USC Subchapter II

USC Subchapter II
in effect

14 U.S.C. § 1131 Identification of major system acquisitions

(a) In General.—(1) Support mechanisms.—The Commandant shall develop and implement mechanisms to support the establishment of mature and stable operational requirements for all acquisitions. (2) Mission analysis; affordability assessment.—The Commandant may not initiate a Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition project or program until the Commandant—(A) completes a mission analysis that—(i) identifies the specific capability gaps to be addressed by the project or program; and (ii) develops a clear mission need to be addressed by the project or program; and (B) prepares a preliminary affordability assessment for the project or program. (b) Elements.—(1) Requirements.—The mechanisms required by subsection (a) shall ensure the implementation of a formal process for the development of a mission-needs statement, concept-of-operations document, capability development plan, and resource proposal for the initial project or program funding, and shall ensure the project or program is included in the Coast Guard Capital Investment Plan. (2) Assessment of trade-offs.—In conducting an affordability assessment under subsection (a)(2)(B), the Commandant shall develop and implement mechanisms to ensure that trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance are considered in the establishment of preliminary operational requirements for development and production of new assets and capabilities for Level 1 and Level 2 acquisitions 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 acquisition project and program.

14 U.S.C. § 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 requirements for the project or program; (2) establishes the feasibility of alternatives; (3) develops an acquisition project or program baseline; (4) produces a life-cycle cost estimate; and (5) assesses the relative merits of alternatives to determine a preferred solution in accordance with the requirements of this section. (b) Submission Required Before Proceeding.—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 approving the supporting acquisition until the Commandant submits to the appropriate congressional committees the following:(1) The key performance parameters, the key system attributes, and the operational performance 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 capabilities with which the capability or asset to be acquired is intended to be interoperable, including 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 initially and fully deployed. (c) Analysis of Alternatives.—(1) In general.—The Coast Guard may not acquire an experimental or technically immature capability or asset or implement a Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition project or program, unless it has prepared an analysis of alternatives for the capability or asset to be acquired in the concept and technology development phase of the acquisition process for the capability or asset. (2) Requirements.—The analysis of alternatives 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 acquisition 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 maturity of the capability or asset, and technical and other risks; (B) an examination of capability, interoperability, and other advantages and disadvantages; (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 capability, asset, or prototype, an evaluation of relevant safety and performance records and costs; (F) a calculation of life-cycle costs including—(i) an examination of likely research and development costs and the levels of uncertainty associated with such estimated costs; (ii) an examination of likely production and deployment costs and the levels of uncertainty associated with such estimated costs; (iii) an examination of likely operating and support costs and the levels of uncertainty 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 Commandant or the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating determines to be necessary for appropriate evaluation of the capability or asset; and (G) the business case for each viable alternative. (d) Test and Evaluation Master Plan.—(1) In general.—For any Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition project or program the Chief Acquisition Officer must approve a test and evaluation master plan specific to the acquisition project or program for the capability, asset, or subsystems of the capability or asset and intended to minimize technical, cost, and schedule risk as early as practicable in the development of the project or program. (2) Test and evaluation strategy.—The master plan shall—(A) set forth an integrated test and evaluation strategy that will verify that capability-level or asset-level and subsystem-level design and development, including performance and supportability, have been sufficiently proven before the capability, asset, or subsystem of the capability or asset is approved for production; and (B) require that adequate developmental tests and evaluations and operational tests and evaluations established under subparagraph (A) are performed to inform production 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 determine whether the key performance parameters have been resolved; (C) critical operational issues to be assessed 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 performance requirements; (E) specific development test and evaluation 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 assessments; (H) operational test and evaluation phases; (I) an estimate of the resources, including funds, that will be required for all test, evaluation, assessment, modeling, and simulation activities; and (J) the Government entity or independent entity that will perform the test, evaluation, assessment, modeling, and simulation activities. (4) Update.—The Chief Acquisition Officer must approve an updated master plan whenever there is a revision to project or program test and evaluation strategy, scope, or phasing. (5) Limitation.—The Coast Guard may not—(A) proceed beyond that phase of the acquisition 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 subsection before the master plan is approved by the Chief Acquisition Officer. (e) Life-Cycle Cost Estimates.—(1) In general.—The Commandant shall implement mechanisms to ensure the development and regular updating of life-cycle cost estimates for each acquisition with a total acquisition 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 addition to life-cycle cost estimates developed under paragraph (1), the Commandant shall require 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 independent cost assessment, as appropriate, be developed to validate life-cycle cost estimates developed under paragraph (1).

14 U.S.C. § 1133 Preliminary development and demonstration

(a) In General.—The Commandant shall ensure that developmental test and evaluation, operational test and evaluation, life-cycle cost estimates, and the development and demonstration requirements applied by this chapter to acquisition projects and programs are met to confirm that the projects or programs meet the requirements identified in the mission-analysis and affordability assessment prepared under section 1131(a)(2), the operational requirements developed under section 1132(a)(1) and the following development and demonstration objectives:(1) To demonstrate that the design, manufacturing, 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 operational performance requirements, and system security requirements. (3) To ensure that the product design is mature enough to commit to full production and deployment. (b) Tests and Evaluations.—(1) In general.—The Commandant shall ensure that the Coast Guard conducts developmental tests and evaluations and operational tests and evaluations of a capability or asset and the subsystems of the capability or asset in accordance with the master plan prepared for the capability or asset under section 1132(d)(1).11 See References in Text note below. (2) Use of third parties.—The Commandant shall ensure that the Coast Guard uses independent third parties with expertise in testing and evaluating the capabilities or assets and the subsystems of the capabilities or assets being acquired to conduct developmental tests and evaluations and operational tests and evaluations whenever the Coast Guard lacks the capability to conduct the tests and evaluations required by a master plan. (3) Communication of safety concerns.—The Commandant shall ensure that independent third parties and Government employees that identify safety concerns during developmental or operational tests and evaluations or through independent or Government-conducted design assessments of capabilities or assets and subsystems of capabilities or assets to be acquired by the Coast Guard communicate such concerns as soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days after the completion of the test or assessment event or activity that identified the safety concern, to the program manager for the capability or asset and the subsystems concerned and to the Chief Acquisition Officer. (4) Reporting of safety concerns.—The Commandant shall ensure that any safety concerns that have been communicated under paragraph (3) for an acquisition program or project are reported to the appropriate congressional committees at least 90 days before the award of any contract or issuance of any delivery order or task order for low, initial, or full-rate production of the capability or asset concerned if they will remain uncorrected or unmitigated at the time such a contract is awarded or delivery order or task order is issued. The report shall include a justification for the approval of that level of production of the capability or asset before the safety concerns are corrected or mitigated. The report shall also include an explanation of the actions that will be taken to correct or mitigate the safety concerns, the date by which those actions will be taken, and the adequacy of current funding to correct or mitigate the safety concerns. (5) Asset already in low, initial, or full-rate production.—The Commandant shall ensure that if an independent third party or a Government employee identifies a safety concern with a capability or asset or any subsystems of a capability or asset not previously identified during operational test and evaluation of a capability or asset already in low, initial, or full-rate production—(A) the Commandant, through the Assistant Commandant for Capability, shall notify the program manager and the Chief Acquisition Officer of the safety concern as soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days after the completion of the test and evaluation event or activity that identified the safety concern; and (B) the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support shall notify the Commandant and the Deputy Commandant for Operations of the safety concern within 50 days after the notification required under subparagraph (A), and include in such notification—(i) an explanation of the actions that will be taken to correct or mitigate the safety concern in all capabilities or assets and subsystems of the capabilities or assets yet to be produced, and the date by which those actions will be taken; (ii) an explanation of the actions that will be taken to correct or mitigate the safety concern in previously produced capabilities or assets and subsystems of the capabilities or assets, and the date by which those actions will be taken; and (iii) an assessment of the adequacy of current funding to correct or mitigate the safety concern in capabilities or assets and subsystems of the capabilities or assets and in previously produced capabilities or assets and subsystems. (c) Technical Certification.—(1) In general.—The Commandant shall ensure that any Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition project or program is certified by the technical authority of the Coast Guard after review by an independent third party with capabilities in the mission area, asset, or particular asset component. (2) TEMPEST testing.—The Commandant shall—(A) cause all electronics on all aircraft, surface, and shore capabilities and assets that require TEMPEST certification to be tested in accordance with TEMPEST standards and communications security (comsec) standards by an independent third party that is authorized by the Federal Government to perform such testing; and (B) certify that the assets meet all applicable TEMPEST requirements. (3) Cutter classification.—(A) In general.—The Commandant shall cause each cutter, other than a National Security Cutter, acquired by the Coast Guard and delivered after the date of enactment of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 to be classed by the American Bureau of Shipping before final acceptance. [(B) Repealed. Pub. L. 112–213, title II, § 210(c)(2)(B), Dec. 20, 2012, 126 Stat. 1551.] (4) Other vessels.—The Commandant shall cause the design and construction of each National Security Cutter, other than National Security Cutters 1, 2, and 3, to be assessed by an independent third party with expertise in vessel design and construction certification. (5) Aircraft airworthiness.—The Commandant shall cause all aircraft and aircraft engines acquired by the Coast Guard to be assessed for airworthiness by an independent third party with expertise in aircraft and aircraft engine certification before final acceptance.

14 U.S.C. § 1134 Acquisition, production, deployment, and support

(a) In General.—The Commandant shall—(1) ensure there is a stable and efficient production and support capability to develop an asset or capability for the Coast Guard; (2) conduct follow-on testing to confirm and monitor performance and correct deficiencies; and (3) conduct acceptance tests and trials prior to the delivery of each asset or system to ensure the delivered asset or system achieves full operational capability. (b) Elements.—The Commandant shall—(1) execute production contracts; (2) ensure that delivered assets and capabilities meet operational cost and schedules requirements established in the acquisition program baseline; (3) validate manpower and training requirements to meet system needs to operate, maintain, support, and instruct the assets or capabilities; and (4) prepare an acquisition project or program transition plan to enter into programmatic sustainment, operations, and support.

14 U.S.C. § 1135 Acquisition program baseline breach

(a) In General.—The Commandant shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives as soon as possible, but not later than 30 days, after the Chief Acquisition Officer of the Coast Guard becomes aware of the breach of an acquisition program baseline for any Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition program, by—(1) a likely cost overrun greater than 15 percent of the acquisition program baseline for that individual capability or asset or a class of capabilities or assets; (2) a likely delay of more than 180 days in the delivery schedule for any individual capability or asset or class of capabilities or assets; or (3) an anticipated failure for any individual capability or asset or class of capabilities or assets to satisfy any key performance threshold or parameter under the acquisition program baseline. (b) Content.—The report submitted under subsection (a) shall include—(1) a detailed description of the breach and an explanation of its cause; (2) the projected impact to performance, cost, and schedule; (3) an updated acquisition program baseline and the complete history of changes to the original acquisition program baseline; (4) the updated acquisition schedule and the complete history of changes to the original schedule; (5) a full life-cycle cost analysis for the capability or asset or class of capabilities or assets; (6) a remediation plan identifying corrective actions and any resulting issues or risks; and (7) a description of how progress in the remediation plan will be measured and monitored. (c) Substantial Variances in Costs or Schedule.—If a likely cost overrun is greater than 20 percent or a likely delay is greater than 12 months from the costs and schedule described in the acquisition program baseline for any Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition project or program of the Coast Guard, the Commandant shall include in the report a written determination, with a supporting explanation, of whether—(1) the capability or asset or capability or asset class to be acquired under the project or program is essential to the accomplishment of Coast Guard missions; (2) there are no alternatives to such capability or asset or capability or asset class that will provide equal or greater capability in both a more cost-effective and timely manner; (3) the new acquisition schedule and estimates for total acquisition cost are reasonable; and (4) the management structure for the acquisition program is adequate to manage and control performance, cost, and schedule. (d) Notice to Congress With Respect to Breach of Contract.—Not later than 48 hours after the Commandant becomes aware that a major acquisition contract cannot be carried out under the terms specified in the contract, the Commandant shall provide a written notification to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives that includes—(1) a description of the terms of the contract that cannot be met; and (2) an assessment of whether the applicable contract officer has issued a cease and desist order to the contractor based on the breach of such terms of the contract.

14 U.S.C. § 1136 Acquisition approval authority

Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as altering or diminishing in any way the statutory authority and responsibility of the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, or the Secretary’s designee, to— (1) manage and administer department procurements, including procurements by department components, as required by section 701 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 341); or (2) manage department acquisition activities and act as the Acquisition Decision Authority with regard to the review or approval of a Coast Guard Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition project or program, as required by section 16 11 See References in Text note below. of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 414) and related implementing regulations and directives.

14 U.S.C. § 1137 Contracting for major acquisitions programs

(a) In General.—In carrying out authorities provided to the Secretary to design, construct, accept, or otherwise acquire assets and systems under section 501(d), the Secretary, acting through the Commandant or the head of an integrated program office established for a major acquisition program, may enter into contracts for a major acquisition program and 3 Polar Security Cutters in addition to those approved as part of a major acquisition program on November 1, 2019. (b) Authorized Methods.—Contracts entered into under subsection (a)—(1) may be block buy contracts; (2) may be incrementally funded; (3) may include combined purchases, also known as economic order quantity purchases, of—(A) materials and components; and (B) long lead time materials; and (4) as provided in section 3501 of title 10, may be multiyear contracts. (c) Subject to Appropriations.—Any contract entered into under subsection (a) shall provide that any obligation of the United States to make a payment under the contract is subject to the availability of amounts specifically provided in advance for that purpose in subsequent appropriations Acts.

14 U.S.C. § 1138 Service life extension programs

(a) In General.—Requirements for a Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition project or program under sections 1131 through 1134 shall not apply to an acquisition by the Coast Guard that is a service life extension program. (b) Service Life Extension Program Defined.—In this section, the term “service life extension program” means a capital investment that is solely intended to extend the service life and address obsolescence of components or systems of a particular capability or asset.

14 U.S.C. § 1139 Consideration of life-cycle cost estimates for acquisition and procurement

In carrying out the acquisition and procurement of vessels and aircraft, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, acting through the Commandant, shall consider the life-cycle cost estimates of vessels and aircraft, as applicable, during the design and evaluation processes to the maximum extent practicable.

14 U.S.C. § 1140 Contracts that provide best value for taxpayer

(a) In General.—In carrying out a Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition project or program under this subchapter, the Commandant may publicly announce all construction, design, and engineering requirements and negotiate contracts for construction, design, and engineering services on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualification for the type of professional services required and at fair and reasonable prices. (b) Selection Procedure.—The following procedures may apply to the procurement of Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition project or program under this subchapter:(1) Statements of qualification and performance.—The Commandant shall require prospective contractors to submit a statement of qualifications and performance data. (2) Evaluation.—For each proposed project, the Commandant shall—(A) evaluate statements of qualifications and performance submitted by firms regarding the proposed project; and (B) conduct discussions with firms to consider anticipated concepts and compare alternative methods for furnishing services. (3) Selection.—From the firms with which discussions have been conducted under paragraph (2)(B), the Commandant shall select, in order of preference, that the Commandant considers most highly qualified to provide the services required, based on criteria established and published by the Commandant. (c) Negotiation of Contract.—(1) In general.—The Commandant shall negotiate 1 or more contracts for construction, design, and engineering services under this section at compensation which the Commandant determines is fair and reasonable to the Federal Government. (2) Fair and reasonable compensation.—In determining fair and reasonable compensation, the Commandant shall consider the scope, complexity, professional nature, and estimated value of the services to be rendered. (3) Negotiation.—The Commandant shall attempt to negotiate a contract or contracts with the most highly qualified firm or firms selected under subsection (b). (4) Further negotiation.—If the Commandant is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract or contracts with the firm or firms under paragraph (3), the Commandant shall formally terminate negotiations with such firm or firms and undertake negotiations with the next most qualified of the selected firms, continuing the process until an agreement is reached. (5) Additional firms.—If the Commandant is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract or contracts with any of the selected firms, the Commandant shall select additional firms in order of competence and qualification and continue negotiations in accordance with this section until 1 or more agreements are reached.

Starting a business? Corpus forms LLCs in all 50 states and DC.