14 U.S.C. § 1132 — Acquisition

Page 99 TITLE 14—COAST GUARD § 1132 sure the project or program is included in the Coast Guard Capital Investment Plan. (2) ASSESSMENT OF TRADE-OFFS.—In con- ducting an affordability assessment under sub- section (a)(2)(B), the Commandant shall de- velop and implement mechanisms to ensure that trade-offs among cost, schedule, and per- formance are considered in the establishment of preliminary operational requirements for development and production of new assets and capabilities for Level 1 and Level 2 acquisi- tions projects and programs. (c) HUMAN RESOURCE CAPITAL PLANNING.—The Commandant shall develop staffing predictions, define human capital performance initiatives, and identify preliminary training needs required to implement each Level 1 and Level 2 acquisi- tion project and program. (Added Pub. L. 111–281, title IV, § 402(a), Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 2941, § 571; renumbered § 1131, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, § 108(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4208.) Editorial Notes AMENDMENTS 2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 571 of this title as this section. § 1132. Acquisition (a) IN GENERAL.—The Commandant may not establish a Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition project or program until the Commandant— (1) clearly defines the operational require- ments for the project or program; (2) establishes the feasibility of alternatives; (3) develops an acquisition project or pro- gram baseline; (4) produces a life-cycle cost estimate; and (5) assesses the relative merits of alter- natives to determine a preferred solution in accordance with the requirements of this sec- tion. (b) SUBMISSION REQUIRED BEFORE PRO- CEEDING.—Any Coast Guard Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition project or program may not begin to obtain any capability or asset or proceed beyond that phase of its development that entails ap- proving the supporting acquisition until the Commandant submits to the appropriate con- gressional committees the following: (1) The key performance parameters, the key system attributes, and the operational per- formance attributes of the capability or asset to be acquired under the proposed acquisition project or program. (2) A detailed list of the systems or other ca- pabilities with which the capability or asset to be acquired is intended to be interoperable, in- cluding an explanation of the attributes of interoperability. (3) The anticipated acquisition project or program baseline and acquisition unit cost for the capability or asset to be acquired under the project or program. (4) A detailed schedule for the acquisition process showing when all capability and asset acquisitions are to be completed and when all acquired capabilities and assets are to be ini- tially and fully deployed. (c) ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Coast Guard may not acquire an experimental or technically imma- ture capability or asset or implement a Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition project or program, unless it has prepared an analysis of alter- natives for the capability or asset to be ac- quired in the concept and technology develop- ment phase of the acquisition process for the capability or asset. (2) REQUIREMENTS.—The analysis of alter- natives shall be prepared by a federally funded research and development center, a qualified entity of the Department of Defense, or a similar independent third-party entity that has appropriate acquisition expertise and has no financial interest in any part of the acqui- sition project or program that is the subject of the analysis. At a minimum, the analysis of alternatives shall include— (A) an assessment of the technical matu- rity of the capability or asset, and technical and other risks; (B) an examination of capability, inter- operability, and other advantages and dis- advantages; (C) an evaluation of whether different combinations or quantities of specific assets or capabilities could meet the Coast Guard’s overall performance needs; (D) a discussion of key assumptions and variables, and sensitivity to change in such assumptions and variables; (E) when an alternative is an existing ca- pability, asset, or prototype, an evaluation of relevant safety and performance records and costs; (F) a calculation of life-cycle costs includ- ing— (i) an examination of likely research and development costs and the levels of uncer- tainty associated with such estimated costs; (ii) an examination of likely production and deployment costs and the levels of un- certainty associated with such estimated costs; (iii) an examination of likely operating and support costs and the levels of uncer- tainty associated with such estimated costs; (iv) if they are likely to be significant, an examination of likely disposal costs and the levels of uncertainty associated with such estimated costs; and (v) such additional measures as the Com- mandant or the Secretary of the depart- ment in which the Coast Guard is oper- ating determines to be necessary for ap- propriate evaluation of the capability or asset; and (G) the business case for each viable alter- native. (d) TEST AND EVALUATION MASTER PLAN.— (1) IN GENERAL.—For any Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition project or program the Chief Ac- quisition Officer must approve a test and eval- uation master plan specific to the acquisition project or program for the capability, asset, or subsystems of the capability or asset and in- Page 100 TITLE 14—COAST GUARD § 1133 tended to minimize technical, cost, and sched- ule risk as early as practicable in the develop- ment of the project or program. (2) TEST AND EVALUATION STRATEGY.—The master plan shall— (A) set forth an integrated test and evalua- tion strategy that will verify that capa- bility-level or asset-level and subsystem- level design and development, including per- formance and supportability, have been suf- ficiently proven before the capability, asset, or subsystem of the capability or asset is ap- proved for production; and (B) require that adequate developmental tests and evaluations and operational tests and evaluations established under subpara- graph (A) are performed to inform produc- tion decisions. (3) OTHER COMPONENTS OF THE MASTER PLAN.—At a minimum, the master plan shall identify— (A) the key performance parameters to be resolved through the integrated test and evaluation strategy; (B) the performance data to be used to de- termine whether the key performance pa- rameters have been resolved; (C) critical operational issues to be as- sessed in addition to the key performance parameters; (D) the results during test and evaluation that will be required to demonstrate that a capability, asset, or subsystem meets per- formance requirements; (E) specific development test and evalua- tion phases and the scope of each phase; (F) modeling and simulation activities to be performed, if any, and the scope of such activities; (G) early operational assessments to be performed, if any, and the scope of such as- sessments; (H) operational test and evaluation phases; (I) an estimate of the resources, including funds, that will be required for all test, eval- uation, assessment, modeling, and simula- tion activities; and (J) the Government entity or independent entity that will perform the test, evaluation, assessment, modeling, and simulation ac- tivities. (4) UPDATE.—The Chief Acquisition Officer must approve an updated master plan when- ever there is a revision to project or program test and evaluation strategy, scope, or phas- ing. (5) LIMITATION.—The Coast Guard may not— (A) proceed beyond that phase of the ac- quisition process that entails approving the supporting acquisition of a capability or asset before the master plan is approved by the Chief Acquisition Officer; or (B) award any production contract for a capability, asset, or subsystem for which a master plan is required under this sub- section before the master plan is approved by the Chief Acquisition Officer. (e) LIFE-CYCLE COST ESTIMATES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Commandant shall im- plement mechanisms to ensure the develop- ment and regular updating of life-cycle cost estimates for each acquisition with a total ac- quisition cost that equals or exceeds $10,000,000 and an expected service life of 10 or more years, and to ensure that these estimates are considered in decisions to develop or produce new or enhanced capabilities and assets. (2) TYPES OF ESTIMATES.—For each Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition project or program, in ad- dition to life-cycle cost estimates developed under paragraph (1), the Commandant shall re- quire that— (A) life-cycle cost estimates developed under paragraph (1) be updated before— (i) each milestone decision is concluded; and (ii) the project or program enters a new acquisition phase; and (B) an independent cost estimate or inde- pendent cost assessment, as appropriate, be developed to validate life-cycle cost esti- mates developed under paragraph (1). (Added Pub. L. 111–281, title IV, § 402(a), Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 2942, § 572; amended Pub. L. 114–120, title II, § 204(a), Feb. 8, 2016, 130 Stat. 34; renumbered § 1132, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, § 108(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4208; Pub. L. 117–263, div. K, title CXII, § 11210, Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 4012.) Editorial Notes AMENDMENTS 2022—Subsec. (e)(2), (3). Pub. L. 117–263 added par. (2) and struck out former pars. (2) and (3) which read as follows: ‘‘(2) TYPES OF ESTIMATES.—In addition to life-cycle cost estimates that may be developed by acquisition program offices, the Commandant shall require that an independent life-cycle cost estimate be developed for each Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition project or program. ‘‘(3) REQUIRED UPDATES.—For each Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition project or program the Commandant shall require that life-cycle cost estimates shall be updated before each milestone decision is concluded and the project or program enters a new acquisition phase.’’ 2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 572 of this title as this section. 2016—Subsec. (d)(3)(B) to (J). Pub. L. 114–120 added subpars. (B) and (D) and redesignated former subpar. (B) as (C) and former subpars. (C) to (H) as (E) to (J), respectively. § 1133. Preliminary development and demonstra- tion (a) IN GENERAL.—The Commandant shall en- sure that developmental test and evaluation, operational test and evaluation, life-cycle cost estimates, and the development and demonstra- tion requirements applied by this chapter to ac- quisition projects and programs are met to con- firm that the projects or programs meet the re- quirements identified in the mission-analysis and affordability assessment prepared under sec- tion 1131(a)(2), the operational requirements de- veloped under section 1132(a)(1) and the fol- lowing development and demonstration objec- tives: (1) To demonstrate that the design, manu- facturing, and production solution is based upon a stable, producible, and cost-effective product design. (2) To ensure that the product capabilities meet contract specifications, acceptable oper-