10 U.S.C. § 4272 — Independent technical risk assessments

Page 2726 TITLE 10—ARMED FORCES § 4272 more boards (to be known as a ‘Configuration Steering Board’) for the major defense acquisition programs of such department. ‘‘(b) COMPOSITION.— ‘‘(1) CHAIR.—Each Configuration Steering Board under this section shall be chaired by the service ac- quisition executive of the military department con- cerned. ‘‘(2) PARTICULAR MEMBERS.—Each Configuration Steering Board under this section shall include a rep- resentative of the following: ‘‘(A) The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. ‘‘(B) The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment. ‘‘(C) The Chief of Staff of the Armed Force con- cerned. ‘‘(D) Other Armed Forces, as appropriate. ‘‘(E) The Joint Staff. ‘‘(F) The Comptroller of the military department concerned. ‘‘(G) The military deputy to the service acquisi- tion executive concerned. ‘‘(H) The program executive officer for the major defense acquisition program concerned. ‘‘(I) Other senior representatives of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military depart- ment concerned, as appropriate. ‘‘(c) RESPONSIBILITIES.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Configuration Steering Board for a major defense acquisition program under this section shall be responsible for the following: ‘‘(A) Monitoring changes in program require- ments and ensuring the Chief of Staff of the Armed Force concerned, in consultation with the Sec- retary of the military department concerned, ap- proves of any proposed changes that could have an adverse effect on program cost or schedule. ‘‘(B) Preventing unnecessary changes to program requirements and system configuration that could have an adverse impact on program cost or sched- ule. ‘‘(C) Mitigating the adverse cost and schedule im- pact of any changes to program requirements or system configuration that may be required. ‘‘(D) Ensuring that the program delivers as much planned capability as possible, at or below the rel- evant program baseline. ‘‘(2) DISCHARGE OF RESPONSIBILITIES.—In dis- charging its responsibilities under this section with respect to a major defense acquisition program, a Configuration Steering Board shall— ‘‘(A) review and approve or disapprove any pro- posed changes to program requirements or system configuration that have the potential to adversely impact program cost or schedule; and ‘‘(B) review and recommend proposals to reduce program requirements that have the potential to improve program cost or schedule in a manner con- sistent with program objectives. ‘‘(3) PRESENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON REDUC- TION IN REQUIREMENTS.—Any recommendation for a proposed reduction in requirements that is made by a Configuration Steering Board under paragraph (2)(B) shall be presented to appropriate organizations of the Joint Staff and the military departments responsible for such requirements for review and approval in ac- cordance with applicable procedures. ‘‘(4) ANNUAL CONSIDERATION OF EACH MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAM.— ‘‘(A) ANNUAL MEETING.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Secretary of the military de- partment concerned shall ensure that a Configura- tion Steering Board under this section meets to consider each major defense acquisition program of such military department at least once each year. ‘‘(B) EXCEPTION.—If the service acquisition execu- tive of the military department concerned deter- mines, in writing, that there have been no changes to the program requirements of a major defense ac- quisition program during the preceding year, the Configuration Steering Board for such major de- fense acquisition program is not required to meet as described in subparagraph (A). ‘‘(5) CERTIFICATION OF COST AND SCHEDULE DEVI- ATIONS DURING SYSTEM DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT.— For a major defense acquisition program that re- ceived an initial Milestone B approval during fiscal year 2008, a Configuration Steering Board may not approve any proposed alteration to program require- ments or system configuration if such an alteration would— ‘‘(A) increase the cost (including any increase for expected inflation or currency exchange rates) for system development and demonstration by more than 25 percent; or ‘‘(B) extend the schedule for key events by more than 15 percent of the total number of months be- tween the award of the system development and demonstration contract and the scheduled Mile- stone C approval date, unless the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment jointly certify to the congressional defense committees [Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives], and include in the certification supporting rationale, that approving such alteration to program requirements or system configuration is in the best interest of the Depart- ment of Defense despite the cost and schedule im- pacts to system development and demonstration of such program. ‘‘(d) APPLICABILITY.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The requirements of this section shall apply with respect to any major defense acquisi- tion program that is commenced before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 14, 2008]. ‘‘(2) CURRENT PROGRAMS.—In the case of any major defense acquisition program that is ongoing as of the date of the enactment of this Act, a Configuration Steering Board under this section shall be established for such program not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. ‘‘(e) GUIDANCE ON AUTHORITIES OF PROGRAM MAN- AGERS AFTER MILESTONE B.— ‘‘(1) [Amended section 853(d)(2) of Pub. L. 109–364, formerly set out as a note under section 2430 of this title.] ‘‘(2) APPLICABILITY.—The Secretary of Defense shall modify the guidance described in section 853(d) of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 [Pub. L. 109–364, formerly set out as a note under section 2430 of this title] in order to take into account the amendment made by paragraph (1) not later than 60 days after the date of the enact- ment of this Act [Oct. 14, 2008]. ‘‘(f) MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAM DEFINED.— In this section, the term ‘major defense acquisition program’ has the meaning given that term in section 2430(a) of title 10, United States Code [now 10 U.S.C. 4201].’’ § 4272. Independent technical risk assessments (a) IN GENERAL.—With respect to a major de- fense acquisition program, the Secretary of De- fense shall conduct or approve independent tech- nical risk assessments before any decision to grant Milestone B approval for the program pur- suant to section 4252 of this title, any decision to enter into low-rate initial production or full- rate production, or at any other time considered appropriate by the Secretary, that includes the identification of any critical technologies or manufacturing processes that have not been suc- cessfully demonstrated in a relevant environ- ment. (b) GUIDANCE.—The Secretary shall issue guid- ance and a framework for the conduct, execu- Page 2727 TITLE 10—ARMED FORCES § 4273 tion, and approval of independent technical risk assessments. (Added Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title VIII, § 807(a)(1), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2261, § 2448b; amended Pub. L. 116–92, div. A, title IX, § 902(73), Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 1552; renumbered § 4272 and amended Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, § 1847(e)(2), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4256; Pub. L. 118–159, div. A, title VIII, § 806(b)(1), Dec. 23, 2024, 138 Stat. 1974.) Editorial Notes AMENDMENTS 2024—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 118–159 struck out dash after ‘‘risk assessments’’ and par. (2) designation before ‘‘be- fore any decision’’ and struck out par. (1) which read as follows: ‘‘before any decision to grant Milestone A ap- proval for the program pursuant to section 4251 of this title, that identifies critical technologies and manufac- turing processes that need to be matured; and’’. 2021—Pub. L. 116–283, § 1847(e)(2), renumbered section 2448b of this title as this section. Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 116–283, § 1847(e)(2)(A), sub- stituted ‘‘section 4251’’ for ‘‘section 2366a’’. Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 116–283, § 1847(e)(2)(B), sub- stituted ‘‘section 4252’’ for ‘‘section 2366b’’. 2019—Pub. L. 116–92 added subsecs. (a) and (b) and struck out former subsecs. (a) and (b) which read as fol- lows: ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—With respect to a major defense ac- quisition program, the Secretary of Defense shall en- sure that an independent technical risk assessment is conducted— ‘‘(1) before any decision to grant Milestone A ap- proval for the program pursuant to section 2366a of this title, that identifies critical technologies and manufacturing processes that need to be matured; and ‘‘(2) before any decision to grant Milestone B ap- proval for the program pursuant to section 2366b of this title, any decision to enter into low-rate initial production or full-rate production, or at any other time considered appropriate by the Secretary, that includes the identification of any critical tech- nologies or manufacturing processes that have not been successfully demonstrated in a relevant environ- ment. ‘‘(b) CATEGORIZATION OF TECHNICAL RISK LEVELS.— The Secretary shall issue guidance and a framework for categorizing the degree of technical and manufacturing risk in a major defense acquisition program.’’ Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries EFFECTIVE DATE OF 2021 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 116–283 effective Jan. 1, 2022, with additional provisions for delayed implementation and applicability of existing law, see section 1801(d) of Pub. L. 116–283, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title. EFFECTIVE DATE Section applicable with respect to major defense ac- quisition programs that reach Milestone A after Oct. 1, 2017, see section 807(a)(2) of Pub. L. 114–328, set out as a note under section 4271 of this title. § 4273. Performance assessments and root cause analyses (a) DESIGNATION OF SENIOR OFFICIAL RESPONSI- BILITY FOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS AND ROOT CAUSE ANALYSES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall designate a senior official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense as the principal offi- cial of the Department of Defense responsible for conducting and overseeing performance as- sessments and root cause analyses for major defense acquisition programs. (2) NO PROGRAM EXECUTION RESPONSIBILITY.— The Secretary shall ensure that the senior of- ficial designated under paragraph (1) is not re- sponsible for program execution. (3) STAFF AND RESOURCES.—The Secretary shall assign to the senior official designated under paragraph (1) appropriate staff and re- sources necessary to carry out the senior offi- cial’s function under this section. (b) RESPONSIBILITIES.—The senior official des- ignated under subsection (a) shall be responsible for the following: (1) Carrying out performance assessments of major defense acquisition programs in accord- ance with the requirements of subsection (c) periodically or when requested by the Sec- retary of Defense, the Under Secretary of De- fense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Secretary of a military department, or the head of a Defense Agency. (2) Conducting root cause analyses for major defense acquisition programs in accordance with the requirements of subsection (d) when required by section 4376(a)(1) of this title, or when requested by the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Secretary of a military department, or the head of a Defense Agency. (3) Issuing policies, procedures, and guidance governing the conduct of performance assess- ments and root cause analyses by the military departments and the Defense Agencies. (4) Evaluating the utility of performance metrics used to measure the cost, schedule, and performance of major defense acquisition programs, and making such recommendations to the Secretary of Defense as the official con- siders appropriate to improve such metrics. (5) Advising acquisition officials on perform- ance issues regarding a major defense acquisi- tion program that may arise— (A) before certification under sections 4376 and 4377 of this title; (B) before entry into full-rate production; or (C) in the course of consideration of any decision to request authorization of a multiyear procurement contract for the pro- gram. (c) PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS.—For purposes of this section, a performance assessment with respect to a major defense acquisition program is an evaluation of the following: (1) The cost, schedule, and performance of the program, relative to current metrics, in- cluding performance requirements and base- line descriptions. (2) The extent to which the level of program cost, schedule, and performance predicted rel- ative to such metrics is likely to result in the timely delivery of a level of capability to the warfighter that is consistent with the level of resources to be expended and provides superior value to alternative approaches that may be available to meet the same military require- ment.