The Acquisition Reform and Cost Assessment Act of 2025 amends title 38 to reorganize how the Department of Veterans Affairs runs major acquisitions. It creates a dedicated Assistant Secretary for Acquisition (designated as the Department’s Chief Acquisition Officer), an Office of Acquisition with Program Executive Officers and certified program managers, and requires organizational consolidation of procurement, logistics, and acquisition activities under that office.
The bill also mandates independent verification and validation (IV&V) contracts, establishes a Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) to produce independent cost estimates, and prescribes a standardized requirements development process.
This is significant because it shifts program decision authority away from operating administrations (VHA, VBA, NCA) to a centralized acquisition organization, introduces formal gates and independent checks (IV&V and CAPE ICEs) before full-scale buys, and ties acquisition budgets to the Department’s budget justification. For acquisition leaders, contractors, and program managers, the act changes who signs off on requirements, who holds the purse strings, and what evidence is required to proceed with costly programs.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates a new Subchapter VII in title 38 defining 'major acquisition program' thresholds, designates an Assistant Secretary for Acquisition as the Chief Acquisition Officer, creates an Office of Acquisition with Program Executive Officers and certified program managers, and establishes an independent Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation. It requires competitive IV&V contracts, consolidation of acquisition-related activities under the new office, standardized requirements development, and targets to expand acquisition internship hiring.
Who It Affects
The VA acquisition workforce and program offices; health IT, medical device, professional services, and logistics contractors doing major VA work; independent IV&V and cost-estimation firms that meet strict past-performance and conflict-of-interest tests; and Congressional veterans committees that will receive new reports and briefings.
Why It Matters
The act centralizes authority and creates independent checks intended to reduce cost overruns and improve lifecycle planning by requiring independent cost estimates and IV&V at key points. It also formalizes certification requirements and budget presentation of acquisition accounts, which could change how programs are scoped, funded, and overseen.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The ARCA Act rewrites how the VA organizes acquisition. It inserts a new subchapter into title 38 that formally defines when a program becomes a 'major acquisition' (life‑cycle cost above $1 billion or more than $200 million annually) and builds an Office of Acquisition led by an Assistant Secretary who is also designated the Department’s Chief Acquisition Officer.
That office houses Program Executive Officers (PEOs) for major functional areas (medical, IT, professional services, and other) and requires PEOs and program managers to hold senior project‑management certifications or accepted private equivalents.
The bill makes program decision authority clear: PEOs and program managers report into the Office of Acquisition and the Assistant Secretary, and program management offices must be independent from operating administrations such as VHA and VBA. Each major acquisition must have a 'program baseline'—a plan that lays out acquisition phases, phase‑exit criteria, whole‑life cost, schedule, risk management, and performance estimates.
Program managers must notify program decision authorities when acquisition phases end and they must continuously assess and manage cost and schedule risk.To add independent technical and cost discipline, the statute directs the VA to competitively contract for IV&V services (with strict eligibility tied to past IV&V or SETA prime contracts and prohibitions on conflicted vendors) and creates a Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation who reports to the Secretary. The Director must produce independent cost estimates (ICEs) to support acquisition decisions, evaluate program effectiveness, and annually report cost‑estimation activities to the Secretary and Congressional veterans committees—specifically listing programs where the ICE exceeded the Department’s budget request by more than 5 percent.Operational changes include a one‑year deadline to consolidate acquisition, procurement, and logistics activities under the new Assistant Secretary (without forcing staff to relocate), proportional funding of IV&V contracts by organizational subdivisions that use them, and explicit hiring priorities: the Secretary must expand acquisition internship programs to between twice and four times their 2025 participation level until a workforce sufficiency certification is achieved.
The law also requires a systems‑engineering analysis via a memorandum of understanding with the DoD acquisition research center and establishes a standardized requirements development process that emphasizes data‑driven needs, stakeholder input, and iterative validation—all with a default constraint against creating new positions unless CAPE validates a cost‑benefit case.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A program manager must be appointed within 30 days after the Secretary approves a major acquisition program to commence.
The VA must seek one or more competitive IV&V contracts within 120 days of enactment; eligible IV&V firms must have performed at least three prime IV&V or SETA contracts in the prior three years and show no unmitigable conflict of interest.
The Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation must provide an independent cost estimate to the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition before a decision to proceed with full‑scale acquisition and must annually list programs where the ICE exceeded the budget request by more than 5 percent.
The Office of Acquisition’s budget and major acquisition program budgets must be included in the Department’s budget justification materials submitted with the President’s budget.
The Secretary must expand acquisition internship participation to at least twice but no more than four times the 2025 level (until a certification that graduate numbers will meet workforce needs).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Defines 'major acquisition program' thresholds
This section sets objective dollar thresholds for classifying a program as 'major'—$1,000,000,000 in total life‑cycle cost or $200,000,000 annually—subject to adjustment under 41 U.S.C. 1908. That numeric definition determines which programs get the heightened governance, baseline, IV&V, and CAPE oversight spelled out elsewhere in the bill. For program managers and contractors, crossing these thresholds triggers more internal reporting, formal baselines, and independent external reviews.
Creates Office of Acquisition and designates Chief Acquisition Officer
The Secretary must designate one Assistant Secretary to focus solely on acquisition and to serve as the Department’s Chief Acquisition Officer. The Office of Acquisition becomes the home for major acquisition program offices, PEOs, and three deputy assistant secretaries who respectively cover logistics, procurement, and acquisition/program management. Practical effects: program decision authority concentrates in a single chain of command, the Office’s budgets are required to appear in the President’s budget justification, and PEOs must hold specified certifications or approved equivalents—narrowing who can lead major portfolios.
Program managers: appointment, qualifications, and baseline duties
Program Executive Officers must appoint program managers within 30 days of program approval; those managers must hold project‑management level‑three certification (or an approved equivalent). Each manager is responsible for creating and maintaining a program baseline that defines acquisition phases, exit criteria, whole‑life cost/schedule/performance estimates, resource requests, and ongoing risk management. The section formalizes the program manager’s duty to provide documentation to governance bodies and requires notification to the program decision authority after each acquisition phase.
Mandates organizational consolidation under the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition
The Secretary has one year to organizationally consolidate all acquisition, procurement, contracting, logistics, and supply‑chain activities across VHA, VBA, NCA, and staff offices under the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition. The provision explicitly does not force physical relocation of employees, but it does require a written consolidation plan and briefings to Congressional veterans committees within 90 days that include timelines, training/communication plans, and policy updates—creating short deadlines for operational realignment and change management.
Independent verification and validation (IV&V) contracting regime
The VA must competitively award IV&V contracts (or multiple contracts) and limit awards to entities with recent, substantive prime IV&V/SETA experience; past performance must be satisfactory in CPARS or a successor system. The statute bars accepting mitigation plans for conflicts of interest—vendors must demonstrate lack of conflict or be ineligible. Funding for IV&V contracts comes from proportional contributions by the organizational subdivisions that use them, which introduces a funding coordination requirement for program offices.
Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE)
The Director reports directly to the Secretary and is tasked with developing cost‑estimation policy, conducting independent cost estimates and analyses for major programs, and evaluating program effectiveness. CAPE must deliver an independent cost estimate to the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition before authorizing full‑scale acquisition, and send annual reports to the Secretary and Congressional veterans committees, including programs where CAPE’s ICE exceeds the Department’s budget request by more than 5 percent—an accountability tool likely to draw Congressional attention.
Requirements development, internships, systems‑engineering analysis
The bill requires a standardized, standardized requirements development process that emphasizes validated, data‑driven, mission‑aligned requirements with iterative validation via IV&V and stakeholder input (including veterans service organizations). The Secretary must expand acquisition internships to between two and four times 2025 participation until a workforce sufficiency certification is made, and pursue an MOU with the DoD acquisition research center for a systems engineering analysis—measures aimed at workforce pipeline and technical rigor while limiting new hiring unless CAPE validates the need.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Veterans across all five countries.
Explore Veterans in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Program oversight bodies and Congress — CAPE and the IV&V regime provide independent analysis and reporting that give committees and decisionmakers clearer, third‑party views of program costs and risks.
- Veterans and taxpayers — by requiring independent cost estimates and IV&V, the bill aims to reduce program cost growth and schedule slippage that delay services and increase taxpayer exposure.
- Acquisition professionals within the Office of Acquisition — clearer career paths, PEO structures, and explicit certification requirements create defined roles and advancement opportunities for certified program managers and PEOs.
- Experienced IV&V and SETA contractors with healthcare or defense program track records — the eligibility rules favor firms that already hold prime IV&V/SETA engagements and strong CPARS records.
- New acquisition hires — expansion of internship programs increases the pipeline for entry‑level acquisition hires and creates a defined hiring route into VA acquisition roles.
Who Bears the Cost
- Operating administrations (VHA, VBA, NCA) — they lose direct program decision authority and must reorganize reporting lines and contribute proportionally to IV&V contracts, potentially reducing program‑level budget control.
- Small or newer IV&V vendors — strict eligibility (three prime contracts in three years and no conflicts) and the prohibition on mitigation plans will exclude many smaller firms and reduce competition.
- Program managers and acquisition staff — new documentation, baseline, certification, and reporting requirements increase workloads and administrative compliance costs.
- Contractors on major programs — expect increased oversight, additional reviews, and IV&V testing that can lengthen schedules and require rework; vendors will need to factor independent reviews into pricing and timelines.
- The Department’s budget offices and CFO — must integrate Office of Acquisition budgets into the President’s budget justification and manage proportional funding contributions for IV&V, creating extra coordination and potential intra‑departmental disputes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is credibility versus agility: the bill strengthens independent oversight and cost realism by centralizing authority, requiring certified leadership, and mandating IV&V and independent cost estimates—but those same measures can slow program delivery, shrink the qualified vendor pool, and transfer control from operating units that manage veteran services, making it harder to move quickly when operational needs demand speed.
The ARCA Act trades decentralized operational control for centralized acquisition governance. Centralization and independent checks (IV&V and CAPE ICEs) improve transparency and make cost realism more likely, but they also introduce additional decision gates and reporting requirements that can slow procurement cadence and complicate program execution.
The statutory bar on conflict‑mitigation plans for IV&V vendors narrows the vendor pool; while that protects independence, it raises procurement risk if qualified, non‑conflicted providers are limited or expensive. The proportional funding rule delegates IV&V costs across users but could produce disputes about scope and share, particularly where smaller program offices must fund reviews that benefit enterprise purchasers.
Implementation hinges on resources and sequencing. The law requires consolidation under the Assistant Secretary within one year but forbids automatic creation of new positions for the requirements process unless CAPE validates the need—a tension that could undercut meaningful change if existing staff lack capacity.
Certification requirements for PEOs and program managers raise professional standards, but they may also create short‑term vacancies if incumbents lack the specified credentials. Finally, inserting CAPE ICEs and public reporting of ICE‑to‑budget discrepancies creates accountability, but it may incentivize conservative cost estimates or program managers to game baselines to avoid negative listings in the annual report.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.