Back to WSARA Contents

TITLE II--ACQUISITION POLICY

Section 201

House Conference Report 111-124

(a) Consideration of Trade-Offs-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that mechanisms are developed and implemented to require consideration of trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives as part of the process for developing requirements for Department of Defense acquisition programs.

(2) ELEMENTS- The mechanisms required under this subsection shall ensure, at a minimum, that--

(A) Department of Defense officials responsible for acquisition, budget, and cost estimating functions are provided an appropriate opportunity to develop estimates and raise cost and schedule matters before performance objectives are established for capabilities for which the Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council is the validation authority; and

(B) the process for developing requirements is structured to enable incremental, evolutionary, or spiral acquisition approaches, including the deferral of technologies that are not yet mature and capabilities that are likely to significantly increase costs or delay production until later increments or spirals.

(b) Duties of Joint Requirements Oversight Council- Section 181(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)--

(A) by striking `and' at the end of subparagraph (A);

(B) by inserting `and' at the end of subparagraph (B) after the semicolon; and

(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(C) in ensuring the consideration of trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives for joint military requirements in consultation with the advisors specified in subsection (d);'.

(2) in paragraph (3)--

(A) by inserting `, in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the Director of Cost Assessment and Performance Evaluation,' after `assist the Chairman'; and

(B) by striking `and' after the semicolon at the end;

(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

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

`(5) assist the Chairman, in consultation with the commanders of the combatant commands and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in establishing an objective for the overall period of time within which an initial operational capability should be delivered to meet each joint military requirement.'.

(c) Review of Joint Military Requirements- The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that each new joint military requirement recommended by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council is reviewed to ensure that the Joint Requirements Oversight Council has, in making such recommendation--

(1) taken appropriate action to seek and consider input from the commanders of the combatant commands, in accordance with the requirements of section 181(d) of title 10, United States Code (as amended by section 105(a) of this Act);

(2) engaged in consideration of trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives in accordance with the requirements of section 181(b)(1)(C) of title 10, United States Code (as added by subsection (b)); and

(3) engaged in consideration of issues of joint portfolio management, including alternative material and non-material solutions, as provided in Department of Defense instructions for the development of joint military requirements.

(d) Study Guidance for Analyses of Alternatives- The Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shall take the lead in the development of study guidance for an analysis of alternatives for each joint military requirement for which the Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council is the validation authority. In developing the guidance, the Director shall solicit the advice of appropriate officials within the Department of Defense and ensure that the guidance requires, at a minimum--

(1) full consideration of possible trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives for each alternative considered; and

(2) an assessment of whether or not the joint military requirement can be met in a manner that is consistent with the cost and schedule objectives recommended by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.

(e) Analysis of Alternatives in Certification for Milestone A- Section 2366a(a) of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 101(d)(3) of this Act, is further amended--

(1) by striking `and' at the end of paragraph (3);

(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and

(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph (4):

`(4) that an analysis of alternatives has been performed consistent with study guidance developed by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation; and'.

(f) Duties of Milestone Decision Authority- Section 2366b(a)(1)(B) of such title is amended by inserting `appropriate trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives have been made to ensure that' before `the program is affordable'.

Congressional Record, Senate, February 23, 2009, Summary of S. 454, the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, P. S2367

The January 2006 report of the Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment Project (DAPA) concluded that "the budget, acquisition and requirements processes [of the Department of Defense] are not connected organizationally at any level below the Deputy Secretary of Defense." As a result, DOD officials often fail to consider the impact of requirements decisions on the acquisition and budget processes, or to make needed trade-offs between cost, schedule and requirements on major defense acquisition programs. Section 201 would address this problem by requiring consultation between the budget, requirements and acquisition stovepipes--including consultation in the joint requirements process--to ensure the consideration of trade-offs between cost, schedule, and performance early in the process of developing major weapon systems.

House Committee on Armed Services Report 111-101 with H. R. 2101

This section would require the Comptroller General to review the use of certain mechanisms within the Department of Defense to consider trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance in the acquisition of major weapons systems. This section would require the review to consider mechanisms including: the Tri-Chair Committee, a committee consisting of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation; configuration steering boards; any mechanism that is used, or that may potentially be used, by the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller; and any other relevant mechanisms identified in the report on investment strategies for major defense acquisition programs required by section 817 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181). The review would assess the effectiveness of these mechanisms and include such recommendations as the Comptroller General deems necessary to increase the effectiveness of such mechanisms.