Page images
PDF
EPUB

[$ 2455. Repealed. P.L. 101-510, $ 1322(a)(9), Nov. 5, 1990, 104

Stat. 1671] $ 2456. Coordination with General Services Administration

To avoid unnecessary duplication, the Administrator of General Services and the Secretary of Defense shall coordinate the cataloging and standardization activities of the General Services Administration and the Department of Defense. (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 140.) § 2457. Standardization of equipment with North Atlantic

Treaty Organization members (a) It is the policy of the United States to standardize equipment, including weapons systems, ammunition, and fuel, procured for the use of the armed forces of the United States stationed in Europe under the North Atlantic Treaty or at least to make that equipment interoperable with equipment of other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. To carry out this policy, the Secretary of Defense shall

(1) assess the costs and possible loss of nonnuclear combat effectiveness of the military forces of the members of the Organization caused by the failure of the members to standardize equipment;

(2) maintain a list of actions to be taken, including an evaluation of the priority and effect of the action, to standardize equipment that may improve the overall nonnuclear defense capability of the Organization or save resources for the Organization; and

(3) initiate and carry out, to the maximum extent feasible, procurement procedures to acquire standardized or interoperable equipment, considering the cost, function, quality, and availability of the equipment.

(b) Progress in realizing the objectives of standardization and interoperability would be enhanced by expanded inter-Allied procurement of arms and equipment within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Expanded inter-Allied procurement would be made easier by greater reliance on licensing and coproduction cooperative agreements among the signatories of the North Atlantic Treaty. If constructed to preserve the efficiencies associated with economies of scale, the agreements could minimize potential economic hardship to parties to the agreements and increase the survivability, in time of war, of the North Atlantic Alliance's armaments production base by dispersing manufacturing facilities. In conjunction with other members of the Organization and to the maximum extent feasible, the Secretary shall

(1) identify areas in which those cooperative agreements may be made with members of the Alliance; and

(2) negotiate those agreements. (c)(1) It is the sense of Congress that weapons systems being developed wholly or primarily for employment in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization theater should conform to a common Organization requirement in order to proceed toward joint doctrine and planning and to facilitate maximum feasible standardization and interoperability of equipment, and that a common Organization re

[ocr errors]

quirement should be understood to include a common definition of the military threat to the members of the Organization.

(2) It is further the sense of Congress that standardization of weapons and equipment within the Organization on the basis of a "two-way street concept of cooperation in defense procurement between Europe and North America can only work in a realistic sense if the European nations operate on a united and collective basis. Therefore, the governments of Europe are encouraged to accelerate their present efforts to achieve European armanents collaboration among all European members of the Organization.

(d) Before February 1, 1989, and biennially thereafter, the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress that includes

(1) each specific assessment and evaluation made and the results of each assessment and evaluation, and the results achieved with the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, under subsections (a) (1) and (2) and (b);

(2) procurement action initiated on each new major system not complying with the policy of subsection (a);

(3) procurement action initiated on each new major system that is not standardized or interoperable with equipment of other members of the Organization, including a description of the system chosen and the reason for choosing that system; (4) the identity of

(A) each program of research and development for the armed forces of the United States stationed in Europe that supports, conforms, or both, to common Organization requirements of developing weapon systems for use by the Organization, including a common definition of the military threat to the Organization; and

(B) the common requirements of the Organization to which those programs conform or which they support;

(5) action of the Alliance toward common Organization requirements if none exist;

(6) efforts to establish a regular procedure and mechanism in the Organization to determine common military requirements;

(7) a description of each existing and planned program of the Department of Defense that supports the development or procurement of a weapon system or other military equipment originally developed or procured by members of the Organization other than the United States and for which funds have been authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year in which the report is submitted, including a summary listing of the amount of funds

(A) appropriated for those programs for the fiscal year in which the report is submitted; and

(B) requested, or proposed to be requested, for those programs for each of the 2 fiscal years following the fiscal year for which the report is submitted; and

(8) a description of each weapon system or other military equipment originally developed or procured in the United States and that is being developed or procured by members of the Organization other than the United States during the fiscal year for which the report is submitted.

(e) If the Secretary decides that procurement of equipment manufactured outside the United States is necessary to carry out the policy of subsection (a), the Secretary may determine under section 2 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a) that acquiring that equipment manufactured in the United States is inconsistent with the public interest.

(f) The Secretary shall submit the results of each assessment and evaluation made under subsection (a) (1) and (2) to the appropriate North Atlantic Treaty Organization body to become an integral part of the overall Organization review of force goals and development of force plans. (Added P.L. 97–295, § 1(30)(A), Oct. 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 1294; amended P.L. 101–510, § 1311(5), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1670; P.L. 104-106, $ 1503(a)(24), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 512.) $ 2458. Inventory management policies 1

(a) POLICY REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense shall issue a single, uniform policy on the management of inventory items of the Department of Defense. Such policy shall—

(1) establish maximum levels for inventory items sufficient to achieve and maintain only those levels for inventory items necessary for the national defense;

(2) provide guidance to item managers and other appropriate officials on how effectively to eliminate wasteful practices in the acquisition and management of inventory items; and

(3) set forth a uniform system for the valuation of inventory items by the military departments and Defense Agencies.

(b) PERSONNEL EVALUATIONS.—The Secretary of Defense shall establish procedures to ensure that, with regard to item managers and other personnel responsible for the acquisition and management of inventory items of the Department of Defense, personnel appraisal systems for such personnel give appropriate consideration to efforts made by such personnel to eliminate wasteful prac

1 Section 395 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (P.L. 105–85; 111 Stat. 1718) provides: SEC. 395. INVENTORY MANAGEMENT.

(a) DEVELOPMENT AND SUBMISSION OF SCHEDULE.—Not later than 180 days after [Nov. 18, 1997), the Director of the Defense Logistics Agency shall develop and submit to Congress a schedule for implementing within the agency, for the supplies and equipment described in subsection (b), inventory practices identified by the Director as being the best commercial inventory practices for the acquisition and distribution of such supplies and equipment consistent with military requirements. The schedule shall provide for the implementation of such practices to be completed not later than three years after (Nov. 18, 1997).

(b) COVERED SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT.–Subsection (a) shall apply to the following types of supplies and equipment for the Department of Defense:

(1) Medical and pharmaceutical.
(2) Subsistence.
(3) Clothing and textiles.
(4) Commercially available electronics.
(5) Construction.
(6) Industrial.
(7) Automotive.
(8) Fuel.

(9) Facilities maintenance. (c) DEFINITION.–For purposes of this section, the term “best commercial inventory practice” includes a so-called prime vendor arrangement and any other practice that the Director determines will enable the Defense Logistics Agency to reduce inventory levels and holding costs while improving the responsiveness of the supply system to user needs.

(d) (Obsolete report requirement omitted.]

tices and achieve cost savings in the acquisition and management of inventory items. (Added P.L. 101-510, $323(a)(1), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1530; amended P.L. 102–190, $347(a), Dec. 5, 1991, 105 Stat. 1347.)

CHAPTER 146CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE OF

CIVILIAN COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL TYPE FUNCTIONS

Sec. 2460. Definition of depot-level maintenance and repair. 2461. Commercial or industrial type functions: required studies and reports

before conversion to contractor performance. 2461a. Development of system for monitoring cost savings resulting from work

force reductions. 2462. Contracting for certain supplies and services required when cost is lower. 2463. Collection and retention of cost information data on converted services and

functions. 2464. Core logistics capabilities. 2465. Prohibition on contracts for performance of firefighting or security-guard

functions. 2466. Limitations on the performance of depot-level maintenance of materiel. 2467. Cost comparisons: inclusion of retirement costs; consultation with employ

ees; waiver of comparison. [2468. Repealed.] 2469. Contracts to perform workloads previously performed by depot-level activi

ties of the Department of Defense: requirement of competition. [2469a. Repealed.] 2470. Depot-level activities of the Department of Defense: authority to compete

for maintenance and repair workloads of other Federal agencies. [2471. Repealed.] 2472. Management of depot employees. 2473. Procurements from the small arms production industrial base. 2474. Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence: designation; public-private

partnerships. 2475. Consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering of organizations, functions,

or activities: notification requirements. § 2460. Definition of depot-level maintenance and repair

(a) IN GENERAL.-In this chapter, the term “depot-level maintenance and repair" means (except as provided in subsection (b)) material maintenance or repair requiring the overhaul, upgrading, or rebuilding of parts, assemblies, or subassemblies, and the testing and reclamation of equipment as necessary, regardless of the source of funds for the maintenance or repair or the location at which the maintenance or repair is performed. The term includes (1) all aspects of software maintenance classified by the Department of Defense as of July 1, 1995, as depot-level maintenance and repair, and (2) interim contractor support or contractor logistics support (or any similar contractor support), to the extent that such support is for the performance of services described in the preceding sentence.

(b) EXCEPTIONS.—(1) The term does not include the procurement of major modifications or upgrades of weapon systems that are designed to improve program performance or the nuclear refueling of an aircraft carrier. A major upgrade program covered by this exception could continue to be performed by private or public sector activities.

« PreviousContinue »