Sec. 902. MODIFICATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES OF DIRECTOR OF COST ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM EVALUATION
1,486 words·~7 min read·
/statute-compilations/comps-17632/sec-902A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
## SEC. 902 MODIFICATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES OF DIRECTOR OF COST ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM EVALUATION ###
(a)In General Section 139a of title 10, United States Code, is amended— ####
(1)in subsection (d)— #####
(A)in paragraph (5)— ######
(i)by striking “, ensuring” and inserting “and ensuring”; and ######
(ii)by striking “, and assessing” and all that follows through “economy”; and #####
(B)in paragraph (8), by inserting after “defense resources” the following: “, including the standardization of analytical methodologies and the establishment and maintenance of a centralized knowledge repository of physical attributes or other data for modeling and simulation purposes”; and ####
(2)by adding at the end the following new subsections: > > ### “(e) Program Evaluation Competitive Analysis Cell > > > #### “(1) > > Not later than June 1, 2024, the Secretary of Defense shall establish a team, to be known as the ‘Program Evaluation Competitive Analysis Cell’ (referred to in this subsection as the ‘Cell’), to critically assess the analytical methodologies, assumptions, and data used in key strategic and operational analyses conducted by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation. > > > #### “(2) > > The Secretary of Defense shall— > > > ##### “(A) > > designate an individual to serve as the head of the Cell; and > > > ##### “(B) > > ensure that the Cell has a sufficient number of personnel to carry out the duties described in this subsection. > > > #### “(3) > > The Cell shall be independent of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation. The head of the Cell shall report directly to the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of Defense. > > > #### “(4) > > > #####
(A)> > Not less frequently than once every two years, the Cell shall conduct an alternative operational or strategic analysis of an analytical question identified by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under subparagraph (B). In conducting such alternative analysis, the Cell shall use assumptions different from the assumptions used by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation for the original analysis of such question. > > > ##### “(B) > > For purposes of each alternative analysis required under subparagraph (A), at an appropriate time before the commencement of such analysis— > > > ###### “(i) > > the Director of the Joint Staff shall submit to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a list of not fewer than three operational or strategic questions previously studied by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation that could potentially serve as the basis of for such alternative analysis; and > > > ###### “(ii) > > from such list, the Chairman shall select one question to serve as the basis for such analysis. > > > ### “(f) Inclusion of Risk Estimates in Certain Submissions > > In any case in which the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation submits to the Secretary of Defense an analytical product that recommends not meeting or changing a requirement established by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, the Director shall include with such submission— > > > #### “(1) > > a risk assessment that assesses any risks of the recommended course of action with respect to the execution of operational plans and the long-term ability of the armed forces to meet the needs of combatant commanders (as determined by the Secretary of Defense); and > > > #### “(2) > > a risk estimate from the military service in question that assesses the risks described in paragraph (1). > > > ### “(g) Annual Reports > > > #### “(1) In general > > Not later than February 1, 2024, and annually thereafter, the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on any strategic and operational analyses conducted under paragraphs (2), (3), (6), (7), or
(8)of subsection (d). Each report shall include— > > > ##### “(A) > > a review of strategic portfolio reviews completed in the fiscal year preceding submission of the report and a description of such reviews planned for the fiscal year that begins after submission of the report; > > > ##### “(B) > > a review of analyses of alternatives completed in the fiscal year preceding submission of the report and a description of such analyses planned for the fiscal year that begins after submission of the report; and > > > ##### “(C) > > a review of defense program projections completed in the fiscal year preceding submission of the report and a description of such projections planned for the fiscal year that begins after submission of the report. > > > #### “(2) Form > > Each report required by paragraph
(1)shall be submitted in classified form, but shall include an unclassified summary. > > > #### “(3) Briefings > > Not later than 15 days after the submission of each report required by paragraph (1), the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shall provide to the congressional defense committees a briefing on the contents of the report. > > > ### “(h) Quarterly Briefings > > Beginning not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this subsection, and on a quarterly basis thereafter, the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shall provide to the congressional defense committees a briefing on the activities carried out by Director during the preceding quarter an any ongoing activities of the Director as of the date of briefing.” > . ###
(b)Pilot Program on Alternative Analysis **[**[10 U.S.C. 139a note](/us/usc/t10/s139a)**]** ####
(1)In general Not later than May 1, 2024, the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation shall establish a pilot program on alternative analysis (referred to in this subsection as the “pilot program”). ####
(2)Structure Under the pilot program, the Director shall establish three analytical groups focused on programmatic analysis in the following: #####
(A)Year 1 of the future-years defense program under section 221 of title 10, United States Code, beginning with fiscal year 2025. #####
(B)Years 2 through 5 of the future-years defense program. #####
(C)Years outside the future-years defense program. ####
(3)Requirements The Director shall ensure that at least one strategic portfolio review or an equivalent analytical effort is conducted each year under the pilot program. ####
(4)Termination The pilot program shall terminate on September 30, 2028. ###
(c)Establishment of Analysis Working Group ####
(1)In general Not later than May 1, 2024, the Secretary of Defense shall establish within the Department of Defense a working group to be known as the “Analysis Working Group”. ####
(2)Personnel The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Analysis Working Group possesses sufficient full-time equivalent support personnel to carry out the duties of the Group, including expansive coordination activities across the Department of Defense. ####
(3)Membership #####
(A)Regular members The Analysis Working Group shall be composed of at least one representative from each of the following components of the Department of Defense: ######
(i)The Office of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation. ######
(ii)The Directorate for Joint Force Development
(J7)of the Joint Staff. ######
(iii)The Directorate for Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment
(J8)of the Joint Staff. ######
(iv)The Office of the Secretary of Defense for Policy. ######
(v)The Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office. #####
(B)Observers At least one representative from each of the following commands shall serve as observers of the Analysis Working Group: ######
(i)The United States Indo-Pacific Command. ######
(ii)The United States European Command. ######
(iii)The United States Central Command. ####
(4)Duties The Analysis Working Group shall— #####
(A)establish clear priorities and standards to focus analysts on decision support; #####
(B)improve transparency of methodologies, tools, and tradecraft across the analytic community, including testing and validation for new or emerging methodologies, tools, and tradecraft; #####
(C)improve quality of and expand access to data, including evaluation of new data sets, or application of existing data sets in new or novel ways; #####
(D)evolve the methodologies, tools, and tradecraft methods and tools used in strategic analysis; #####
(E)resolve classified access and infrastructure challenges; #####
(F)foster a workforce and organizations that are innovative, creative, and provide high-quality strategic decision support; and #####
(G)carry out such other activities as the Secretary of Defense determines appropriate. ###
(d)Rule of Construction Nothing in subsection
(b)or
(c)shall be construed to interfere with the authority of the Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces to establish military requirements, performance requirements, and joint performance requirements, or the authority of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to validate such requirements under section 181 of title 10, United States Code.
Connectionstraces to 1
Traces to 1 document
Citation graph
cites case law
Sec. 902
MODIFICATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES OF DIRECTOR OF COST ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM EVALUATION
Cites 1Cited by 0 across 0 sources