Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009
Public Law 111-23 · S. 454 · 111th Congress · began in the Senate
Signed by Barack Obama (D) on May 22, 2009 · Armed Forces and National Security
Sponsor: Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)
Cosponsors (14): Sen. John McCain, Sen. Thomas Carper,
Passage votesYeaNay
- HouseRecorded vote: 411 yea, 0 nay411–0
- SenateRecorded vote: 95 yea, 0 nay95–0
Data notes
The final version of the law, as each chamber passed it. A chamber that passed it by voice vote or unanimous consent has no count. “Method not stated” means the record does not say how the chamber voted. Where the record has a member-by-member vote, the “Who voted for it” section shows who voted yea.
Summary
The Congressional Research Service’s plain-language summary of what the law does.
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.
Who voted for it
Every senator of the 111th Congress on the ideology compass. Highlighted: the 95 who voted yea on final passage. Faded: everyone else, including those who voted nay, did not vote, or had not yet taken office.
95 yea0 nay4 present or did not vote
Democrats who voted yea(56)
Sen. Bernie SandersD-VT
Sen. Sheldon WhitehouseD-RI
Sen. Tom HarkinD-IA
Sen. Richard DurbinD-IL
Sen. Roland BurrisD-IL
Sen. Jack ReedD-RI
Sen. Sherrod BrownD-OH
Sen. Patrick LeahyD-VT
Sen. Benjamin CardinD-MD
Sen. Daniel AkakaD-HI
Sen. Kirsten GillibrandD-NY
Sen. Carl LevinD-MI
Sen. Frank LautenbergD-NJ
Sen. John KerryD-MA
Sen. Barbara MikulskiD-MD
Sen. Daniel InouyeD-HI
Sen. Chuck SchumerD-NY- Sen. Edward KaufmanD-DE
Sen. Jeff MerkleyD-OR
Sen. Tom UdallD-NM
Sen. Christopher DoddD-CT
Sen. Bob MenendezD-NJ
Sen. Debbie StabenowD-MI
Sen. Bob CaseyD-PA
Sen. Tim JohnsonD-SD
Sen. Barbara BoxerD-CA
Sen. Dianne FeinsteinD-CA
Sen. Ron WydenD-OR
Sen. Harry ReidD-NV
Sen. Arlen SpecterR-PA
Sen. Jeff BingamanD-NM
Sen. Patty MurrayD-WA
Sen. Jeanne ShaheenD-NH
Sen. Byron DorganD-ND
Sen. Maria CantwellD-WA
Sen. Kent ConradD-ND
Sen. Herb KohlD-WI
Sen. Thomas CarperD-DE
Sen. Mary LandrieuD-LA
Sen. Max BaucusD-MT
Sen. Mark BegichD-AK
Sen. Mark UdallD-CO
Sen. Russell FeingoldD-WI
Sen. Bill NelsonD-FL
Sen. Mark WarnerD-VA
Sen. Jon TesterD-MT
Sen. Kay HaganD-NC
Sen. Michael BennetD-CO
Sen. Joseph LiebermanD-CT
Sen. Amy KlobucharD-MN
Sen. Mark PryorD-AR
Sen. Jim WebbD-VA
Sen. Claire McCaskillD-MO
Sen. Blanche LincolnD-AR
Sen. Evan BayhD-IN
Sen. Ben NelsonD-NE
Republicans who voted yea(39)
Sen. Susan CollinsR-ME
Sen. Olympia SnoweR-ME
Sen. George VoinovichR-OH
Sen. Lisa MurkowskiR-AK
Sen. Kit BondR-MO
Sen. Richard LugarR-IN
Sen. Thad CochranR-MS
Sen. Lamar AlexanderR-TN
Sen. Mel MartinezR-FL
Sen. Robert BennettR-UT
Sen. Judd GreggR-NH
Sen. Bob CorkerR-TN
Sen. Kay HutchisonR-TX
Sen. Richard ShelbyR-AL
Sen. Chuck GrassleyR-IA
Sen. Roger WickerR-MS
Sen. Mike JohannsR-NE
Sen. Sam BrownbackR-KS
Sen. Lindsey GrahamR-SC
Sen. Pat RobertsR-KS
Sen. Johnny IsaksonR-GA
Sen. Mitch McConnellR-KY
Sen. Saxby ChamblissR-GA
Sen. David VitterR-LA
Sen. Richard BurrR-NC
Sen. John McCainR-AZ
Sen. John ThuneR-SD
Sen. Mike CrapoR-ID
Sen. John EnsignR-NV
Sen. Jeff SessionsR-AL
Sen. Michael EnziR-WY
Sen. Jon KylR-AZ
Sen. James RischR-ID
Sen. John BarrassoR-WY
Sen. John CornynR-TX
Sen. Jim InhofeR-OK
Sen. Jim BunningR-KY
Sen. Jim DeMintR-SC
Sen. Thomas CoburnR-OK
Data notes
The Senate’s recorded vote on the final version of the law (roll call 197 in Voteview), matched to the vote the record cites and checked against its totals. Positions are each member’s DW-NOMINATE score for that Congress, as on the Ideology page; left to right is more liberal to more conservative. Paired and announced yea votes count as yea. Lists follow the compass, most liberal first. A name links to a profile only for members of the current Congress. A law passed by voice vote or unanimous consent has no member list, and neither does a vote Voteview has not yet recorded.
Committees
The committees the bill was sent to, and what each did with it.
Data notes
A committee links to its page only where it exists in the current Congress; older and renamed committees are named without a link.
Related bills
4 bills the Library of Congress relates to this one.
H.R. 1830Identical bill
Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009
H.R. 2101Procedurally-relatedRelated bill
Weapons Acquisition System Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and Oversight Act of 2009
H.Res. 432Related bill
Providing for passage of the bill (H.R. 2101) to promote reform and independence in the oversight of weapons system acquisition by the Department of Defense, and for other purposes.
H.Res. 463Related bill
Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 454) to improve the organization and procedures of the Department of Defense for the acquisition of major weapon systems, and for other purp…
Data notes
Related bills are identified by the Congressional Research Service, the House and the Senate: companion and identical bills, bills with similar text, bills that were folded into this law, and rules that brought it to the floor. A bill that is itself a public law in this site’s data links here; the others link to Congress.gov.
Timeline
From introduction to signing, newest first: the committees, the floor and the president. 47 actions.
- May 22, 2009Became lawBecame law · Became Public Law No: 111-23.
- Became lawBecame law · Signed by President.
- May 21, 2009Resolving differencesResolving differences · Motions to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Resolving differencesResolving differences · On agreeing to the conference report Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 411 - 0 (Roll no. 286).House roll call 286
- Resolving differencesResolving differences · Conference report agreed to in House: On agreeing to the conference report Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 411 - 0 (Roll no. 286).House roll call 286
- Resolving differencesResolving differences · The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
- Resolving differencesResolving differences · Mr. Skelton brought up conference report H. Rept. 111-124 for consideration under the provisions of H. Res. 463.
- FloorFloor · Presented to President.
- FloorFloor · DEBATE - The House proceeded with 1 hour of debate on the conference report to accompany S. 454.
- OtherOther · Cleared for White House.
- May 20, 2009Resolving differencesResolving differences · Senate agreed to conference report by Yea-Nay Vote. 95 - 0. Record Vote Number: 197.Senate roll call 197
- Resolving differencesResolving differences · Conference report agreed to in Senate: Senate agreed to conference report by Yea-Nay Vote. 95 - 0. Record Vote Number: 197.Senate roll call 197
- Resolving differencesResolving differences · Conference report considered in Senate.
- Resolving differencesResolving differences · Conference papers: Senate report and manager's statement and official papers held at the desk in Senate.
- Resolving differencesResolving differences · Conference report H. Rept. 111-124 filed.
- Resolving differencesResolving differences · Conference report filed: Conference report H. Rept. 111-124 filed.
- FloorFloor · Message on Senate action sent to the House.
- May 19, 2009Resolving differencesResolving differences · Conferees agreed to file conference report.
- Resolving differencesResolving differences · Conference committee actions: Conferees agreed to file conference report.
- May 15, 2009FloorFloor · Message on Senate action sent to the House.
- May 14, 2009Resolving differencesResolving differences · 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; Martine…
- FloorFloor · Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendment to Senate bill and House requests a conference.
- May 13, 2009Resolving differencesResolving differences · Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Resolving differencesResolving differences · On motion to authorize conferees to close meetings Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 409 - 11 (Roll no. 254).House roll call 254
- Resolving differencesResolving differences · Mr. Skelton moved that the House authorize conferees to close meetings.
- Resolving differencesResolving differences · 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 …
- Resolving differencesResolving differences · On motion that the House insist upon its amendment, and request a conference Agreed to without objection.
- Resolving differencesResolving differences · Pursuant to H. Res. 432, the House insisted on its amendment and requested a conference.
- FloorFloor · On passage Passed pursuant to H. Res. 432.
- FloorFloor · 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.
Data notes
Every action the Library of Congress lists for the bill, from introduction to signing, plus the dated committee hearings. The source lists many steps twice (the chamber’s own entry and the Library of Congress copy, or a presidential and a became-law entry with the same words); those are shown once. Amendments are listed in their own section.
Amendments
14 amendments offered to the bill, with the last recorded step of each.
- Agreed to
S.Amdt. 1057SenateSen. Thomas CoburnR-OK· offered May 7, 2009Agreed to
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.
May 7, 2009: Amendment SA 1057 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
- Offered, no vote recorded
S.Amdt. 1056SenateSen. Olympia SnoweR-ME· offered May 6, 2009No vote recorded
May 6, 2009: Senate amendment submitted
- Agreed to
S.Amdt. 1055SenateSen. Jeff BingamanD-NM· offered May 6, 2009Agreed to
To clarify the submittal of certifications of the adequacy of budgets by the Director of the Department of Defense Test Resource Management Center.
May 6, 2009: Amendment SA 1055 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
- Offered, no vote recorded
S.Amdt. 1054SenateSen. Saxby ChamblissR-GA· offered May 6, 2009No vote recorded
May 6, 2009: Senate amendment submitted
- Agreed to
S.Amdt. 1053SenateSen. Saxby ChamblissR-GA· offered May 6, 2009Agreed to
To clarify an exception to conflict of interest requirements applicable to contracts for systems engineering and technical assistance functions.
May 6, 2009: Amendment SA 1053 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
- Agreed to
S.Amdt. 1052SenateSen. Patty MurrayD-WA· offered May 6, 2009Agreed to
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.
May 7, 2009: Amendment SA 1052 as modified agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote. (text as modified: CR S5256)
- Agreed to
S.Amdt. 1051SenateSen. Claire McCaskillD-MO· offered May 6, 2009Agreed to
To enhance the review of joint military requirements.
May 6, 2009: Amendment SA 1051 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
- Agreed to
S.Amdt. 1050SenateSen. Claire McCaskillD-MO· offered May 6, 2009Agreed to
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.
May 6, 2009: Amendment SA 1050 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
- Agreed to
S.Amdt. 1049SenateSen. Claire McCaskillD-MO· offered May 6, 2009Agreed to
To specify certain inputs to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council from the commanders of the combatant commands on joint military requirements.
May 6, 2009: Amendment SA 1049 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
- Agreed to
S.Amdt. 1048SenateSen. Thomas CarperD-DE· offered May 6, 2009Agreed to
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.
May 6, 2009: Amendment SA 1048 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
- Agreed to
S.Amdt. 1047SenateSen. Sheldon WhitehouseD-RI· offered May 6, 2009Agreed to
To further improve the cost assessment procedures and processes of the Department of Defense.
May 6, 2009: Amendment SA 1047 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
- Agreed to
S.Amdt. 1046SenateSen. Thomas CoburnR-OK· offered May 6, 2009Agreed to
To require reports on the operation and support costs of major defense acquisition programs and major weapons systems.
May 6, 2009: Amendment SA 1046 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
- Agreed to
S.Amdt. 1045SenateSen. Susan CollinsR-ME· offered May 6, 2009Agreed to
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.
May 6, 2009: Amendment SA 1045 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
- Agreed to
S.Amdt. 1044SenateSen. Jim InhofeR-OK· offered May 6, 2009Agreed to
To require a report on certain cost growth matters following the termination of a major defense acquisition program for critical cost growth.
May 6, 2009: Amendment SA 1044 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
Data notes
Amendments offered to this bill in either chamber, as the Library of Congress records them: each with a status read from its last recorded step: agreed to, rejected, withdrawn, ruled out of order, fell with another amendment, or offered with no vote recorded (most Senate amendments are only ever offered). The wording of each amendment is the source’s. Amendments to amendments and amendments to other bills are not listed.
Official record
The bill’s full text is on Congress.gov. Data through Oct 7, 2026.

























































































































































































































































































































































































































