NDAA 2016 Status Status as of 10/24/2015

NDAA 2016 Status Status as of 10/24/2015
House Passed and sent to Senate : 5/15/2015 Senate Passed and returned to House with significant revisions: 6/18/2015 House Requests a Conference: 6/25/2015 Conference Completed: 9/29/2015 Passed House: 10/1/2015 Passed Senate: 10/7/2015 Sent to President: 10/20/2015 Vetoed by President: 10/22/2015 This presentation highlights selected provisions acquisition policy and management provisions of Title VIII of NDAA The additional Title VIII provisions not highlighted are listed in the backup section. What is next after President’s veto? -House will vote to override veto on 5 Nov 2016 -Senate schedule not yet known The president has objected to the bill on several grounds, including its use of the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund to skirt Budget Control Act (BCA) caps without a separate deal that lifts sequestration for all spending, including on domestic programs. He also said the bill wastes money and diverts resources on programs “the Pentagon does not want”, and impedes his ability to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. Expert Opinion: The veto “really just means that passage of the final bill will be delayed until the budget is resolved for 2016,” Center for Strategic and International Studies Senior Fellow Todd Harrison told Bloomberg BNA in an Oct “Once they reach a deal on how to fund the DOD, whether through raising the budget caps, including additional war funding, or some combination of the two, then Congress will be able to update the NDAA accordingly and pass it again for the president's signature,” he said. “I remain confident that the NDAA will eventually be passed this year.” Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and Related Matters: 77 provisions See notes page for more information

NDAA 2016 Title VIII, Subtitle A, Acquisition Policy and Management
Sec Required Review of Acquisition-Related Functions of the Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces. Requires the Chiefs of Staff and Commandant of Marine Corps to review their authorities in laws and regulations related to defense acquisition and develop recommendations considered necessary to advance their role in the development of requirements, acquisition processes, and associated budget practices. Sec Role of Chiefs of Staff in the Acquisition Process. Provides for a, “Customer Oriented Acquisition System.” Defines customer of a Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) as the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the military department concerned. Adds to Title 10 responsibilities of Chiefs: Decisions regarding the balancing of resources and priorities, and associated trade-offs among cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance on MDAPs. Adds duties of Principal Military Deputies to the SAEs: Keep the Chiefs informed on any required new or revisited trade-offs among cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance; and, ensuring the Chief’s views on these trade-offs are strongly considered by PMs and PEOs in all phases of the acquisition process. Section 801 report due to Congress NLT 1 March 2016. See notes page for more information

Sec Role of Chiefs of Staff in the Acquisition Process, cont. Adds to role of JROC: ..the council shall seek, and strongly consider, the views of the Chiefs, in their roles as customers of the acquisition system, on matters pertaining to trade- offs among cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance and the balancing of resources with priorities. Adds provisions for Chiefs to advise MDAs of MDAPs of the Chief’s views on cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance trade-offs made in the program determination requirements for Milestones A and B. Sec Expansion of Rapid Acquisition Authority. Provides for the consideration of cyber attacks in the urgent needs process Authorizes SECDEF to use for urgent needs any funds available to DoD for acquisition of supplies and associated support services: Not more than $200 million during any FY in each of the following cases: 1)urgent need deficiency that resulted in combat casualties or likely to result in combat casualties. 2)urgent need deficiency that impacts an ongoing or anticipated contingency operation. 3)urgent need deficiency that as a result of a cyber attack has resulted in a critical mission failure, loss of life, property destruction or economic failure, or is likely to. Section 803 revises Section 806, NDAA 2005 (PL ), “Rapid acquisition and deployment procedures”: -The determination of need for rapid acquisition and deployment in cases 1 and 2 must be determined by the SECDEF in writing. In case 3, must be determined by the SECDEF in writing, without delegation. -Requires SECDEF to appoint a senior official to ensure supplies and services are acquired and deployed as quickly as possible. -The SECDEF may authorize the senior official to waive any provision of law, policy, directive, or regulation described in subsection (d) that such official determines in writing would unnecessarily impede the rapid acquisition and deployment of the needed supplies and associated support services. In a case in which the needed supplies and associated support services cannot be acquired without an extensive delay, the senior official shall require that an interim solution be implemented and deployed using the procedures developed under this section to minimize adverse consequences resulting from the urgent need. -Requires Congress to be notified within 15 days after the date of determination that supplies and services are urgently needed. Requires Congress to be notified at least 10 days prior to the effective date provisions of law, policy or regulation are waived. -Requires transition to normal acquisition system NLT 2 years after date the SECDEF makes the determination with respect to supplies and services. Note: Implications of this provision on the JCIDS urgent operational need process TBD. See notes page for more information

Sec Middle Tier of Acquisition for Rapid Prototyping and Rapid fielding. Requires USD(AT&L), in consultation with the Comptroller of DoD and the Vice Chairman of the JCS, to establish guidance for a middle tier acquisition process: Rapid prototyping. Use innovative technologies to field a prototype that can be demonstrated in an operational environment and provide a residual capability with 5 years of an approved requirement. Rapid Fielding. Use proven technologies to field production quantities of new or updated systems with minimal required development, to begin production within six months and complete fielding within 5 years of an approved requirement The SAE will be the MDA. The PM will report direct to the SAE. Programs will not be subject to the JCIDS Manual, nor DoDD , except to the extend specifically provided for in the established guidance. PM will be provided a process to seek waivers from Congress for statutory or regulatory requirements that the PM feels add little or no value to the management of the program. SECDEF required to establish a “DoD Rapid Prototyping Fund.” The guidance required by this provision must provide for a streamlined and coordinated requirements, budget, and acquisition process that results in the development of an approved requirement for each program in a period of not more than six months from the time that the process is initiated. Rapid Prototyping Fund: -Will provide funds, in addition to other funds that may be available for acquisition programs under the rapid prototyping pathway. -Fund will be managed by a senior official of the DoD designated by the USD(AT&L). -Fund will consist of amounts appropriated to the Fund and amounts credited to the Fund pursuant to section 828, Penalty for Cost Overruns (described later in this presentation). -Amounts available in the Fund may be transferred to a military department for the purpose of carrying out an acquisition program under the rapid prototyping pathway established pursuant to this section. Congressional Notice. The senior official designated to manage the Fund must notify the congressional defense committees of all transfers. Each notification will specify the amount transferred, the purpose of the transfer, and the total projected cost and estimated cost to complete the acquisition program to which the funds were transferred. Note: These programs would be distinctive from ‘‘rapid acquisitions’’ that are generally completed within 6 months to 2 years and ‘‘traditional’’ acquisitions that last much longer than 5 years. See notes page for more information

Sec Use of Alternate Paths to Acquire Critical National Security Capabilities. Requires SECDEF to establish procedures for alternate acquisition paths to acquire capital assets and services. Procedures shall: (1) Be separate from existing acquisition procedures; (2) Be supported by streamlined contracting, budgeting, and requirements processes; (3) Establish alternative acquisition paths based on the capabilities being bought and the time needed to deploy these capabilities; and (4) Maximize the use of flexible authorities in existing law and regulation.

Sec Secretary of Defense Waiver of Acquisition Laws to Acquire Vital National Security Capabilities. The Secretary of Defense is authorized to waive any provision of acquisition law or regulation, upon determination that the: Acquisition of the capability is in the vital national security interest of the United States; Application of the law or regulation to be waived would impede the acquisition of the capability in a manner that would undermine the national security of the United States; and Underlying purpose of the law or regulation to be waived can be addressed in a different manner or at a different time.

Sec 806, cont. After proper determination described earlier, SECDEF is authorized to waive any provision of law or regulation addressing: Establishment of a requirement or specification for the capability to be acquired; Research, development, test, and evaluation of the capability to be acquired; Production, fielding, and sustainment of the capability to be acquired; or Solicitation, selection of sources, and award of contracts for the capability to be acquired. Limitations. Cannot waive: Requirements of this section; Any provision of law imposing civil or criminal penalties; or Any provision of law governing the proper expenditure of appropriated funds. SECDEF must notify the congressional defense committees at least 30 days before exercising the waiver authority. Notice must include— (1) An explanation of the basis for determining that the acquisition of the capability is in the vital national security interest of the United States; (2) An identification of each provision of law or regulation to be waived; and (3) For each provision identified pursuant to paragraph (2)— (a) an explanation of why the application of the provision would impede the acquisition in a manner that would undermine the national security of the United States; and (b) a description of the time or manner in which the underlying purpose of the law or regulation to be waived will be addressed. The authority of the SECDEF to waive provisions of laws and regulations under this provision cannot be delegated. See notes page for more information

Sec Acquisition Authority of the Commander of United States Cyber Command. Provides Commander, Cyber Command with authority to conduct: Development and acquisition of cyber operations peculiar equipment and capabilities. Acquisition and sustainment of cyber capability-peculiar equipment, capabilities, and services. Requires establishment of a Command Acquisition Executive, responsible to the commander, subordinate to the Defense Acquisition Executive and subject to the same oversight as the SAEs. Command Acquisition Executive has authority to negotiate MOAs with the military departments and other DoD components to carry out the acquisition of equipment, capabilities, and services on behalf of the Command. Requires SECDEF to provide personnel or funding for ten FTEs with experience in program acquisition, JCIDS, program management, system engineering and costing.

Sec Acquisition Authority of the Cdr, of Cyber Command, cont. Authorizes Cyber Command to request funding for: Development and acquisition of cyber operations-peculiar equipment; and Acquisition and sustainment of other capabilities or services that are peculiar to cyber operations activities. Cyber Operations Procurement Fund: FY 2016 through 2021, expenditures limited to $75 million per FY. Implementation becomes effective 30 days after SECDEF provides an implementation plan to Congress. Requires annual assessment for the Command Acquisition Executive by Cyber Command Investment Management Board. Sunset: Authorities expire on Sep 30, 2021 Limitations: Does not include MDAPs, MAIS or acquisition of foundational infrastructure or software architectures expected to last more than 5 years. Implement Plan must include: 1. DoD definition of— cyber operations-peculiar equipment and capabilities cyber capability-peculiar equipment, capabilities, and services. 2. Summaries of the components to be negotiated in the memorandum of agreements with the military departments and other Department of Defense components to carry out the development, acquisition, and sustainment of equipment, capabilities, and services. 3. Memorandum of agreement negotiation and approval timelines. 4. Plan for oversight of the command acquisition executive. 5. Assessment of the acquisition workforce needs of the United States Cyber Command to support the provide acquisition authorities until 2021. 6. Other matters as appropriate. Note: The conferees believe the Commander of CYBERCOM should utilize this limited acquisition authority to fulfill cyber operations peculiar and cyber capability-peculiar requirements the services are unable to meet to ensure the DoD is adequately postured to defend and respond to cyber threats. The conferees maintain that this limited authority should not be construed to replace the acquisition responsibilities of the military services to fulfill their man, train and equip requirements. The conferees believe successful demonstration of these acquisition authorities will require implementation of memoranda of agreement with the military services to define enduring responsibilities and more explicit definition cyber operations-peculiar and cyber capability-peculiar requirements. See notes page for more information

Sec Report on Linking and Streamlining Requirements, Acquisition, and Budget Processes Within Armed Forces. Requires Service Chiefs of Staff and Commandant of Marine Corps to report to Congress on efforts to link and streamline the requirements, acquisition, and budget processes within the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. Sec Advisory panel on streamlining and codifying acquisition regulations. SECDEF shall establish under the sponsorship of DAU and NDU an advisory panel on streamlining acquisition regulations. Not subject to Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)* May be funded by the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (DAWDF). -Section 808 report is due NLT 180 days after enactment. -Section 809: Advisory panel must be established NLT 180 after enactment -Composition of Advisory Panel: least nine individuals who are recognized experts in acquisition and procurement policy. In making appointments to the advisory panel, the Under Secretary shall ensure that the members of the panel reflect diverse experiences in the public and private sectors. -Final Advisory Panel report must include: A history of each current acquisition regulation and a recommendation as to whether the regulation and related law (if applicable) should be retained, modified, or repealed; and Additional recommendations for legislation as the panel considers appropriate -Advisory Panel reports: -Interim reports, or briefings, due to Congress 6 months and 18 months after enactment -Final report due to SECDEF NLT two years after enactment -NLT 30 days after receiving final report, SECDEF will transmit the report to Congress, with appropriate comments. *Not subject to the open meetings (to the public and press) and reporting requirements of FACA See notes page for more information

Sec Review of Time-Based Requirements Process and Budgeting and Acquisition Systems. Requires SECDEF and CJCS to review the requirements process with the goal of establishing a streamlined system that develops requirements, and to determine advisability of providing a time-based or phased distinction between capabilities needed to be deployed urgently, within 2 years, within 5 years, and longer than 5 years. Requires SECDEF to ensure the acquisition and budgeting systems are structured to meet time-phased or phased requirements in a manner that is predictable, cost effective, and efficient and takes advantage of emerging technology.

NDAA 2016 Title VIII, Subtitle C, Provisions Related to MDAPs
Sec Acquisition Strategy Required for Each Major Defense Acquisition Program, Major Automated Information System, and Major System. Creates 10 USC 2431a, Acquisition Strategy. Requires an acquisition strategy for MDAPs (ACAT I), MAIS (ACAT IA) and Major Systems (ACAT II). Requires each strategy, where appropriate, to consider: Delivering capability in increments National technology and industrial base considerations Risk Management Business Strategy Contracting Strategy Intellectual Property Strategy International Involvement Multiyear Procurement Integration of Intelligence Assessments Requirements related to logistics, maintenance, and sustainment MDA review and approval required at: Milestone A, Development RFP Release Decision, each subsequent decision, and when significant or critical changes to cost, or significant changes to schedule or performance occur. Requires Congress to be notified of any MDA revisions to the strategy. -An acquisition strategy for all ACATs is already required by DoDI -Required areas that now must be included in an acquisition strategy are specified throughout various tables and enclosures of DoDI -The only required topic on this chart not currently required by DoDI is the “Integration of Intelligence Assessments”. -Critical or significant change to cost refers to the breach provisions of 10 USC 2433, Unit Cost Reporting (UCR). Commonly called “Nunn-McCurdy” breaches. -See DAU’s PM e-Tool Kit, for a listing of current acquisition strategy topics, and where to find them in DoDI : -The major implications of this provision are: Establishes in public law appropriate topics for an acquisition strategy for ACAT I, IA and II programs. Repeals current provision of public law (NDAA 2003) that only required an acquisition strategy for an MDAP that used a “spiral development” approach. Provides for congressional notification of any changes to an acquisition strategy for ACAT I, IA and II programs. However, the new statute does not mention any requirement to submit the original acquisition strategy to Congress. That requirement may be in some other provision of public law, but could not find it. Revises 10 USC 2350a, changing Cooperative Opportunities Document (COD to “cooperative opportunities”; and changes the role of the USD(AT&L) for preparing a COD, to a requirement to include opportunities for cooperative research and development in the acquisition strategy; and changes responsibility for making recommendations for engaging in cooperative development programs from the USD(AT&L) to the MDA. See notes page for more information

Sec Creates 10 USC 2431b. Risk Management and Mitigation in Major Defense Acquisition Programs and Major Systems. Requires comprehensive approach to managing and mitigating risk to be included in acquisition strategy. Requires, at a minimum, consideration of following risk mitigation techniques: Prototyping (to include preference for competitive prototyping prior to Milestone B) Modeling and Simulation Technology demonstrations Multiple design approaches Alternate designs Phasing of program activities or related technology development to address high- risk areas soon as possible Manufacturing and industrial base availability Independent risk assessments Schedule and funding margins

Sec Revision of Milestone A Decision Authority Responsibilities for Major Defense Acquisition Programs. Changes the Milestone A certification for MDAPs (10 USC 2366a) (6 areas) to a “determination” of 8 areas. Requires submission of the written determination to Congress, if requested by any of the defense committees. Sec Revision of Milestone B Decision Authority Responsibilities for Major Defense Acquisition Programs. Changes the Milestone B certification for MDAPs (10 USC 2366b) (14 areas) to a certification (2 areas) plus a determination (12 areas). Requires submission to Congress of both certifications and determinations with the first Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) submitted after completion of the certification. See back-up charts for details on the 2366a and 2366b requirements

Sec Designation of Milestone Decision Authority. Requires that the MDA for a MDAP reaching Milestone A after Oct 1, 2016, be the SAE of the military department that is managing the program, unless the SECDEF selects an alternate MDA. SECDEF may designate an alternate MDA for programs that: Address a joint requirement Are best managed by a Defense Agency Have incurred a unit cost increase greater than the significant or critical cost thresholds (10 USC 2433 Nunn-McCurdy breaches) Are critical to a major interagency requirement or have significant international partner involvement SECDEF determines that an alternate MDA will best provide for the program to achieve cost, schedule, and performance outcomes

Sec Designation of Milestone Decision Authority, cont.. If alternate MDA is designated, SECDEF may revert MDA back to the SAE upon request of the Secretary of the military department. If SECDEF denies request for reversion back to the SAE, the SECDEF shall report to the congressional defense committees the basis of the decision to deny the request. No reversion is allowed for programs that incur a Nunn-McCurdy breach. The Secretary of the military department and the Chief of Staff shall certify in each SAR that program requirements are stable and funding is adequate to meet cost, schedule, and performance objectives, and report to the congressional defense committees on any increased risk since the last SAR. For MDAPs managed by the SAEs, SECDEF shall limit outside requirements for documentation for MDAPs to an absolute minimum, and ensure policies, procedures, and activities related to oversight outside of the military department do not unnecessarily increase costs or impede schedules.

Sec Designation of Milestone Decision Authority, cont.. USD(AT&L) shall exercise advisory authority over programs for which the SAE is the MDA Implementation: NLT than 180 days after enactment, the SECDEF shall submit to the congressional defense committees a plan for implementation NLT than Oct 1, 2016, the Deputy Chief Management Officer of DoD shall issue guidance to ensure the acquisition policy, guidance, and practices of the DoD conform to these requirements. The guidance shall be designed to ensure a streamlined decision- making and approval process and minimize any information requests.

Sec Tenure and Accountability of Program Managers for Program Definition Periods. Requires SECDEF to address the tenure and accountability of PMs of MDAPs for the “program definition period” Program definition period: begins with initiation of the program and ends with Milestone B approval. Sec Tenure and Accountability of Program Managers for Program Execution Periods. Requires SECDEF to address the tenure and accountability of PMs of MDAPs for the “program execution period” Program execution period: Begins with Milestone B approval and ends with declaration of IOC. Requires PM to enter into a performance agreement with immediate supervisor within six months of assignment Guidance for program definition period must provide that the PM is responsible for: (1) bringing technologies to maturity and identifying the manufacturing processes that will be needed to carry out the program; (2) ensuring continuing focus during program development on meeting stated mission requirements and other requirements of the DoD; (3) recommending trade-offs between program cost, schedule, and performance for the life-cycle of the program; (4) developing a business case for the program; and (5) ensuring that appropriate information is available to the MDA to make a decision on Milestone B approval, including information necessary to make the certification (now determination) required by 10 USC 2366a Guidance for program execution period must: (1) require the PM for the program execution period to enter into a performance agreement with the manager’s immediate supervisor within six months of assignment, that— (A) establishes expected parameters for the cost, schedule, and performance of the program consistent with the business case for the program; (B) provides the commitment of the supervisor to provide the level of funding and resources required to meet such parameters; and (C) provides the assurance of the PM that such parameters are achievable and that the PM will be accountable for meeting such parameters; and (2) provide the PM with the authority to— (A) consult on the addition of new program requirements that would be inconsistent with the parameters established in the performance agreement; (B) recommend trade-offs between cost, schedule, and performance, provided that such trade-offs are consistent with the parameters established in the performance agreement; and (C) develop such interim goals and milestones as may be required to achieve the parameters established in the performance agreement See notes page for more information

Sec Penalty for Cost Overruns. For each fiscal year beginning with fiscal year 2015, the Secretary of each military department shall pay a penalty for cost overruns on the covered* major defense acquisition programs of the military department. Calculation of penalty: The amount of cost overrun or underrun for any MDAP or subprogram in a FY is the difference between the current program acquisition unit cost and the program acquisition unit cost for the program as shown in the original Baseline Estimate*, multiplied by the quantity of items to be purchased, as reported in the final SAR for the FY. Cost overruns or underruns for joint programs of more than one military department shall be allocated among the military departments in percentages determined by the USD(AT&L). The cumulative amount of cost overruns for a military department in a FY is the sum of the cost overruns and cost underruns for all covered MDAPs of the department in the FY (including cost overruns or underruns allocated to the military department in accordance with paragraph 2)). “Original Baseline Estimate”, with respect to a MDAP or any designated major subprogram under the program, means the baseline description established with respect to the program or subprogram prepared before the program or subprogram enters EMD, or at program or subprogram initiation, whichever occurs later, without adjustment or revision (except as provided for under the rules for recovering from a Nunn-McCurdy (UCR) breach). COVERED PROGRAMS. A MDAP is covered under this section if the original Baseline Estimate was established for such program under 10 USC 2435, Baseline Description, on or after May 22, 2009 (which is the date of the enactment of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–23)). See notes page for more information

Sec Penalty for Cost Overruns, cont.. Calculation of penalty, cont.: The cost overrun penalty for a military department in a fiscal year is three percent of the cumulative amount of cost overruns of the military department in the fiscal year, as determined pursuant to paragraph (3), except that the cost overrun penalty may not be a negative amount. Reduction of RDT&E Accounts: NLT than 60 days after the end of each FY beginning with FY 2015, the Secretary of each military department shall reduce each RDT&E account of the military department by the percentage determined under Calculation of Penalty, and remit such amount to the Secretary of Defense. Any amount remitted shall be credited to the Rapid Prototyping Fund.

Sec Streamlining of Reporting Requirements Applicable to Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Regarding Major Defense Acquisition Programs. Changes reporting requirement for ASD(R&E) on MDAPs from “periodically,” to before Milestone B for each MDAP. Sec Configuration Steering Boards for Cost Control Under Major Defense Acquisition Programs. Adds to CSB responsibilities: Monitoring changes in program requirements and ensuring the Chief of Staff of the Armed Force concerned, in consultation with the Secretary of the military department concerned, approves of any proposed changes that could have an adverse effect on program cost or schedule.

Sec Repeal of Requirement for Stand-Alone Manpower Estimates for Major Defense Acquisition Programs. Repeals requirement for manpower estimates as a separate report, and adds the requirement that manpower data be included in the independent cost estimate. Sec Revision to Duties of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation (DASD(T&E)) and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering (DASD(SE)). DASD(TE): changes requirement to “review and approve or disapprove” the DT&E plan within the TEMP, to just “review”. DASD(SE): changes requirement to “review and approve” the systems engineering master plan, to just “review”.

NDAA 2016 Title VIII, Subtitle C, Acquisition Workforce
Sec Amendments to Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund. Makes permanent the authority for both the DAWDF and associated expedited hiring authority. Revises 10 USC 1705 to provide for credits to the fund of $500 million in each fiscal year. Changes the constraint on the SECDEF to not reduce the amount for a FY to an amount that is less than 80% of the specified amount for each year, to “an amount that is not less than $400 million.” Extends the period during which unobligated balances may be transferred to the fund, from 24 to 36 months. Deletes the sunset provision of 30 Sep 2017 for expedited hiring authority

Sec Dual-Track Military Professionals in Operational and Acquisition Specialties. Requires the Secretary of the military department to collaborate with the Chief of Staff/Commandant on implementation of 10 USC 1722a, Special Requirements for Military Personnel in the Acquisition Field. Establishes a dual-track career path that, “..attracts the highest quality officers and enlisted personnel and allows them to gain experience in and receive credit for a primary career in combat arms and a functional secondary career in the acquisition field in order to more closely align the military operational, requirements, and acquisition workforces of each armed force.’’ Sec Provision of joint duty assignment credit for acquisition duty. Adds to the definition of Joint Matters, with regards to defining joint duty assignments: acquisition matters addressed by military personnel under Chapter 87, Defense Acquisition Workforce, of Title 10

Sec Mandatory Requirement for Training Related to the Conduct of Market Research. Requires SECDEF to provide mandatory market research training for members of DoD responsible for the conduct of market research Requires CJCS to incorporate market research training into requirements management certification training. The training must, at a minimum: Provide comprehensive information on the subject of market research and the function of market research in the acquisition of commercial items; Teach best practices for conducting and documenting market research; and Provide methodologies for establishing standard processes and reports for collecting and sharing market research across the Department. According to the 2015 DAU Catalog DAU Contracting career field courses that include training on market research -CON 121, Contract Planning (DL) -CON 170, Fundamentals of Cost and Price Analysis (classroom, 10 days) DAU Continuous Learning (CL) modules that provide training on market research: -CLC 004, Market Research -CLE 028, Market Research for Engineering and Technical Personnel -CLM 024, Contracting Overview The conferees noted that the Department should consider using the DAWDF for training in market research and other training needed to improve the Department’s use of commercial contracting and pricing methods to better access commercial industry sources. See notes page for more information

Sec Independent Study of Implementation of Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Efforts. Requires SECDEF to contract with an independent research entity (a not-for- profit entity or a FFRDC) to examine the Department’s efforts to recruit, develop, and retain the acquisition workforce, with a specific review of: The implementation of the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (including chapter 87 of title 10, United States Code). The application of the Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (as established under section 1705 of title 10, United States Code). The effectiveness of professional military education programs, including fellowships and exchanges with industry. Sec Extension of Authority for the Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration Project. Extended to Sep 30, 2020. Section 845 Reports: To SECDEF. Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the independent research entity shall provide to the Secretary a report containing— the results of the study; and such recommendations to improve the acquisition workforce as the independent research entity considers to be appropriate. To Congress. Not later than 30 days after receipt of the report, the SECDEF shall submit such report, together with any additional views or recommendations, to the congressional defense committees. See notes page for more information

NDAA 2016 Subtitles B, E, F and G
For the following sections of NDAA 2016, see back-up charts: Subtitle B—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations Subtitle E—Provisions Relating to Commercial Items Subtitle F—Industrial Base Matters Subtitle G—Other Matters

Back-Up

10 USC 2547 – Acquisition Related Functions of Chiefs of the Armed Forces
The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps assist the Secretary of the military department concerned in the performance of the following acquisition-related functions of such department: (1) The development of requirements for equipping the armed force concerned (subject, where appropriate, to validation by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council pursuant to section 181 of this title). (2) Decisions regarding the balancing of resources and priorities, and associated trade-offs among cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance on major defense acquisition programs. (3) The coordination of measures to control requirements creep in the defense acquisition system. (4) The recommendation of trade-offs among life-cycle cost, schedule, and performance objectives, and procurement quantity objectives, to ensure acquisition programs deliver best value in meeting the approved military requirements. (5) Termination of development or procurement programs for which life-cycle cost, schedule, and performance expectations are no longer consistent with approved military requirements and levels of priority, or which no longer have approved military requirements. (6) The development and management of career paths in acquisition for military personnel (as required by section 1722a of this title). (7) The assignment and training of contracting officer representatives when such representatives are required to be members of the armed forces because of the nature of the contract concerned. Para (2) added, and para (6) revised by NDAA 2016

Chiefs of Staff as Customer of Acquisition Process
NDAA 2016 adds to Title 10, new Sec. 2546a, Customer-Oriented Acquisition Process ‘‘(a) OBJECTIVE.—It shall be the objective of the defense acquisition system to meet the needs of its customers in the most cost-effective manner practicable. The acquisition policies, directives, and regulations of the Department of Defense shall be modified as necessary to ensure the development and implementation of a customer oriented acquisition system. ‘‘(b) CUSTOMER.—The customer of the defense acquisition system is the armed force that will have primary responsibility for fielding the system or systems acquired. The customer is represented with regard to a major defense acquisition program by the Secretary of the military department concerned and the Chief of the armed force concerned. ‘‘(c) ROLE OF CUSTOMER.—The customer of a major defense acquisition program shall be responsible for balancing resources against priorities on the acquisition program and ensuring that appropriate trade-offs are made among cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance on a continuing basis throughout the life of the acquisition program.’’

JROC Title 10 Responsibilities (10 USC 181) Amended by NDAA 2016
Sec. 802, NDAA 2016, Amends 10 USC 181, Joint Requirements Oversight Council, by Adding at the End of Section 181(d), Advisors: “The Council shall seek, and strongly consider, the views of the Chiefs of Staff of the armed forces, in their roles as customers of the acquisition system, on matters pertaining to trade-offs among cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance under subsection (b)(1)(C) and the balancing of resources with priorities pursuant to subsection (b)(3).’’. Subsections mentioned above require the JROC to assist the CJCS – (b)(1)(C) “in ensuring that appropriate trade-offs are made among life-cycle cost, schedule, and performance objectives, and procurement quantity objectives, in the establishment and approval of military requirements in consultation with the advisors…” (b)(3) “…in reviewing the estimated level of resources required in the fulfillment of each joint military requirement and in ensuring that the total cost of such resources is consistent with the level of priority assigned to such requirement;”

10 USC 2366a Requirements at Milestone A
The MDA certifies determines in writing, after consulting the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) on matters related to program requirements and military needs that: (1) the program fulfills an approved initial capabilities document; (2) the program is being executed by an entity with a relevant core competency function as identified by the Secretary of Defense; the program has been developed in light of appropriate market research; (3) if the program duplicates a capability already provided by an existing system, the duplication provided by such program is necessary and appropriate; (4) with respect to any identified areas of risk, there is a plan to reduce the risk; (5) That a determination of applicability of core depot-level maintenance and repair capabilities requirements has been made; the planning for sustainment has been addressed and that a determination of applicability of core logistics capability requirements has been made (6) an analysis of alternatives has been performed consistent with the study guidance developed by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation; (7) a cost estimate for the program has been submitted, with the concurrence of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, and the level of resources required to develop, procure, and sustain the program is consistent with the priority level assigned by the JROC sufficient for successful program execution; and, (8) the program or subprogram meets any other considerations the milestone decision authority considers relevant. Changes made by NDAA 2016

10 USC 2366b Requirements at Milestone B
Certification CERTIFICATIONS AND DETERMINATION REQUIRED.—A major defense acquisition program may not receive Milestone B approval until the milestone decision authority— (1) has received a preliminary design review and conducted a formal post-preliminary design review assessment, and certifies on the basis of such assessment that the program demonstrates a high likelihood of accomplishing its intended mission; (2) further certifies that the technology in the program has been demonstrated in a relevant environment, as determined by the milestone decision authority on the basis of an independent review and assessment by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, in consultation with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation; (3) Has received a business case analysis and certifies on the basis of that analysis that determines in writing that— (A) the program is affordable when considering the ability of the Department of Defense to accomplish the program’s mission using alternative systems; (B) appropriate trade-offs among cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance objectives have been made to ensure that the program is affordable when considering the per unit cost and the total acquisition cost in the context of the total resources available during the period covered by the future-years defense program submitted during the fiscal year in which the certification is made; Changes made by NDAA 2016

10 USC 2366b Requirements at Milestone B cont..
(C) reasonable cost and schedule estimates have been developed to execute, with the concurrence of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, the product development and production plan under the program; and (D) funding is available to execute the product development and production plan under the program, through the period covered by the future-years defense program submitted during the fiscal year in which the certification is made, consistent with the estimates described in subparagraph (C) for the program; (E) appropriate market research has been conducted prior to technology development to reduce duplication of existing technology and products; (F) the Department of Defense has completed an analysis of alternatives with respect to the program; (G) the Joint Requirements Oversight Council has accomplished its duties with respect to the program pursuant to section 181(b) of this title, including an analysis of the operational requirements for the program; (H) life-cycle sustainment planning, including corrosion prevention and mitigation planning, has identified and evaluated relevant sustainment costs throughout development, production, operation, sustainment, and disposal of the program, and any alternatives, and that such costs are reasonable and have been accurately estimated; Changes made by NDAA 2016

10 USC 2366b Requirements at Milestone B cont..
(I) an estimate has been made of the requirements for core logistics capabilities and the associated sustaining workloads required to support such requirements; (J) there is a plan to mitigate and account for any costs in connection with any anticipated de-certification of cryptographic systems and components during the production and procurement of the major defense acquisition program to be acquired; (K) the program complies with all relevant policies, regulations, and directives of the Department of Defense; and (L) the Secretary of the military department concerned and the Chief of the armed force concerned concur in the trade-offs made in accordance with subparagraph (B); and (4) in the case of a space system, performs a cost benefit analysis for any new or follow-on satellite system using a dedicated ground control system instead of a shared ground control system, except that no cost benefit analysis is required to be performed under this paragraph for any Milestone B approval of a space system after December 31, 2019 Changes made by NDAA 2016

NDAA 2016 Title VIII, Subtitle B
Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures and Limitations Sec Amendment relating to multiyear contract authority for acquisition of property Sec Applicability of cost and pricing data and certification requirements. Sec Rights in technical data. Sec Procurement of supplies for experimental purposes. Sec Amendments to other transaction authority. Sec Amendment to acquisition threshold for special emergency procurement authority. Sec Revision of method of rounding when making inflation adjustment of acquisition-related dollar thresholds.

NDAA 2016 Title VIII, Subtitle E
Provisions Relating to Commercial Items. Sec Procurement of commercial items. Sec Modification to information required to be submitted by offeror in procurement of major weapon systems as commercial items. Sec Use of recent prices paid by the Government in the determination of price reasonableness. Sec Report on defense-unique laws applicable to the procurement of commercial items and commercially available off-the-shelf items. Sec Market research and preference for commercial items. Sec Limitation on conversion of procurements from commercial acquisition procedures. Sec Treatment of goods and services provided by nontraditional defense contractors as commercial items.

NDAA 2016 Title VIII, Subtitle F
Industrial Base Matters Sec Amendment to Mentor-Protégé Program. Sec Amendments to data quality improvement plan. Sec Notice of contract consolidation for acquisition strategies. Sec Clarification of requirements related to small business contracts for services. Sec Certification requirements for Business Opportunity Specialists, commercial market representatives, and procurement center representatives. Sec Modifications to requirements for qualified HUBZone small business concerns located in a base closure area. Sec Joint venturing and teaming. Sec Modification to and scorecard program for small business contracting goals.

NDAA 2016 Title VIII, Subtitle F
Industrial Base Matters, cont.. Sec Establishment of an Office of Hearings and Appeals in the Small Business Administration; petitions for reconsideration of size standards. Sec Additional duties of the Director of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. Sec Including subcontracting goals in agency responsibilities. Sec Reporting related to failure of contractors to meet goals under negotiated comprehensive small business subcontracting plans. Sec Pilot program for streamlining awards for innovative technology projects. Sec Surety bond requirements and amount of guarantee. Sec Review of Government access to intellectual property rights of private sector firms. Sec Inclusion in annual technology and industrial capability assessments of a determination about defense acquisition program requirements.

NDAA 2016 Title VIII, Subtitle G
Other Matters Sec Consideration of potential program cost increases and schedule delays resulting from oversight of defense acquisition programs. Sec Examination and guidance relating to oversight and approval of services contracts. Sec Streamlining of requirements relating to defense business systems. Sec Procurement of personal protective equipment. Sec Amendments concerning detection and avoidance of counterfeit electronic parts. Sec Exception for AbilityOne products from authority to acquire goods and services manufactured in Afghanistan, Central Asian States, and Djibouti. Sec Effective communication between government and industry. Sec Standards for procurement of secure information technology and cyber security systems. Sec Unified information technology services. Sec Cloud strategy for Department of Defense. Sec Development period for Department of Defense information technology systems.

NDAA 2016 Title VIII, Subtitle G
Other Matters, cont.. Sec Revisions to pilot program on acquisition of military purpose nondevelopmental items. Sec Improved auditing of contracts. Sec Sense of Congress on evaluation method for procurement of audit or audit readiness services. Sec Mitigating potential unfair competitive advantage of technical advisors to acquisition programs. Sec Survey on the costs of regulatory compliance. Sec Treatment of interagency and State and local purchases when the Department of Defense acts as contract intermediary for the General Services Administration. Sec Competition for religious services contracts. Sec Pilot program regarding risk-based contracting for smaller contract actions under the Truth in Negotiations Act.

NDAA 2016 Status Status as of 10/24/2015

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "NDAA 2016 Status Status as of 10/24/2015"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

NDAA 2016 Status Status as of 10/24/2015

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "NDAA 2016 Status Status as of 10/24/2015"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback