A prior section 2399, added Pub. L. 97–295, § 1(29)(A), Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1293, which related to limitation on availability of appropriations to reimburse a contractor for the cost of commercial insurance, was repealed by Pub. L. 100–370, § 1(f)(2)(B), July 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 846, and was restated in section 2324 (e)(1)(L) of this title by section 1(f)(2)(A) of Pub. L. 100–370.

2006—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 109–364, § 231(a)(1), amended par. (2) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (2) read as follows: “The Director shall analyze the results of the operational test and evaluation conducted for each major defense acquisition program. At the conclusion of such testing, the Director shall prepare a report stating the opinion of the Director as to—

“(A) whether the test and evaluation performed were adequate; and

“(B) whether the results of such test and evaluation confirm that the items or components actually tested are effective and suitable for combat.”

Subsec. (b)(5), (6). Pub. L. 109–364, § 231(a)(2), (3), added par. (5) and redesignated former par. (5) as (6).

2003—Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 108–136 substituted “Operational Test and Evaluation Defined” for “Definitions” in heading, struck out introductory provisions which read “In this section:”, substituted “In this section, the term” for “(1) The term”, redesignated subpars. (A) to (C) of former par. (1) as pars. (1) to (3), respectively, realigned margins, and struck out former par. (2) which defined “congressional defense committees” to mean the Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

2002—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 107–314 substituted “means a conventional weapons system that” for “means” in introductory provisions and struck out “a conventional weapons system that” before “is a major system” in subpar. (A).

2001—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 107–107 substituted “Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics” for “Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology”.

1999—Subsec. (h)(2)(B). Pub. L. 106–65 substituted “Committee on Armed Services” for “Committee on National Security”.

1996—Subsec. (h)(2). Pub. L. 104–106 substituted “means—” and subpars. (A) and (B) for “means the Committees on Armed Services and the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives.”

1994—Subsecs. (b)(5), (c)(1). Pub. L. 103–337, § 1070(a)(11)(A), substituted “139(a)(2)(B)” for “138(a)(2)(B)”.

Subsec. (e)(3)(B). Pub. L. 103–337, § 1070(f), substituted “solely in testing for” for “solely as a representative of”.

Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 103–337, § 1070(a)(11)(B), substituted “139” for “138”.

Subsec. (h)(1). Pub. L. 103–337, § 1070(a)(11)(C), substituted “139(a)(2)(A)” for “138(a)(2)(A)”.

1993—Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 103–160 substituted “Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology” for “Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition”.

1992—Subsec. (e)(3). Pub. L. 102–484 designated existing provisions as subpar. (A) and added subpar. (B).

Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title VIII, § 801, Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1483, provided that:

“(a) Establishment of Policy.—The Secretary of Defense shall establish guidelines for—

“(1) determining the degree of concurrency that is appropriate for the development of major defense acquisition systems; and

“(2) assessing the degree of risk associated with various degrees of concurrency.

“(b) Report on Guidelines.—The Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that describes the guidelines established under subsection (a) and the method used for assessing risk associated with concurrency.

“(c) Report on Concurrency in Major Acquisition Programs.—(1) The Secretary shall also submit to Congress a report outlining the risk associated with concurrency for each major defense acquisition program that is in either full-scale development or low-rate initial production as of January 1, 1990.

“(2) The report shall include consideration of the following matters with respect to each such program:

“(A) The degree of confidence in the enemy threat assessment for establishing the system’s requirements.

“(B) The type of contract involved.

“(C) The degree of stability in program funding.

“(D) The level of maturity of technology involved in the system.

“(E) The availability of adequate test assets, including facilities and ranges.

“(F) The plans for transition from development to production.

“(d) Submission of Reports.—The reports under subsections (b) and (c) shall be submitted to Congress not later than March 1, 1990.

“(e) Definition.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘concurrency’ means the degree of overlap between the development and production processes of an acquisition program.”