US Congress Senate Bill 454 (Prior Session Legislation)

---

Completed Legislative Action
Spectrum: Slight Partisan Bill (Democrat 10-4-1)
Status: Passed on May 22 2009 - 100% progression
Action: 2009-05-22 - Became Public Law No: 111-23.
Text: Latest bill text (Amended) [PDF]

Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 - Title I: Acquisition Organization - (Sec. 101) Establishes within the Department of Defense (DOD) a Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, to act as the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense and other senior DOD officials and provide independent analysis and advice on matters relating to DOD acquisition program cost estimation and analysis, as well as related defense acquisition matters as assigned by the Secretary. Establishes under such Director a Deputy Director for Cost Assessment and a Deputy Director for Program Evaluation. Requires the: (1) Director to ensure that DOD cost estimation and cost analysis processes provide accurate information and realistic cost estimates for DOD acquisition programs; and (2) Secretary to ensure that the Director reviews acquisition program cost estimates, cost analyses, and related records for major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs) and major automated information system programs (MAISPs) of the military departments and defense agencies. Authorizes the Director to participate in and approve MDAP and MAISP cost estimates. Requires the: (1) Director, the Secretary of the military department concerned, and the head of the defense agency concerned to disclose the confidence level used in establishing a baseline estimate for an MDAP or MAISP; and (2) Director to report annually to the Secretary, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (Under Secretary), the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), and the congressional defense and appropriations committees on DOD cost estimation and analysis activities. Transfers to the Office of the Director the functions and personnel of the Cost Analysis Improvement Group and the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation. Requires: (1) the Director to review, and report to the Secretary on, existing DOD systems and methods for tracking and assessing MDAP operating and support costs; and (2) such report to be transmitted to the defense and appropriations committees. (Sec. 102) Establishes: (1) a Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation to advise the Secretary and the Under Secretary on DOD developmental test and evaluation; and (2) a Director of Systems Engineering to advise the Secretary and Under Secretary on DOD systems engineering and development planning. Outlines related duties. Requires such directors to jointly: (1) report to the defense and appropriations committees on activities undertaken; and (2) issue appropriate guidance with respect to DOD developmental test and evaluation and systems engineering, respectively. Directs the service acquisition executives of each military department and defense agency with responsibility for a MDAP to: (1) develop and implement plans to ensure that the department or agency has provided appropriate resources for developmental testing and developmental planning and systems engineering; and (2) report to the directors established under this section with respect to such plans and each such director's responsibilities. (Sec. 103) Directs the Secretary to designate a senior DOD official to conduct and oversee performance assessments and root cause analyses for MDAPs. Outlines related duties. Requires such official to report annually to the defense and appropriations committees on activities undertaken. (Sec. 104) Requires the Director of Defense Research and Engineering to: (1) periodically review and assess the technological maturity and integration risk of critical technologies of MDAPs, and submit findings to the Under Secretary; (2) report annually to the Secretary and the defense and appropriations committees on the maturity and risk of such technologies; (3) report to such committees on additional resources required to implement the results of the review and assessment; and (4) develop knowledge-based standards to measure the maturity and risk of critical technologies at key stages in the acquisition process. (Sec. 105) Directs the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) to seek and consider input from commanders of combatant commands prior to identifying joint military requirements. Requires the Comptroller General (CG) to report to the defense committees on the implementation of such requirement. Title II: Acquisition Policy - (Sec. 201) Requires: (1) the Secretary to ensure that mechanisms are developed and implemented to ensure the consideration of tradeoffs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives with respect to DOD acquisition programs; (2) the JROC to ensure such consideration with respect to joint military requirements; (3) the Secretary to ensure that each new joint military requirement recommended by the JROC is reviewed to ensure compliance with the tradeoffs consideration requirement and the JROC requirement to seek and consider input from commanders of combatant commands; and (4) the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to lead the development of study guidance for an analysis of alternatives for each joint military requirement for which the JROC Chairman is the validation authority. (Sec. 202) Directs the Secretary to ensure that the acquisition strategy for each MDAP includes: (1) measures to ensure competition at both the prime contract and subcontract level of the MDAP throughout its life-cycle as a means to improve contractor performance; and (2) adequate documentation of the rationale for selection of the subcontractor tier or tiers. Outlines measures to ensure such competition. Requires the Secretary: (1) to take specified actions to ensure fair and objective "make-buy" decisions by prime contractors on MDAPs; and (2) whenever a decision regarding the source of repair results in a plan to award a contract for performance of maintenance and sustainment of a major weapon system, to ensure that such contract is awarded on a competitive basis with full consideration of all sources. (Sec. 203) Directs the Secretary to ensure that the acquisition strategy for each MDAP provides for competitive prototypes before Milestone B approval, unless the milestone decision authority (MDA) for that MDAP waives such requirement. Allows the MDA to waive the requirement only on the basis that: (1) the cost of producing competitive prototypes exceeds the expected life-cycle benefits of producing the prototypes; or (2) but for such waiver, DOD would be unable to meet critical national security objectives. Requires: (1) the defense and appropriations committees to be notified within 30 days after such a waiver; (2) the CG to be notified of such a waiver and its rationale; and (3) the CG to review such rationale, and report review results to the defense and appropriations committees. (Sec. 204) Requires a MDA, within 30 days after receiving notification from a program manager that the MDAP is experiencing cost or schedule delays of 25% or more, to report to the defense and appropriations committees identifying: (1) the root causes of the cost or schedule growth; and (2) appropriate acquisition performance measures for the remainder of the MDAP's development. Requires such report to also include either: (1) a certification of the necessity of the MDAP; or (2) a plan for terminating MDAP development or withdrawing Milestone A or Key Decision Point A approval. (Sec. 205) Directs a MDA who waives certain program certification requirements normally necessary before Milestone B or Key Decision Point B approval to, at least annually, review that MDAP to determine the extent to which it currently meets the waived requirements. Requires the current certification status of such MDAPs to be included in annual DOD budget justification documents. Requires a MDA to have received a preliminary design review and conducted a formal post-preliminary design review assessment before the MDAP may receive Milestone B or Key Decision Point B approval. Directs the MDA, for each MDAP that has not received Milestone C or Key Decision Point C approval, to: (1) determine whether or not the program satisfies specified certification components; and (2) annually review its progress in satisfying such components. Requires the current certification status of such MDAPs to be included in annual DOD budget justification documents. Directs the official assigned oversight of performance assessment, with respect to MDAPs that are restructured after experiencing critical cost growth and certified as necessary to continue, to annually review and assess the MDAP's success in achieving adequate program performance. (Sec. 206) Directs the Secretary, if the acquisition or procurement unit cost of an MDAP or designated major subprogram increases by a percentage equal to or greater than the critical cost growth threshold for the program or subprogram, to: (1) determine the root causes for the cost growth; and (2) terminate the program, unless the Secretary notifies Congress of the decision not to terminate. Allows such a program or subprogram to be continued only under limited conditions, including a certification that the program is essential to national security and there are no alternatives which will provide acceptable military capability at less cost. Allows a program to be restructured in a manner that addresses the root causes of the critical cost growth. Provides that when a program is restructured, the next Selected Acquisition Report for the program after the restructuring shall contain a description of all funding changes made in the budget as a result of the program's cost growth. Requires the Secretary to report to Congress on terminated programs. (Sec. 207) Directs the Secretary to revise the Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to provide guidance and tighten existing requirements concerning organizational conflicts of interest by contractors in MDAPs. Requires the Panel on Contracting Integrity (established under the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007) to present recommendations to the Secretary on measures to eliminate or mitigate organizational conflicts of interest in MDAPs. Directs the Panel to continue to serve until at least the end of 2011. Title III: Additional Acquisition Provisions - (Sec. 301) Requires the Secretary to carry out a program to recognize excellent performance by individuals and teams of members of the Armed Forces and civilian DOD personnel in the acquisition of products and services. Authorizes cash bonuses as part of the program. (Sec. 302) Amends the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 to require additional discussions and recommendations within a required report from the Secretary to the defense committees on DOD implementation of earned value management. (Sec. 303) Includes as a national security objective of the national technology and industrial base maintaining critical design skills to ensure that the Armed Forces are provided with systems capable of ensuring technological superiority over potential adversaries. Requires periodic defense capability assessments to consider the effects of the termination of MDAPs. (Sec. 304) Requires the CG to report to the defense and appropriations committees on: (1) growth in operating and support costs for major weapon systems; and (2) the results of a review of weaknesses in operations affecting the reliability of financial information on systems and assets to be acquired under MDAPs.

Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009

Sen. Mark Begich [D-AK]	Sen. Thomas Carper [D-DE]	Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]	Sen. Tom Harkin [D-IA]
Sen. James Inhofe [R-OK]	Sen. Edward Kaufman [D-DE]	Sen. Carl Levin [D-MI]	Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I-CT]
Sen. Mel Martinez [R-FL]	Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]	Sen. Bill Nelson [D-FL]	Sen. Benjamin Nelson [D-NE]
Sen. Mark Pryor [D-AR]	Sen. John Rockefeller [D-WV]	Sen. Mark Udall [D-CO]

Date	Chamber	Action
2009-05-22		Became Public Law No: 111-23.
2009-05-22		Signed by President.
2009-05-21		Presented to President.
2009-05-21		Cleared for White House.
2009-05-21		Motions to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
2009-05-21		On agreeing to the conference report Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 411 - 0 (Roll no. 286). (consideration: CR H5912)
2009-05-21		The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H5912)
2009-05-21		DEBATE - The House proceeded with 1 hour of debate on the conference report to accompany S. 454.
2009-05-21		Mr. Skelton brought up conference report H. Rept. 111-124 for consideration under the provisions of H. Res. 463. (consideration: CR H5907-5912)
2009-05-20		Message on Senate action sent to the House.
2009-05-20		Senate agreed to conference report by Yea-Nay Vote. 95 - 0. Record Vote Number: 197.
2009-05-20		Conference report considered in Senate. (consideration: CR S5683-5685)
2009-05-20		Conference papers: Senate report and manager's statement and official papers held at the desk in Senate.
2009-05-20		Conference report H. Rept. 111-124 filed. (text of conference report: CR H5795-5805)
2009-05-19		Conferees agreed to file conference report.
2009-05-15		Message on Senate action sent to the House.
2009-05-14		Senate disagreed to House amendment, agreed to request for conference, and appointed conferees. Levin; Kennedy; Byrd; Lieberman; Reed; Akaka; Nelson FL; Nelson NE; Bayh; Webb; McCaskill; Udall CO; Hagan; Begich; Burris; McCain; Inhofe; Sessions; Chambliss; Graham; Thune; Martinez; Wicker; Burr; Vitter; Collins. (consideration: CR S5495-5496)
2009-05-14		Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendment to Senate bill and House requests a conference.
2009-05-13		Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
2009-05-13		On motion to authorize conferees to close meetings Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 409 - 11 (Roll no. 254).
2009-05-13		Mr. Skelton moved that the House authorize conferees to close meetings. (consideration: CR H5550)
2009-05-13		The Speaker appointed conferees: Skelton, Spratt, Ortiz, Taylor, Abercrombie, Reyes, Snyder, Smith (WA), Sanchez, Loretta, McIntyre, Tauscher, Brady (PA), Andrews, Davis (CA), Langevin, Cooper, Ellsworth, Sestak, McHugh, Bartlett, McKeon, Thornberry, Jones, Akin, Forbes, Miller (FL), Wilson (SC), Conaway, Hunter, and Coffman (CO).
2009-05-13		On motion that the House insist upon its amendment, and request a conference Agreed to without objection.
2009-05-13		Pursuant to H. Res. 432, the House insisted on its amendment and requested a conference. (consideration: CR H5549-5550)
2009-05-13		On passage Passed pursuant to H. Res. 432.
2009-05-13		The House struck all after the enacting clause and inserted in lieu thereof the provisions of a similar measure H.R. 2101 pursuant to H. Res. 432.
2009-05-13		Considered pursuant to H.Res. 432. (consideration: CR H5539-5549, H5549-5550; text of measure as received in House: CR H5539-5549)
2009-05-13		Consideration initiated pursuant to H.Res. 432.
2009-05-07		Held at the desk.
2009-05-07		Message on Senate action sent to the House.
2009-05-07		Received in the House.
2009-05-07		Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 93 - 0. Record Vote Number: 186. (text: CR S5260-5266)
2009-05-07		The committee substitute as amended agreed to by Unanimous Consent.
2009-05-07		S.AMDT.1057 Amendment SA 1057 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
2009-05-07		S.AMDT.1057 Amendment SA 1057 proposed by Senator McCain for Senator Coburn. (consideration: CR S5256; text: CR S5256)To require a plan for the elimination of weaknesses in operations that hinder the capacity to assemble and assess reliable cost information on assets acquired under major defense acquisition programs.
2009-05-07		S.AMDT.1052 Amendment SA 1052 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote. (text as modified: CR S5256)
2009-05-07		S.AMDT.1052 Amendment SA 1052 proposed by Senator Levin for Senator Murray. (consideration: CR S5256)To expand the national security objectives of the national technology and industrial base and clarify the role of major defense acquisition programs toward such objectives.
2009-05-07		Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S5256-5267)
2009-05-06		S.AMDT.1055 Amendment SA 1055 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
2009-05-06		S.AMDT.1055 Amendment SA 1055 proposed by Senator Levin for Senator Bingaman. (consideration: CR S5224-5225)To clarify the submittal of certifications of the adequacy of budgets by the Director of the Department of Defense Test Resource Management Center.
2009-05-06		S.AMDT.1048 Amendment SA 1048 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
2009-05-06		S.AMDT.1047 Amendment SA 1047 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
2009-05-06		S.AMDT.1050 Amendment SA 1050 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
2009-05-06		S.AMDT.1049 Amendment SA 1049 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
2009-05-06		S.AMDT.1051 Amendment SA 1051 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
2009-05-06		S.AMDT.1046 Amendment SA 1046 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
2009-05-06		S.AMDT.1053 Amendment SA 1053 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
2009-05-06		S.AMDT.1044 Amendment SA 1044 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
2009-05-06		S.AMDT.1048 Amendment SA 1048 proposed by Senator Levin for Senator Carper. (consideration: CR S5219-5224; text: CR S5220)To require consultation between the Director of Defense Research and Engineering and the Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation in assessments of technological maturity of critical technologies of major defense acquisition programs.
2009-05-06		S.AMDT.1047 Amendment SA 1047 proposed by Senator Levin for Senator Whitehouse. (consideration: CR S5219-5224; text: CR S5220)To further improve the cost assessment procedures and processes of the Department of Defense.
2009-05-06		S.AMDT.1050 Amendment SA 1050 proposed by Senator Levin for Senator McCaskill. (consideration: CR S5219-5224; text: CR S5220)To provide for a review by the Comptroller General of the United States of waivers of the requirement for competitive prototypes based on excessive cost.
2009-05-06		S.AMDT.1049 Amendment SA 1049 proposed by Senator Levin for Senator McCaskill. (consideration: CR S5219-5224; text: CR S5220)To specify certain inputs to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council from the commanders of the combatant commands on joint military requirements.
2009-05-06		S.AMDT.1051 Amendment SA 1051 proposed by Senator Levin for Senator McCaskill. (consideration: CR S5219-5224; text: CR S5220)To enhance the review of joint military requirements.
2009-05-06		S.AMDT.1046 Amendment SA 1046 proposed by Senator Levin for Senator Coburn. (consideration: CR S5219-5224; text: CR S5219-5220)To require reports on the operation and support costs of major defense acquisition programs and major weapons systems.
2009-05-06		S.AMDT.1053 Amendment SA 1053 proposed by Senator Levin for Senator Chambliss. (consideration: CR S5219-5224; text: CR S5219)To clarify an exception to conflict of interest requirements applicable to contracts for systems engineering and technical assistance functions.
2009-05-06		S.AMDT.1044 Amendment SA 1044 proposed by Senator Levin for Senator Inhofe. (consideration: CR S5219-5224; text: CR S5219)To require a report on certain cost growth matters following the termination of a major defense acquisition program for critical cost growth.
2009-05-06		S.AMDT.1045 Amendment SA 1045 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
2009-05-06		S.AMDT.1045 Amendment SA 1045 proposed by Senator Collins. (consideration: CR S5215-5219; text: CR S5216)To require the Secretary of Defense to apply uniform earned value management standards to reliably and consistently measure contract performance, and to ensure that contractors establish and use approved earned value management systems.
2009-05-06		Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S5205-5225; text of measure as reported in Senate: CR S5205-5209)
2009-04-02		Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 45.
2009-04-02		Committee on Armed Services. Reported by Senator Levin with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
2009-04-02		Committee on Armed Services. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
2009-03-03		Committee on Armed Services. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 111-149.
2009-02-23		Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
2009-02-23		Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2366-2368)

HR432 (Related) 2009-05-13 - Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
HR463 (Related) 2009-05-21 - Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
HB1830 (Same As) 2009-03-31 - Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
HB2101 (Related) 2009-05-13 - Laid on the table.

Type	Source
Summary	https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-bill/454/all-info
Text	https://www.congress.gov/111/bills/s454/BILLS-111s454is.pdf
Text	https://www.congress.gov/111/bills/s454/BILLS-111s454rs.pdf
Text	https://www.congress.gov/111/bills/s454/BILLS-111s454es.pdf
Text	https://www.congress.gov/111/bills/s454/BILLS-111s454eah.pdf
Text	https://www.congress.gov/111/bills/s454/BILLS-111s454enr.pdf