Office.

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 803) that would require the Comptroller General to report to the congressional defense committees on potential modifications to the Department of Defense organization and structure for major defense acquisition programs.

The House bill contained no similar provision.

The House recedes with an amendment striking two of the elements of the study and adding a new element: a review of whether, and how, the combatant commands should participate in long-term planning for future capabilities.

The conferees agree that the review of shorter, more frequent acquisition milestones should include appropriate consideration of: (1) separate milestones at the time of approval of a mission need statement, approval of a capability need definition, technology development and assessment, system development and demonstration, final design, production prototyping and testing, limited production, and full-rate production; and (2) a requirement that appropriate officials certify to the Milestone Decision Authority that exit criteria related to cost, schedule, technological maturity, and performance factors have been met prior to a program proceeding to the next milestone.

Senate Armed Services Committee Report 110-77

The committee recommends a provision that would require the Comptroller General to report to the congressional defense committees on potential modifications to the organization and structure of the Department of Defense for the acquisition of major weapon systems.