Overview
Title
To require the Defense Logistics Agency to allow contractors to use additive manufacturing for spare parts for the Department of Defense, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 9482 wants to make it easier for companies to use new technology like 3D printing to make parts for the military, and it asks the military to share more information about how it handles these parts.
Summary AI
H.R. 9482, known as the "Spare Parts Competition Act," aims to make it easier for contractors to use additive manufacturing, like 3D printing, to produce spare parts for the Department of Defense. The bill requires the Defense Logistics Agency to allow additive manufacturing unless contracts specifically prohibit it. Additionally, it mandates the publication of lists and reports to promote transparency and efficiency in the qualification and use of such technologies for spare parts. The Secretary of Defense is also tasked with implementing recommendations to improve accountability for spare parts in the F-35 program, especially concerning global spare parts management.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
House Bill 9482, titled the "Spare Parts Competition Act," aims to enhance the flexibility and efficiency of the Department of Defense’s supply chain by allowing contractors to use additive manufacturing, commonly known as 3D printing, to produce spare parts. The bill requires the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to permit this manufacturing method unless explicitly prohibited by the contract. It further mandates the publication of information regarding qualified additive manufacturing designs and the submission of a related report to Congress. Additionally, the bill addresses the implementation of recommendations related to the F-35 Program's global spare parts pool as per a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.
Significant Issues
A key issue identified is the discretion given to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to waive the use of additive manufacturing. This discretion lacks clear guidelines and might lead to misuse or preferential treatment, causing ethical and political concerns. Another concern is the requirement for the DLA to publish extensive information online within a tight timeframe, posing potential resource strains and operational inefficiencies. The obligation to publicly disclose assessments on personnel sufficiency might also reveal vulnerabilities, inviting scrutiny and security risks.
The bill's requirement for the DLA to explain its actions regarding aircraft part certification could inadvertently disclose sensitive strategic information. Additionally, the lack of detailed specifications or consequences in implementing GAO's recommendations leaves room for interpretation, potentially leading to accountability and transparency issues.
Impact on the Public Broadly
The bill could influence the broader public by contributing to more efficient defense logistics and potentially reducing costs. Utilizing additive manufacturing could streamline spare parts production, leading to quicker response times and lower expenditures, which might eventually translate into more efficient use of taxpayer money.
However, public concerns might arise regarding the lack of transparency and accountability stemming from the discretionary waivers and the broad latitude given to implement GAO recommendations. These issues could impact public trust in how defense resources are managed.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For contractors dealing with the Department of Defense, this bill could open new opportunities by allowing them to propose innovative manufacturing methods. Additive manufacturing is typically faster and less wasteful, offering competitive advantages to those adept in these technologies.
The Department of Defense and its logistics agencies might face challenges in aligning their operational capacities with the bill's demands, particularly regarding the publication of exhaustive assessments. They might also need to invest more in ensuring robust evaluation processes for new manufacturing technologies.
Conversely, the increased flexibility in manufacturing could improve the Defense Department’s efficiency and technical capabilities, potentially leading to better resource allocation and readiness. However, without clear implementation guidelines, the department could face operational and oversight challenges.
Issues
The discretion granted to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment in SEC. 2(a)(2) to waive additive manufacturing requirements poses risks of misuse or preferential treatment, lacking clear criteria for justification, which could lead to ethical and political concerns.
The directive in SEC. 2(b) for the Defense Logistics Agency to publish extensive lists and assessments online within 180 days may be unrealistic, resource-intensive, and could lead to operational inefficiencies, attracting financial scrutiny.
The requirement in SEC. 2(b) for publication of an assessment on personnel sufficiency could expose the Defense Logistics Agency to criticism or security risks by highlighting potential vulnerabilities in their workforce, raising political and security concerns.
In SEC. 2(b)(5), the explanation requirement regarding aircraft parts certification might lead to the disclosure of sensitive information about the Defense Logistics Agency's capabilities or strategies, posing potential security risks.
The lack of specificity in SEC. 3 regarding the actions necessary to implement GAO recommendations raises concerns over potential misuse or insufficient implementation, impacting accountability and effectiveness, which could be significant to taxpayers concerned about government efficiency and financial discipline.
SEC. 3's reliance on unspecified GAO recommendations makes it difficult to evaluate the impact and appropriateness of these actions, which could result in legal ambiguity and unclear accountability frameworks.
The absence of specified consequences in SEC. 3 if the implementation of GAO recommendations is found lacking may reduce accountability and effectiveness, potentially causing political and operational issues.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill simply states that it can be called the “Spare Parts Competition Act.”
2. Additive manufacturing for spare parts Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section allows contractors supplying spare parts to the Defense Logistics Agency to use additive manufacturing unless the contract explicitly forbids it. It mandates the publication of information about qualified designs and the assessment of staffing and practices related to evaluating additive manufacturing for spare parts. A report to Congress on qualified designs and barriers to submission is also required.
3. Implementation of GAO recommendations relating to spare parts in global spares pool relating to F–35 Program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Secretary of Defense is required to follow recommendations from a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office to improve the tracking and reporting of spare parts in the F-35 Program. Additionally, a report on the progress of these actions must be submitted to Congress within one year.