Presentation on theme: "Systems Engineering Summit March 4, 2009 Sharon Vannucci"— Presentation transcript:
1New Acquisition Policy and Its Impact on Programs from a Systems Engineering Perspective Systems Engineering SummitMarch 4, 2009Sharon VannucciAssistant Deputy Director for SE Policy and GuidanceSystems and Software Engineering Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology)
2Topics DoDI 5000.02: 2003 vs. 2008 New Policy Directed by Congress New or Revised Regulatory PolicyImpact on Programs and Systems Engineering –A DiscussionThis presentation is in two parts:-Part one covers the first five bullets.-Part two covers the last bullet, and can be used as a separate presentation. For this reason, there is some duplication in material between parts one and two.To prepare for this presentation:Read and be completely familiar with the 8 Dec 2008 DoDIRead Defense Acquisition Guidebook chapters:2, Acquisition Strategy4, Systems Engineering, Part 4.3, Systems Engineering Activities in the System Life Cycle5, Life Cycle Logistics, Part , Life Cycle Sustainment Plan.Backup (for hardcore policy wonks!):Statutory and Regulatory InformationMilestone RequirementsNew/Revised Enclosures to DoDI
3Subtle, But Substantial Changes Comparison of 2003 vs. 2008:Subtle, But Substantial ChangesUser Needs andTechnology OpportunitiesDefense Acquisition ManagementFrameworkProgramInitiationABCIOCFOCConceptRefinementTechnologyDevelopmentSystem Development& DemonstrationProduction &DeploymentOperations &SupportDesignReadinessReviewFRPDecisionReviewConceptDecisionFocus of major changesDefense Acquisition ManagementSystemUser NeedsTechnology Opportunities & ResourcesThe major differences between the 2003 and 2008 versions of the DoDI are:-The Materiel Development Decision (MDD) replaces the Concept Decision (CD). A MDD is required regardless of where the program intends to enter the acquisition process.NOTE: The arrows from User Needs/Technology Opportunities now point to the MDD at the extreme left: THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY PROGRAM MUST ENTER AT THE MATERIEL SOLUTION ANALYSIS PHASE. This is illustrated better on chart 5.-The Materiel Solution Analysis Phase (MSA) replaces the Concept Refinement (CR) Phase. MSA is not “refinement” of the preferred solution(s) identified in the ICD. The JCIDS process no longer includes an Analysis of Materiel and Non-Materiel Alternatives. Non-materiel solutions will be handled IAW JCIDS; however, all analysis of alternative materiel solutions will be accomplished by the AoA during MSA. The MDA will approve the materiel solution at Milestone A.-Technology Development: This phase now includes a mandatory requirement for competitive prototyping of the system or key-system elements. A Preliminary Design Review (PDR) may be conducted for the candidate designs, and a PDR report will be provided to the MDA with recommended requirements trades. (The final CDD should contain trade-offs determined during the TD phase).-Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) replaces System Development and Demonstration (SDD). There is more emphasis on systems engineering and technical reviews. The two major efforts have been renamed. The PM must provide a PDR report, and must provide a Critical Design Review (CDR) report to the MDA (more on this later). A Post-CDR Assessment replaces the Design Readiness Review. The MDA will determine if the results of the CDR warrant continuing EMD to Milestone C.SE is much more robust throughout all phases, with mandatory technical reviews.Program InitiationABCIOCFOCMateriel Solution AnalysisTechnology DevelopmentEngineering &Manufacturing DevelopmentProduction & DeploymentOperations &SupportMateriel Development DecisionPost PDRAssessmentFRP DecisionReviewPost-CDRAssessmentPDRPDRor3
4Sources of Change Policy flowing from numerous new/revised sections of Public Law since 2003 (some with multiple requirements)Approved policy appearing in over 25 policy memos andDoD responses to the GAO, IG, and CongressReference to ten updated or newly issued DoD publicationsConsideration of over 700 Defense Acquisition PolicyWorking Group (DAPWG) comments-Content of has grown from 37 to 80 pages. About 116%.-Although there are new policies that originated at OSD, the majority are a result of a very active Congress from 2004 thru 2008.-This includes six National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAA) for FY’s 2004 through 2009.
5In the beginning . . . JCIDS Acquisition Process Technology Opportunities & ResourcesUser NeedsAABCOperations & SupportStrategic GuidanceJoint ConceptsCapabilities - Based AssessmentICDMaterielSolutionAnalysisEngineering & ManufDevelopmentCDDCPDProduction & DeploymentO&STechnologyDevelopmentMDDFCBIncremental DevelopmentOSD/JCSCOCOMFor some, this chart better illustrates that programs may enter the process at points further to the right than the MSA phase. The change from 2003 is that now an MDD is required to determine what the appropriate entry point will be.This chart also shows the JCIDS process at the front end. The policy for JCIDS is under revision, with a revised CJCSI G due out soon.CJCSM C will be cancelled and replaced with a “manual” posted on the J8 website on the SIPRNET. Non-SIPRNET access is not known at this time.JCIDSAcquisition Process“Following the Materiel Development Decision (MDD), the MDA may authorize entry into the acquisition management system at any point consistent with phase-specific entrance criteria and statutory requirements.”
6Changes to Decision Points User NeedsTechnology Opportunities & ResourcesACBIOCFOCMaterielSolutionAnalysisTechnology DevelopmentEngineering andManufacturing DevelopmentProduction & DeploymentOperations &SupportICDCDDCPDMateriel DevelopmentDecisionPost-PDRAssessmentPost-CDRAssessmentFRPDecisionReviewAoAPDRPDRCDRPre-Systems AcquisitionorSystems AcquisitionSustainmentMDD: the formal entry into the acquisition process; mandatory for all programs.-At the MDD, the Joint Staff presents JROC recommendations; the Component presents the ICD with a preliminary CONOPS, description of capability needed, operational risks, and basis for why a non-materiel solution(s) will not fill the need (or completely fill the need).--The MDA approves the guidance for conduct of the AoA (for ACAT I programs, OSD/PA&E provides); determines the phase of entry into the process; and designates the lead Component.--The lead Component prepares the AoA study plan after approval of the study guidance at the MDD.Post PDR Assessment: Required only if PDR comes after Milestone B. More on PDRs later.Post CDR Assessment:-MDA conducts based on a post-CDR report from the PM.-Post CDR Report provides assessment of design maturity, a summary of the issues and actions PM intends to take to resolve the issues, assessment of risk of meeting exit criteria for EMDD phase, potential issues that could result in an APB breach.-MDA reviews the PM’s report and decides if program is ready/not ready to proceed in EMD and issue an ADM.Old (2003)New (2008)Change from 2003Concept Decision (CD)Materiel Development Decision (MDD)MDD required prior to entering the acquisition lifecycle at any pointPost-PDR AssessmentMDA’s assessment of PM’s PDR Report (if PDR is after MS B)N/ADesign Readiness Review (DRR)Post-CDR AssessmentMDA’s assessment of PM’s Post-CDR Report
7Changes to Phases A C B IOC FOC Pre-Systems Acquisition User NeedsTechnology Opportunities & ResourcesACBIOCFOCMaterielSolutionAnalysisTechnology DevelopmentEngineering andManufacturing DevelopmentProduction & DeploymentOperations &SupportICDCDDCPDMateriel DevelopmentDecisionPost PDRAssessmentPost CDRAssessmentFRPDecisionReviewAoAPDRPDRCDRPre-Systems AcquisitionorSystems AcquisitionSustainmentMateriel Solution Analysis (MSA). Major change: AoA no longer “refines” materiel solution(s) identified in the ICD. ICD will no longer contain prioritized materiel solutions.Technology Development. Major change: The TDS and associated funding must provide for two or more competing teams producing prototypes of the system and/or key system elements prior to, or through, Milestone B. PDR conducted for candidate designs and PDR report provided to MDA at Milestone B. Guided by the ICD, draft CDD, the TDS and systems engineering planning. (Note, does not mention draft CDD; however, revised 3170 will make this clear).Engineering & Manufacturing Development. Major changes: Establishment of the product baseline for all configuration items prior to P-CDR Assessment. Requires that selected production-representative article be demonstrated in their intended environment and that manufacturing processes have been effectively demonstrated prior to MS C.Names and some activities of two major efforts changed: covered later.Old (2003)New (2008)Change from 2003More robust AoA (result of changes to JCIDS)Concept Refinement (CR)Materiel Solution AnalysisTechnology Development (TD)Competitive prototypingSystems Development & Demonstration (SDD)Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD)More robust system engineering
8Mandated Milestone A for MDAPs Mandates Milestone A approval prior to technology development for a major weapon systemRequires MDA Certification prior to Milestone A for MDAPsChanged Milestone B Certification RequirementsMandates reporting and notification of program cost changes
9Preliminary Design Review Engineering & Manufacturing BCTechnologyDevelopmentEngineering & ManufacturingDevelopmentCDDCPDPost PDRAssessmentPost CDRAssessmentPDRPDRCDRorPDR Before MS B: “When consistent with technology development phase objectives, associated prototyping activity, and the MDA approved TDS, the PM shall plan a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) before Milestone B.” PDR planning is reflected in the TDS and conducted for the candidate design(s) to establish the allocated baseline (hardware, software, human/support systems) and underlying architectures and to define a high-confidence design. All system elements (hardware and software) must be at a level of maturity commensurate with the PDR entrance and exit criteria. A successful PDR informs requirements trades; improves cost estimation; and identifies remaining design, integration, and manufacturing risks. The PDR is conducted at the system level and includes user representatives and associated certification authorities (not defined). The PDR Report is provided to the MDA at Milestone B and includes recommended requirements trades based upon an assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk.PDR After MS B: “If a PDR has not been conducted prior to Milestone B, the PM shall plan for a PDR as soon as feasible after program initiation.” PDR planning is reflected in the Acquisition Strategy and conducted consistent with the policies for the TD phase PDR (above). Following PDR, the PM submits a PDR report and the MDA conducts a formal Post-PDR Assessment. The PDR report reflects any requirements trades based upon the PM’s assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk. The MDA will consider the results of the PDR and the PM’s assessment, and determine whether remedial action is necessary to achieve APB objectives. The results of the MDA's Post-PDR Assessment are documented in an ADM.PDR Before Milestone BPDR After Milestone BPlanned in Technology Development Strategy (TDS)PDR Report provided to MDA at MS BIncludes recommended requirements tradesPlanned in Acquisition Strategy (AS)PDR Report provided to MDA before the Post-PDR AssessmentReflects requirements tradesAt Post-PDR Assessment, MDA considers PDR Report; determines action(s) required to achieve APB objectives, and issues ADM
10Engineering and Manufacturing Development BCIntegrated SystemDesignSystem Capability andManufacturing Process DemonstrationCDDCPDPost PDRAssessmentPost-CDRAssessmentPDRPDRCDRorIntegrated System Design. This effort is intended to define system and system-of-systems functionality and interfaces, complete hardware and software detailed design, and reduce system-level risk. Integrated System Design includes the establishment of the product baseline for all configuration items.System Capability and Manufacturing Process Demonstration. This effort is intended to demonstrate the ability of the system to operate in a useful way consistent with the approved KPPs and that system production can be supported by demonstrated manufacturing processes. Program enters SCMPD upon completion of the Post-CDR Assessment and establishment of an initial product baseline. Effort ends when the system meets approved requirements and is demonstrated in its intended environment using the selected production-representative article; manufacturing processes have been effectively demonstrated; industrial capabilities are reasonably available; and the system meets or exceeds exit criteria and Milestone C entrance requirements. Successful developmental test and evaluation (DT&E) to assess technical progress against critical technical parameters, early operational assessments, and, where proven capabilities exist, the use of modeling and simulation to demonstrate system/system-of-systems integration are critical during this effort. Test and evaluation (T&E) assesses improvements to mission capability and operational support based on user needs and shall be reported in terms of operational significance to the user.Old (2003)New (2008)Change from 2003At CDR, PM assumes control of the initial product baseline for all Class 1 Configuration Items.System DesignIntegrated System DesignSystem DemonstrationSystem Capability and Manufacturing Process DemonstrationManufacturing processes effectively demonstrated; production-representative article(s) demonstrated in intended environment; T&E assesses improvements to mission capability and operational support based on user needs.
11New Policy Directed by Congress Military Equipment Valuation (accounting formilitary equipment)MDA Certification at Milestones A & BCost type contract for EMD Phase requires writtendetermination by MDALead Systems Integrator RestrictionsReplaced System Sustainment PlanConfiguration Steering Boards (CSBs)-Military Equipment Valuation (accounting for military equipment): Acq strategy at MS C must provide that all equipment requiring capitalization is serially identified and valued at full cost. Full cost must be entered in the Item Unique Identification (IUID) registry. All systems are tracked throughout life cycle via IUID.-MDA certification at MS A & B. MDAPs only. MFR signed by MDA.--MS A cert: fulfills an approved ICD; executed by entity with relevant core competency; cost est. submitted; and if duplicating other capability the duplication is necessary.--MS B cert: affordable, reasonable cost and schedule est. submitted, funding avail, market research conducted, AoA done, JROC on board, technology mature, high likelihood of msn accomplishment, and complies with all statutory and regulatory requirements. MS B cert memo must be provided to the congressional defense committees.-Contracting for EMD: MDAPs only: type contract based on risk; if cost type MDA must sign written determination that risk does not permit fixed price contract.-Lead Sys Integrator (major systems): if used, MDA must ensure contractor does not/will not have a direct financial interest in the system.-Replaced System Sustainment Plan (sustainment plan for the existing system): MDAPs only: Required if existing sys remains necessary during fielding of replacement system; includes budget for sustainment of existing system; includes analysis of ability of existing system to meet mission requirements against threat.-Configuration Steering Boards: CAEs must establish to review all requirements and significant technical configuration changes that have potential to impact cost and schd of ACAT I and IA. Generally, changes will be rejected and deferred to future increments. Required by DoDI for ACAT I and IA; required by public law (FY09 NDAA, section 814) for MDAPs). Senior executive members must include reps from OUSD(AT&L), Joint Staff, service Chief of Staff, MILDEP to the SAE, PEO, and others as appropriate.
12New Policy Directed by Congress Continued…New MAIS Reporting Requirements“Time-Certain” IT Business Systems DevelopmentDefense Business Systems OversightMDA assessment of compliance with chemical,biological, radiological, and nuclear survivability(CBRN) requirements at Milestones B and CData Management StrategyMAIS Reporting: Statutory requirements for reporting to Congress, of:1. Cancellation or significant (not defined) reduction in scope.2. Significant program change (schedule slip of more than 6 mos but less than 1 yr); increase in estimated development or life cycle cost of at least 15% but less than 25%; significant adverse change (not defined) in expected performance.3. Critical program changes (failure to meet IOC w/in 5-years after funds were first obligated for the program (probably defined as MS A/TD phase); delay of 1 year or more in any program schedule; 25% increase in estimated development or life cycle cost; change in performance that undermines ability to perform functions anticipated.4. Report to Congress of cost, sch, and performance information (annually w/in 45 days of Presidents Budget).5. PMs report of variances in cost, sch, or KPPs (any variance from the first report to Congress)Time Certain IT Business System Development: MDA cannot approve MS A unless system can achieve IOC within 5 years.Defense Business Systems Oversight: new encl 11 provides the Investment Review Board certification and Defense Business Sys Mgmt Committee approval process. (covered in more detail later)MDA assessment of compliance with CBRN requirements: See DoDI , 17 Sep Applies to “mission-critical” CBRN systems regardless of ACAT. Mission-critical is determined by the sponsor developing the JCIDS documents (ICD/CDD/CPD). Encl 5 to DoDI has a tool that can be used by the sponsor to decide if CBRN mission-critical designation is required. Also requires nuclear survivability KPP for CBRN mission-critical systems covered by DoDD SData Management Strategy: acquisition strategy element; assessment of data required to design, manufacture, and sustain system, and addresses merits of priced contract option for future delivery of technical data and intellectual property rights not acquired on initial contract.
13New Policy Directed by Congress Continued…Detailed Acquisition of Services PolicyIndependent management reviews (Peer Reviews)for supplies and services contractsInterim Beyond-LRIP ReportDOT&E’s Role in Testing Force ProtectionEquipment / Non-Lethal WeaponsNunn-McCurdy breach / APB Revision ProcedureCost of energy in AoA and resource estimate-Acquisition of Services: expanded policy includes dollar threshold for oversight and review of services. IT of more than $500M, all services of more than $1B, and others as designated by USD(AT&L)/ASD(NII) must go to USD(AT&L)/ASD(NII) for review and approval (could be a briefing or a written notification) prior to proceeding with the solicitation.Peer Reviews. Director, DPAP, will organize review teams for pre-award and post-award Peer Reviews for service contracts with estimated value of $1 billion or more. Teams include senior contracting leaders from across DoD and members of the Office of General Counsel who are civilian employees or military personnel from outside of department or agency whose procurement is the subject of the Peer Review. Component Decision Authorities establish procedures for Peer Reviews for contracts valued at less than $1 billion.-Interim Beyond LRIP Report: DOT&E submits to congress if decision is made to proceed to operational use or procurement funds are made available before FRP decision. Final report still due prior to formal FRP decision.-Force protection equipment (to include non-lethal weapons) must be separate category on OSD T&E Oversight List, and DOT&E must expedite the testing process.-New Table 6 describes revised statutory requirements for the APB “original” or first APB, and “current” or a revision of original APB. Provides detailed guidance for APB revision and Nunn-McCurdy significant and critical cost threshold breaches as they relate to the original and current APBs. After a critical breach (PAUC or APUC increase of 25% over current APB; 50% PAUC or APUC increase over original APB) and certification to Congress a new original APB is formed.Only the current APB may be revised based on significant breach (15% over current APB; 30% over original APB)-Cost of Energy: --Resource estimates: Fully burdened cost of delivered energy must be used in trade-off analysis for all tactical systems with end items that create a demand for energy--AoA: must assess alternative ways to improve the energy efficiency of DoD tactical systems consistent with mission and cost effectiveness.
14New or Revised Regulatory Policy Contract Incentives StrategyProgram Support Reviews (PSRs)Integrated Developmental and OperationalTest and EvaluationRestricted use of performance requirementsthat do not support KPPsComparison with current mission capabilitiesduring OT&EAssessment of Operational Test Readiness (AOTR)Detailed Systems Engineering PolicyRAM StrategySE policy: New encl 12 institutionalizes SE policy memos over last 3 years or so: requires SEP; lead SE on PEO staff; event driven tech reviews; config mgmt, etc..Program Support Reviews: Cross functional review to inform MDA and PM on cost, sch, perf risks and recommendations for mitigation. For ACAT ID and IAM planned by OSD/AT&L Dir SE and Software Engineering to support OIPT reviews.Integrated T&E: Close coordination of DT and OT and integration of test activities with requirements definition and systems design and development. Must maintain IOT&E independence per statutory requirements.Performance requirements that do not support KPPs “shall be limited and considered a part of the engineering trade space during development.” OT&E must clearly distinguish between performance values that do not meet threshold values in the CDD/CPD and those that should be improved to provide enhanced capability in future upgrades.Comparison with current mission capabilities: OT&E includes this evaluation to determine “measurable improvements” have been made. PM can recommend alternative eval approach if this is too costly. Further, evaluations “shall make a clear distinction” between deficiencies related to approved requirements and those that are recommendations for improvement not related to approved requirements.AOTR: Office of DUSD(A&T) will conduct independent assessment of readiness for OT of all ACAT ID and special interest programs.Contract Incentives Strategy. Acquisition Strategy must describe how PM plans to employ contract incentives to achieve cost, schedule, and performance outcomes. During TD and subsequent phases PM must give small business maximum opportunities and where feasible leverage programs which employ people with disabilities)Life Cycle Sustainment Plan: Describes how the sustainment strategy is being implemented. See DAG Chapt. 5 for content.
15New or Revised Regulatory Policy Continued…Contracting for Operational Support ServicesApproval of Technology Development Strategy priorto release of final RFP for TD PhaseConfiguration Management policyApproval of Acquisition Strategy prior to release offinal RFP for EMD or any succeeding phaseLife-Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP)Review and assessment of new or modifiedcommunications waveformsEvolutionary Acquisition RevisedContracting for Operational Support Services. PMs must coordinate with the Component manpower authority in advance of contracting for operational support services to ensure that tasks and duties that are designated as inherently governmental or exempt are not contracted. Determination of the workforce mix in accordance with DoD Instruction , Reference (bl).Approval of TDS prior to release of final RFP for TD phase. PM cannot commit to any particular contracting strategy until TDS is approved.Approval of Acq Strategy prior to release of final RFP for EMD or any succeeding phase. Due to need for information obtained from contractor(s) proposals for EMD prior to MS B review, probably need to get acquisition strategy approval lead time from MS B to allow for release of draft and final RFPs and proposal evaluation.RAM strategy that includes a reliability growth program is required and must be documented in SEP and LCSP. Assessed during tech reviews, during T&E, and during PSRs.Review and Assessment of New or Modified Communications Waveforms. At MS B, PM must submit application to ASD(NII)/DoD CIO for review and assessment of new or modified communications waveforms. If waveform is added or modified after MS B, application must be reviewed at MS C (DoDI )Evolutionary Acquisition description revised (next chart).
16Evolutionary Acquisition From two processesTo one processIncremental Development: End-state is known; requirements met over time in several incrementsSpiral Development: End-state is not known; requirements for increments dependent upon technology maturation and user feedbackCapability is delivered in increments, recognizing up front need for future capability improvements.Each increment:depends on mature technologyis a militarily useful and supportable operational capabilitySuccessive Technology Development Phases may be needed to mature technology for multiple increments.-EA now just one process as shown. No “spirals”. Term spiral development no longer used as an EA strategy term.“Spirals” are out. “Spiral Development” is an engineering term that will continue to be used for software development. However, using it as a “strategy” term caused problems“Increments” are in.-Each increment is a militarily-useful and supportable operational capability that can be developed, produced, deployed, and sustained.-Each increment will have its own set of threshold and objective values set by the user.-Block upgrades, pre-planned product improvement, and similar efforts that provide a significant increase in operational capability and meet an acquisition category threshold specified in this document shall be managed as separate increments..No spirals!
17Policy Enabling Systems Engineering Technical Reviews Preliminary Design Review (PDR) – RequiredBefore MS B: PDR Report to the MDA for MS BAfter MS B:PDR Report to the MDAPost-PDR Assessment and ADMCritical Design Review (CDR) – RequiredPost-CDR Report to the MDAPost-CDR Assessment and ADM
18Preliminary Design Review When consistent with Technology Development Phase objectives, associated prototyping activity, and the MDA approved TDS, the PM shall plan a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) before Milestone B. PDR planning shall be reflected in the TDS and shall be conducted for the candidate design(s) to establish the allocated baseline (hardware, software, human/support systems) and underlying architectures to define a high-confidence design. All system elements (hardware and software) shall be at a level of maturity commensurate with the PDR entrance and exit criteria. A successful PDR will inform requirements trades; improve cost estimation; and identify remaining design, integration, and manufacturing risks. The PDR shall be conducted at the system level and include user representatives and associated certification authorities. The PDR Report shall be provided to the MDA at Milestone B and include recommended requirements trades based upon an assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk.OR18
19Preliminary Design Review Post-PDR Assessment. If a PDR has not been conducted prior to Milestone B, the PM shall plan for a PDR as soon as feasible after program initiation. PDR planning shall be reflected in the Acquisition Strategy and conducted consistent with the policies specified in paragraph 5.d.(6). Following PDR, the PM shall plan and the MDA shall conduct a formal Post-PDR Assessment. The PDR report shall be provided to the MDA prior to the assessment and reflect any requirements trades based upon the PM’s assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk. The MDA will consider the results of the PDR and the PM’s assessment, and determine whether remedial action is necessary to achieve APB objectives. The results of the MDA's Post-PDR Assessment shall be documented in an ADM.
20DAG* PDR Report Guidance Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Report. The PDR Report shall be provided as a memorandum to the MDA.1. When consistent with Technology Development Phase objectives, associated prototyping activity, and the MDA-approved TDS, the PM shall plan a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) before Milestone B. PDR planning shall be reflected in the TDS with details in the SEP and shall be conducted consistent with the policies specified in paragraph 5.d.(6). Additionally, the Report should address:a. A comprehensive list of the systems engineering products that make up the allocated baseline (to include the preliminary design specifications for all configuration items) and that were subject to review;b. A list of the participants in the review including the PDR chair, applicable technical authorities, independent subject matter experts, and other key stakeholders;c. A summary of the Action Items from the review and their closure status/plan;d. A risk assessment using the PDR risk assessment checklist (https://acc.dau.mil/TechRevChklst) or similar to determine readiness to commit to full detail design; ande. A recommendation from the PDR as to the approval of the program's system allocated baseline to support detail design.Note: Blue text is guidance, black is policy.* Defense Acquisition Guidebook
21DAG PDR Report Guidance Continued… The PDR Report shall be provided to the MDA at Milestone B and include recommended requirements trades based upon an assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk.2. If a PDR has not been conducted prior to Milestone B, the PM shall plan for a PDR as soon as feasible after program initiation. PDR planning shall be reflected in the Acquisition Strategy and conducted consistent with the policies specified in paragraph 5.d.(6).3. For programs whose MDA is the USD(AT&L), the PDR Report should be a memorandum to the USD(AT&L) through the Director, Systems and Software Engineering and the OIPT lead.Note: Blue text is guidance, black is policy.
22DAG Post-PDR-A Guidance Post-Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Assessment. When the system-level PDR is conducted after Milestone B, the PM shall plan and the MDA shall conduct a formal Post-PDR Assessment. The MDA shall conduct a formal program assessment and consider the results of the PDR and the PM’s assessment in the PDR Report, and determine whether remedial action is necessary to achieve APB objectives. The results of the MDA's Post-PDR Assessment shall be documented in an ADM. The Post-PDR assessment shall reflect any requirements trades based upon the PM’s assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk.Note: Blue text is guidance, black is policy.
23Post-CDR ReportThe PM shall provide a Post-CDR Report to the MDA that provides an overall assessment of design maturity and a summary of the system-level CDR results which shall include, but not be limited to:a. The names, organizations, and areas of expertise of independent subject matter expert participants and CDR chair;b. A description of the product baseline for the system and the percentage of build-to packages completed for this baseline;c. A summary of the issues and actions identified at the review together with their closure plans;d. An assessment of risk by the participants against the exit criteria for the EMD Phase; ande. Identification of those issues/risks that could result in a breach to the program baseline or substantively impact cost, schedule, or performance.The MDA shall review the Post-CDR Report and the PM's resolution/ mitigation plans and determine whether additional action is necessary to satisfy EMD Phase exit criteria and to achieve the program outcomes specified in the APB. The results of the MDA's Post-CDR Assessment shall be documented in an ADM.Successful completion of the Post-CDR Assessment ends Integrated System Design and continues the EMD Phase into System Capability and Manufacturing Process Demonstration.
24Post-CDR AssessmentPost-CDR Assessment. The MDA shall conduct a formal program assessment following system-level CDR. The system-level CDR provides an opportunity to assess design maturity as evidenced by measures such as: successful completion of subsystem CDRs; the percentage of hardware and software product build-to specifications and drawings completed and under configuration management; planned corrective actions to hardware/software deficiencies; adequate developmental testing; an assessment of environment, safety and occupational health risks; a completed failure modes and effects analysis; the identification of key system characteristics;, manufacturing feasibility, and the maturity of critical manufacturing processes; and an estimate of system reliability based on demonstrated reliability rates.
25DAG Post-CDR-A Guidance Post-Critical Design Review (CDR) Assessment. The MDA shall conduct a formal program assessment following system-level CDR.1. The PM shall provide a Post-CDR Report as a memorandum to the MDA that provides an overall assessment of design maturity and a summary of the system-level CDR results which shall include, but not be limited to:a. The names, organizations, and areas of expertise of independent subject matter expert participants and CDR chair;b. A description of the product baseline for the system and the percentage of build-to packages completed for this baseline;c. A summary of the issues and actions identified at the review together with their closure plans;d. An assessment of risk by the participants against the exit criteria for the EMD Phase; ande. Identification of those issues/risks that could result in a breach to the program baseline or substantively impact cost, schedule, or performance.The CDR risk assessment checklist is designed as a technical review preparation tool, and should be used as the primary guide for assessing risk during the review. This checklist is available on the SE COP (https://acc.dau.mil/TechRevChklst).Note: Blue text is guidance, black is policy.
26DAG Post-CDR-A Guidance Continued… 2. For programs whose MDA is the USD(AT&L), the Post-CDR Report should be a memorandum to the USD(AT&L) through the Director, Systems and Software Engineering and the OIPT lead.3. The MDA shall review the Post-CDR Report and the PM’s resolution/ mitigation plans and determine whether additional action is necessary to satisfy EMD Phase exit criteria and to achieve the program outcomes specified in the APB. The results of the MDA’s Post-CDR Assessment shall be documented in an ADM.Note: Blue text is guidance, black is policy.
27Codifies OSD SE Role in Program Oversight Program Support Reviews (PSRs). PSRs are a means to inform an MDA and Program Office of the status of technical planning and management processes by identifying cost, schedule, and performance risk and recommendations to mitigate those risks. PSRs shall be conducted by cross-functional and cross-organizational teams appropriate to the program and situation. PSRs for ACAT ID and IAM programs shall be planned by the Director, Systems and Software Engineering (SSE) to support OIPT program reviews, at other times as directed by the USD(AT&L), and in response to requests from PMs.Enclosure 6: The DUSD(A&T) shall conduct an independent Assessment of Operational Test Readiness (AOTR) for all ACAT ID and special interest programs designated by the USD(AT&L). Each AOTR shall consider the risks associated with the system’s ability to meet operational suitability and effectiveness goals. This assessment shall be based on capabilities demonstrated in DT&E and OAs and criteria described in the TEMP. Where feasible, the AOTR shall be performed in conjunction with the program's review and reporting activities as described in subparagraph 4.a.(1) of this Enclosure. The AOTR report shall be provided to the USD(AT&L), DOT&E, and CAE.The CAE shall consider the results of the AOTR prior to making a determination of materiel system readiness for IOT&E.27
28▀ New Enclosures to DoDI 5000.02 1. References 2. Procedures 3. ACAT and MDA4. Statutory and Regulatory Information andMilestone RequirementsTable 5. EVM Implementation PolicyTable 6. APB PolicyTable 7. Unique Decision Forums5. IT Considerations6. Integrated T&E7. Resource Estimation8. Human Systems Integration9. Acquisition of Services10. Program Management11. Management of Defense Business Systems12. Systems EngineeringTablesUpdated,More UserFriendly-New Enclosure 2, Procedures, contains 95% of material that was in PART 3 of the previous document (formatting change directed by Dir, Management).-New Table 5, EVM Implementation Policy, provides requirements for compliance with earned value management guidelines depending on type/value of contract.-New Table 6, APB Policy is focused on the descriptions of the “original” baseline (first baseline approved at MS B), and “current” baseline (reflects current program as revised from original).--Defines “significant” and “critical” Nunn-McCurdy breaches: Applies only to MDAPs Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) or Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC). Nunn-McCurdy breaches are based on both original and current baseline data.--APB RDT&E cost, Performance, and Schedule requirements and deviation criteria are not discussed in ; see DAG chapter 2.-New Table 7, Unique Decision Forums:--Defense Space Acquisition Board (DSAB). USD(AT&L) chairs the DSAB unless delegated to Under SECAF by USD(AT&L). see National Security Space Acquisition Policy (available in AKSS)--Joint Intelligence Acquisition Board (JIAB). USD(AT&L) co-chairs JIAB for National Intel Programs (NIP) funded programs executed within DoD. See Intel Community Dir. (ICD) 105, 15 August 06, and Intel Community Policy Guidance (ICPG) 105.1, 12 Jul 07. Both are available at--Missile Defense Executive Board (MDEB). USD(AT&L Chairs the MDEB. See USD(AT&L) memo, “Ballistic Missile Defense Program Implementation Guidance”-Revisions to enclosures and new enclosures are discussed on the next series of charts.▀ New
29New Systems Engineering Enclosure Codifies three previous SE policy memorandaCodifies a number of SE-related policies andstatutes since 2003:Environmental Safety and Occupational HealthCorrosion Prevention and ControlModular Open Systems ApproachData Management and Technical Data RightsItem Unique IdentificationSpectrum SupportabilityIntroduces new policy on Configuration Management
30Other Important Statutory and Regulatory Policy Changes
31Other Major Policy Changes Continued… Acquisition of ServicesReplaces, and adds structure and discipline to, former policyImplements Independent Management Reviews, required by Sec. 808 of the ’08 NDAA, as “Peer Reviews”Defines Senior Officials and Management ThresholdsRequires: Performance-Based Requirements; identifiable and measurable cost, schedule, and performance outcomes; a strategic, enterprise-wide approach for both planning and execution; and formal executive review before contract initiationAssessment of Operational Test ReadinessComplements the DoD Component’s Operational Test Readiness ProcessConsiders the risks associated with the system’s ability to meet operational suitability and effectiveness goalsBased on capabilities demonstrated in DT&E and OA and TEMP criteriaReport provided to the USD(AT&L), DOT&E, and CAEAIS ReportingFY ’09 NDAA§811 Establishes “pre-MAIS” reporting requirementsNo longer need to “Certify” CCA compliance to CongressFY ’07 NDAA§816 SAR-like and DAES-like reporting§816 (Nunn-McCurdy-like) Assessment and Certification§811 Time-Certain IT Business System developmentFY ’06 NDAA§806, MAIS Cancellation/Reduction in Scope: Notify Congress before any MDA cancels or significantly reduces the scope of a MAIS program that has been fielded or has received Milestone C approvalAPB PolicyClarifies when and on what basis the APB will be updatedProvides statutory basis for Nunn-McCurdy reporting
32Other Major Policy Changes Continued… Changes to the Technology Development StrategyStatutory requirement for Test Plan in TD Phase is now accomplished in T&E Strategy (TES)Now requires a summary of the CAIG-approved Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) Plan(s) for the Technology Development phaseData RightsPMs assess the long-term technical data needs of their systemsThe assessment reflected in a Data Management Strategy (included in the Acquisition Strategy)Addresses the merits of including a priced contract option for the future delivery of technical dataConsiders the contractor’s responsibility to verify any assertion of restricted use and release of dataEnhanced Focus on Manufacturing ReadinessFully-Burdened Cost of EnergyThe Analysis of Alternatives considers —Alternative ways to improve the energy efficiency of DoD tactical systems with end items that create a demand for energyThe fully burdened cost of delivered energy shall be used in trade-off analyses conducted for all DoD tactical systems with end items that create a demand for energyIncentivesPM required to describe how incentives will be used to achieve required cost, schedule, and performance outcomesCaptured in Acquisition StrategyInstitutionalizes current incentive fee policyInstitutionalizes Program Management Agreements (PMAs)
33Other Major Policy Changes Continued… Lead Systems IntegratorMDA ensures that the LSI does not have, nor is expected to acquire, a financial interest in development or constructionPM stresses appropriate checks and balances; insists the government performs inherently governmental functionsMilestone RequirementsFY’07/’08/’09 NDAAsMandate Milestone A approval prior to technology development for an MDAPRequire MDA Certification prior to Milestone A for MDAPs with Technology Development Phase effortsMandate reporting and notification of program cost changesChanged Milestone B Certification RequirementsFY’06 NDAARequires MDA Certification prior to Milestone B for MDAPsMDA Determination of Contract TypeConsistent with level of program risk: fixed price or cost contractCost-type only upon written determination that (1) the program is so complex and technically challenging that it would not be practicable to reduce program risk to a level that would permit the use of a fixed-price contract; and, (2) the complexity and technical challenge of the program is not the result of a failure to meet the requirements of the MDA Milestone B CertificationModified “Enclosure 3” TablesNow Enclosure 4Clarifies Applicability by program type and ACATNew ChallengesAddresses Waveform, Electromagnetic Spectrum, and Life-Cycle Signature ManagementRequires early consideration of Data Assets, Critical Program Information, and the workforce mix
34Other Major Policy Changes Continued… New Enclosure 11, Management of Defense Business SystemsDescribes the Defense Business Systems Management Committee (DBSMC) Certification Approval ProcessDBSMC Certification Approval required for all defense business systems funded over $1,000,000Investment Review Boards (IRB) assess programs and advise the DBSMCEnclosure details the business process supporting IRB and DBSMC activityNew Enclosure 12, Systems EngineeringRequires the Systems Engineering Plan and Technical ReviewsAlso covers—Corrosion ControlConfiguration ManagementPre-Award “Peer Reviews”Recognizes Unique Decision Forums for Space, Missile Defense, and Joint IntelligencePerformance-Based Life-Cycle Product Support (PBL)Document performance and sustainment requirements in performance agreements specifying objective outcomes, measures, resource commitments, and stakeholder responsibilitiesProgram Support ReviewsOn-site review of program information before each milestone and release of the RFPAssesses technical planning and management processesAssists in identifying and mitigating cost/schedule/performance riskInforms decision makingReliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM)Requires a strategy that includes a reliability growth programRAM integrated with Systems Engineering processes; assessed during technical reviews, T&E, and Program Support Reviews (PSRs)
35Other Major Policy Changes Continued… Replaced-System Sustainment PlanDoD Component plan to sustain the system being replaced if the capability provided by the existing system remains necessary and relevant during fielding of and transition to the new systemThe plan must provide for the budgeting to sustain the existing system until the new system assumes the majority of mission responsibilityRequests for ProposalTechnology Development Strategy or Acquisition Strategy must be approved before releaseSmall Business Innovation Research (SBIR)Directs consideration of SBIR technologiesUpdated EVM PolicyCost/Incentive Contracts: At PM’s discretion, based on cost-benefit analysisFirm Fixed-Price Contracts: Limited. Requires MDA approval based on a business case analysisWorkforce ConsiderationsManpower mixInherently governmentalPM tenurePM / PEO shall be experienced and certified
37Increased Focus on Early Acquisition MS AMS BMS CJCIDS ProcessJoint ConceptsCBAICDMaterielSolutionAnalysisEngineering and Manufacturing DevelopmentTechnologyDevelopmentCDDCPDProduction and DeploymentO&SStrategic GuidanceMDDPDR or PDRCDRFull Rate ProductionDecision ReviewMateriel Development Decision (MDD)PDR and a PDR report to the MDA if pre-MS B or PDR and Post-PDR report and assessment if post-MS BCompeting prototypes before MS BWhat are the implications of these changes for programs?How can systems engineering enable the program during thisearly phase?
38New Opportunities for Systems Engineering – Starting Programs Right What’s relevant: Mandatory Materiel Development Decision Mandatory Milestone A for all “major weapon systems” Mandatory PDR* and CDR* with reports to the MDA*MS AMS BMS CEngineering and Manufacturing DevelopmentStrategic GuidanceJoint ConceptsCBAICDMaterielSolutionAnalysisCDDCPDProduction and DeploymentO&STechnologyDevelopmentMDDJCIDS ProcessORFull Rate ProductionDecision ReviewPDRPDRCDRPre-MDD “SE Touch Points”Initial CapabilitiesDocument (ICD)Analysis of Alternativesstudy planPre-Milestone A “SE Touch Points”Systems Engineering PlanTechnology Development StrategyTest and Evaluation StrategyAnalysis of Alternatives* PDR – Preliminary Design Review * CDR – Critical Design Review * MDA - Milestone Decision Authority
39New Opportunities for Independent Reviews What’s relevant: Mandatory Milestone A for all “major weapon systems” MS B after system-level PDR* and a PDR Report to the MDA EMDD with Post-CDR* Report and MDA Assessment PSR and AOTR in policyMS AMS BMS CMaterielSolutionAnalysisEngineering and Manufacturing Development and DemonstrationStrategic GuidanceJoint ConceptsCBAICDCDDCPDProduction and DeploymentO&STechnologyDevelopmentMDDFull RateProductionDecisionReviewPotential Independent Technical Reviews - PSRs and AOTRsOTRRProgram Support Reviews (PSRs)All ACAT ID and IAMTo inform the MDA on technical planning andmanagement processes thru risk identificationand mitigation recommendationsTo support OIPT program reviews and othersas requested by the MDANon-advocate reviews requested by the PMAssessments of Operational TestReadiness (AOTRs)All ACAT ID and special interest programsTo inform the MDA, DOTE, & CAE of risk ofa system failing to meet operational suitabilityand effectiveness goalsTo support CAE determination of materielreadiness for IOT&E* PDR – Preliminary Design Review * CDR – Critical Design Review * OTRR – Operational Test Readiness Review
40New Challenges for Programs PM skill-sets after MDD and prior to MS AIncreased importance of the Technology Development Strategy (TDS) at MS APM skill-set and PM organization for TD phaseFunding implications (shifting resources from EMD to TD)Possible contracting strategies – constraints, competitive prototyping, data rights, etc.Early engagement with industryTailoring the process to specific domains and/or complexityOthers?
41New Challenges for SEPs Explicit technical planning for the Technology Development phase at Milestone A including:Technology maturationCompetitive prototypingManufacturing maturityCritical Program Information in designItem Unique Identification (IUID)Mandatory system-level PDR with rationale for its placement before or after Milestone BPDR Report to the MDA either side of MS BPost-PDR Assessment by the MDA with ADM if after MS BMandatory system-level CDRPost-CDR Report to and Assessment by the MDA followed by an ADMIUID Implementation Plan as SEP Annex at Milestones B and C
42Why is this hard?Programs have very little experience with current pre-Milestone B SE activities – makes it difficult to know what to ‘adjust’ given changes.The current DAG guidance is voluminous – online resource with over 500 printed pages of information without hotlinks.PMOs have limited understanding about interdependencies within the this Guidance.For SE to be an effective enabler, Systems Engineers need to understand the activities, products, and their integration with the program, particularly in the unfamiliar realm of pre-Milestone B.
43Review of Policy Changes Engineering and Manufacturing Development Mandatory Materiel Development Decision (MDD)Mandatory competing prototypes before MS BMandatory PDR and a report to the MDA (“the sliding PDR”)[PDR Report to MDA if before MS B; formal PDR Assessment by MDA if after MS B]Configuration Steering Boards at Component level to review allrequirements changesMS AMS BMS CJoint ConceptsCBAICDMaterielSolutionAnalysisCDDEngineering and Manufacturing DevelopmentCPDProduction and DeploymentO&SStrategic GuidanceTechnologyDevelopmentMDDJCIDS ProcessorFull Rate ProductionDecision ReviewPDRPDRCDRRenewed emphasis on manufacturing during system development:Re-titles SDD phase to EMD with two sub phases: Integrated SystemDesign and System Capability and Manufacturing Process DemonstrationEstablishes consideration of manufacturing maturity at key decision pointsMandatory system-level CDR with an initial product baseline and followed bya Post-CDR Report to the MDAPost-CDR Assessment by the MDA between EMD sub phases
44In Conclusion . . .MDDMSAMSBAgreement to pursue a material solutionBusinessDecisionsSelection of a proposed materiel solutionMaterielSolutionAnalysisProgramInitiationEngineeringSupportUncertaintyProposedMateriel SolutionTechnology Maturationand PrototypingPDRP-PDRAssessmentSystem Level SpecsP-CDRAssessmentFinal slide-So why am I here welcoming you?We have recognized the important of early SE to provide the technical basis for our acquisitions andPDR has traditionally been a technical review and within the SE lane.However, SE is only effective when it supports the work in other areas and is informed by those areasWith the changes PDR has taken a new role and it is critical that SE work in tandem with the other areas for acquisition sucessAoAORPDRCDRPreliminary DesignCompletedDesignMateriel Solution AnalysisTechnology DevelopmentMake acquisition decisions when you have solid evidence and acceptable risk
45SE Planning for Milestone A and Technology Development Phase Documents / activities / data requiring technical input from the Systems Engineer BEFORE Milestone A:Analysis of AlternativesTechnology Development StrategyCritical Program InformationTechnology maturation plansCompetitive Prototyping plansNet-Centric Data StrategyMarket ResearchData Management StrategyComponent Cost EstimateSystems Engineering PlanTest and Evaluation PlanThe Systems Engineer’s Challenge: Where to find the data!?
49MSA Starting & Closing Conditions Starting ConditionsClosing ConditionsJROC Approved ICDUnderstanding of capability gapsSuccessful MDDAgreement by MDA to proceedMDA Approved AoA GuidanceDirection for initial scoping of solutionMateriel SolutionAnalysis(MSA)Technology Development Strategy (TDS)Understanding of risks – technology, design, manufacturing, security, etc.Plans for competitive prototyping and initial design (to PDR)Plans for SE and T&E for technology development
50MSA – Materiel Development Decision MDDMS AMateriel Solution AnalysisConductAoAInitial userassessmentof capabilityneedsICDStudyEffortsEngineering Analysisof PotentialSystemsSolution(s)SEPTDSJCIDSGuidancePlanReportTESTechnicalPlanningfor TDMaterialSolutionOptionsProgramFor TDOffice(and fewer surprises later in the process)Materiel Development DecisionNew inProvides early visibility to MDA and opportunity for better upfront guidance
51MSA – Analysis of Alternatives MDDMS AMateriel Solution AnalysisConductAoAInitial userassessmentof capabilityneedsICDStudyEffortsEngineering Analysisof PotentialSystemsSolution(s)SEPTDSJCIDSGuidancePlanReportTESTechnicalPlanningfor TDMaterialSolutionOptionsProgramFor TDOfficeNo major changes inIncreased visibility at MDDRecommends important considerations be addressed at the outset in AoA GuidanceRisk is that if driving issues are not addressed in the AoA they will cost more in time and funds when identified later in the process
52MSA – Engineering Analysis MDDMS AMateriel Solution AnalysisConductAoAInitial userassessmentof capabilityneedsICDStudyEffortsEngineering Analysisof PotentialSystemsSolution(s)SEPTDSJCIDSGuidancePlanReportTESTechnicalPlanningfor TDMaterialSolutionOptionsProgramFor TDOfficeEngineering analysis delivers the materiel solution(s) knowledge required for:MDA ‘s approval of materiel solution(s) and cost estimate certificationSEP: Solution(s) descriptions , CTEs identification, & technical requirementsTES: Solution(s) description that supports TES developmentTDS: Technical baseline that supports evolutionary acquisition strategyEarly engineering analysis by ‘emerging program office’Based on results of the AoA, translated into option(s) for acquisitionProvides technical basis for planning for next steps including the best technical approach for the TD phaseIncludes assessment of technical risks including technology maturity, design, assurance, integration, manufacturingProvides technical foundation for MS A products and decisions
53MSA – Material Solution Options MDDMS AMateriel Solution AnalysisConductAoAInitial userassessmentof capabilityneedsICDStudyEffortsEngineering Analysisof PotentialSystemsSolution(s)SEPTDSJCIDSGuidancePlanReportTESTechnicalPlanningfor TDMaterialSolutionOptionsProgramFor TDOfficecalls for initial review, but is silent on specificsRecommended solution or solution setReviewed by stakeholdersProvides scoping for planning for next phase
54MSA – Planning for TD Phase MDDMS AMateriel Solution AnalysisJCIDSInitial userICDassessmentof capabilityneedsEngineering Analysisof PotentialSystemsMaterialTechnicalProgramOfficeSolution(s)SolutionPlanningOptionsfor TDStudySEPEffortsTESProgramPlanningFor TDTDSAoAAoAAoAPlanReportGuidanceConductPlanning for Technology DevelopmentCostingContractingCTECPISystems EngineeringTest & EvaluationAoAEvolutionary vs. single step approach (programmatic and technical)Acquisition increments’ objectivesTotal R&D program cost, schedule, performance goalsTD Phase risk reduction/ technology maturation objectivesCompetitive prototyping and PDR plansTD Phase-specific cost, schedule, performance goals and exit criteriaContract strategy and RFP preparationProgram Office organization, responsibilities, and time-phased workload assessment
55MSA –Planning for TD Phase Continued… MDDMS AMateriel Solution AnalysisJCIDSInitial userICDassessmentof capabilityneedsEngineering Analysisof PotentialSystemsMaterialTechnicalProgramOfficeSolution(s)SolutionPlanningOptionsfor TDStudySEPEffortsTESProgramPlanningFor TDTDSAoAAoAAoAPlanReportGuidanceConductPlanning for Technology DevelopmentCostingContractingCTECPISystems EngineeringTest & EvaluationAoAMajor productsTechnology Development Strategy (TDS)Plan for the TD phaseSystems Engineering Plan (SEP)Plan for engineering for TD activitiesT&E StrategyTest plans and criteria for TD and long lead time test elements
56MSA – PM Questions Increased importance of AoA? MDDMS AMateriel Solution AnalysisConductAoAInitial userassessmentof capabilityneedsICDStudyEffortsEngineering Analysisof PotentialSystemsSolution(s)SEPTDSJCIDSGuidancePlanReportTESTechnicalPlanningfor TDMaterialSolutionOptionsProgramFor TDOfficeIncreased importance of AoA?When is Program Office formation?Role of industry?Coordination with S&T community?Who vets the PMO assessments in the TDS?
58TD Starting & Closing Conditions Starting ConditionsClosing ConditionsMilestone A decisionSelected materiel solution(s)Clear direction in ADM including funding matched to TD plan (in approved TDS)Cost, schedule, solution(s) maturity objectivesCost certificationApproved Technology Development Strategy (TDS)TD phase acquisition strategy and RFPsDetailed phase implementation plan with resourcesApproved Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) and T&E Strategy (TES)Technical management and implementation planTesting objectives and criteriaKnowledge-based decision on establishing a program of record including cost, schedule, and performance based on:Approved CDD and systems requirementsDemonstrated mature solution(s) technologiesInitial end-item design maturity (if PDR before B)EMD phase full fundingEMD plan and objectives (AS) based on acceptable level of risk to Sponsor, CAE, and PMSupporting programmatic, technical, and test planning for EMD executionTechnology Development(TD)
59Technology Maturation Initial End Item Design TD – Major ThrustsTechnology MaturationInitial End Item Design
60TD – Technology Maturity Reviews TDS assessment of technology maturity and its identified Critical Technology Elements CTEsConfirms/ revises CTEs functional and performance baselines; the ”as is” and requiredMatures CTEs in relevant environmentsCompetitive prototypes or other technology risk reduction activitiesUses RFPs/ task orders with industry and government labs/ agenciesImplementation based on MS A productsTDS identified CTE and provided technology risk reduction plansSEP defined how risk reduction and prototypes will be technically managed and reviewedTES provided T&E criteria for evaluation of technology risk reduction and prototype efforts
61TD – Engineering Analysis Assesses CTE/ prototyping results against required requirementsRefines system requirements based on technology maturation resultsCollaborates with Users to balance CDD requirements with solutions’ technology maturityDevelops technical baseline for CARD and program estimate (Certification requirement)Results…Drive the technical aspects of program: Systems Requirement Document, SEP and TEMPProvide the technical foundation for draft Acquisition Strategy, Initial end-item RFP, cost estimates, and APB
62TD – Interim ProductsInterim products provide basis for initial end item designSponsor-approved CDDUpdated TEMPInitial Acquisition Strategy and cost estimatesPreliminary APBPreliminary program total ownership costs and plan for evolutionary acquisition increments
63TD – Initial End Item Design(s) Multiple design competitors including prototypes (as required)Technical reviews’ products per SEP(e.g.: requirements tradeoffs, trade studies, design alternatives, and prototyping results)Greater understanding of achievable system performanceRisk reduction via HW and SW design maturation (engineering and manufacturing)Engineering oversight and insight via IPTsInteraction with user community and stakeholders to ensure shared understanding of technical feasibility
64TD – Products Design results inform final Milestone B products: Business Case AnalysisEMD RFP or post PDR contract(s) executionTechnical plans: SEP, TEMP, Information Support Plan (ISP), etc.PDR Report to MDA (new in )PM AssessmentFinal CDD reflecting a feasible, affordable increment of developmentAcquisition Strategy, next increment’s APB & CARD, and full funding requirement
65TD – PM Questions Role of industry in TD? Relationship to JCIDS? PDR before BImpact of time delay between PDR and MS B?Contracting implications for EMD?What requirements are in the RFP for initial designs?Timing and basis for Source Selection?
66Statutory Requirements Added For MDAPs & MAIS Enclosure 4, Table 2-1Statutory Requirements Added For MDAPs & MAISWhenRequiredRequirementReferenceCommentAnalysis of Alternatives (AoA)10 USC 2366aTitle 40, Sec IIIMS A, B, C, &Program Initiation for ShipsUpdated as necessary at MS B and CData ManagementStrategy10 USC 2320MS A, B, C, &FRPDRPart of TDS or Acq StrategyMilitary Equipment Program ValuationPL &Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards, No 6MS C &FRPDR (orequivalent)Part of AcquisitionStrategyAnalysis of Alternatives (AoA). Previously a regulatory requirement only for ACAT I/IA. Now a statutory requirement for ACAT I and IA, and a regulatory requirement for all the rest (see upcoming chart on regulatory requirements for all programs).Data Management Strategy: See Chapter 2, DAG when revised. AT&L Policy memo dated 19 July 2007, states that the data management strategy will:-Assess the data required to design, manufacture and sustain the system as well as to support re-competition for production, sustainment or upgrade.-Address the merits of including a priced contract option for the future delivery of technical data and intellectual property rights not acquired upon initial contract award and shall consider the contractor's responsibility to verify any assertion of restricted use and release of data.Military Equipment Valuation: See Chapter 2, DAG when revised. For MS C, the PM prepares a program description as part of the Acquisition Strategy. Throughout Production and Deployment, the PM or the life-cycle manager ensures that all deliverable equipment requiring capitalization is serially identified and valued at full cost; the full cost of each item of equipment is entered in the Item Unique Identification (IUID) registry; all solicitations, proposals, contracts, and/or orders for deliverable equipment are structured for proper segregation of each type of equipment based on its respective financial treatment; procedures are established to track all equipment items throughout their life cycle; and the status of items added, retired from operational use, or transferred from one DoD Component to another DoD Component are updated quarterly throughout their life.
67Statutory Requirements Added For MDAPs Only Enclosure 4, Table 2-1Statutory Requirements Added For MDAPs OnlyWhenRequiredRequirementReferenceCommentMDA Program Certification10 USC 2366 a & bMS A & BMS C (if program initiation)Requires cost estimate at MS ANunn-McCurdy Assessment and Certification10 USC 2433When Service Secretary reports an increase in cost that equals or exceeds the critical cost thresholdIncrease of 25% over “current” PAUC or APUC APB values; Increase of 50% over “original” PAUC or APUC APB valuesMDA Program Certification (see previous chart on Policy Directed by Congress, and back-up charts for details). MDAPs only.Nunn-McCurdy Assessment & Certification. MDAPs only. If current or original APB values for Procurement Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) or Average Unit Procurement Cost (AUPC) are breached as shown, SECDEF: assesses, — (1) any design, engineering, manufacturing, or technology integration issues that contributed significantly to the cost growth of the program; (2) the projected cost of completing the program if current requirements are not modified; (3) the projected cost of completing the program based on reasonable modification of such requirements; and (4) the rough order of magnitude of the costs of any reasonable alternative system or capability. Certification: Submits to Congress, a written certification (with a supporting explanation) stating that— (1) such acquisition program is essential to the national security; (2) there are no alternatives to such acquisition program which will provide equal or greater military capability at less cost; (3) the new estimates of the program acquisition unit cost or procurement unit cost are reasonable; and (4) the management structure for the acquisition program is adequate to manage and control program acquisition unit cost or procurement unit cost.Replaced System Sustainment Plan. MDAPs only: Required if existing sys remains necessary during fielding of replacement system; includes budget for sustainment of existing system; includes analysis of ability of existing system to meet mission requirements against threat.Replaced System Sustainment Plan10 USC 2437MS B; ProgramInitiation for Ships
68Statutory Requirements Added For MAIS Only Enclosure 4, Table 2-1Statutory Requirements Added For MAIS OnlyWhenRequiredRequirementReferenceCommentAssessment and certification of a Critical Change to the Defense Committees10 USC 2445cNLT 60 days after receiving a MAIS Quarterly Report indicating a Critical ChangeFailed to achieve IOC w/in 5 years after funds were first obligated; schedule change of 1 yr or more; increase in dev cost or life cycle cost of 25% or more; or a change in expected performance that undermines ability of sys to perform anticipated functionsNotification of a Significant Change to the Defense Committees10 USC 2445cNLT 45 days after receiving MAIS Quarterly Report indicating a Significant ChangeSchedule change of more than 6 mos, but less than 1 year; increase in development cost or life cycle cost of at least 15% but less than 25%; or significant adverse change in expected performanceSAEs shall obtain the ASD(NII)/DoD CIO’s coordination on Significant and Critical Change reports before submitting them to the congressional defense committees when (a) the ASD(NII)/DoD CIO is the MDA for the program, or (b) the MAIS is an ACAT IAC program that is not under the direct authority of the USD(AT&L).SAEs shall obtain the USD(AT&L)'s coordination on Significant and Critical Change reports before submitting them to the congressional defense committees when the MAIS is under the direct authority of the USD(AT&L).DoD CIO Confirmation of CCA Compliance. The 2003 requirement was “certification of compliance with CCA”. Enclosure 5 requires that the DoD CIO “confirm” compliance with Title 40/Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) for both MDAP and MAIS IT systems to include NSS.DoD CIO Confirmation of CCA ComplianceSec 811, PLMS A, B, C, & Full Deployment Decision ReviewMS C if program initiation or equiv to Full Deployment Decision Review
69Statutory Requirements Added For MAIS Only, continued… Enclosure 4, Table 2-1Statutory Requirements Added For MAIS Only, continued…WhenRequiredRequirementReferenceCommentDBSMC Certification for Business Systems Modernization10 USC 2222Prior to obligation of fundsSee Encl. 11, DoDINotice of MAIS Cancellation or Significant Reduction in ScopeSec 806,PL60 days prior to MDA decision to cancel or significantly reduce scope of fielded or post-MS C MAIS programMAIS Annual Report to Congress10 USC 2445bAnnually, after first occurrence of any of the following events: MDA designation, MS A or MS BDue 45 days after the President’s Budget is submitted to Congress-Defense Business Systems Management Committee (DBSMC) policy and procedure describes in enclosure 11 to DoDI This requirement is for MAIS business systems; similar requirements apply to other business systems valued at more than $1 million.-Notice of MAIS Cancellation or Significant Reduction in Scope: Cancellation is self-explanatory. “Significant reduction in scope” is not explained in DoDI The language at Sec. 806, PL implies a significant change would be a change that impacts on the ability of the Department to achieve the objectives of the program.MAIS Quarterly Report10 USC 2445cQuarterly following initial submission of a MAIS Annual Report
70Enclosure 4, Table 2-2Statutory Requirements Added For ACAT II and Below Programs(unless otherwise noted)WhenRequiredRequirementReferenceCommentAnalysis of Alternatives (AoA) – all IT including NSS40 USC Subtitle IIIMS A, B, & CUpdated as necessary at MS B and CData ManagementStrategy (ACAT II only)10 USC 2320MS B, C, &FRPDRPart of AcqStrategyLRIP Quantities(ACAT II only)10 USC 2400MS BThis is a new Table 2-2 developed for the 2008 version of ; however, except for the requirements shown here, the other statutory requirements for ACAT II and below programs, were already covered by various sections of the 2003 version of and are not really new.AoA. See information on first chart for Table 2-1, and next series of charts for Regulatory Requirements for all Programs.Data Management Strategy and Military Equipment Program Valuation. See information on first chart for Table 2-1.LRIP Quantities. Same as for ACAT 1 in previous version of This makes it clear same requirement applies to ACAT II programs:At Milestone B, the MDA determines the Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) quantity for MDAPs and major systems. The LRIP quantity for an MDAP (with rationale for quantities exceeding 10 percent of the total production quantity documented in the Acquisition Strategy) shall be included in the first Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) after its determination. Any increase in quantity after the initial determination shall be approved by the MDA. The LRIP quantity shall not be less than one unit. The Director, Operational Test & Evaluation, following consultation with the PM, shall determine the number of production or production-representative test articles required for live-fire test and evaluation (LFT&E) and initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) of programs on the OSD T&E Oversight List. For a system that is not on the OSD Operational Test & Evaluation (OT&E) Oversight List, the operational test agency (OTA), following consultation with the PM, shall determine the number of test articles required for IOT&E.Military Equipment Program ValuationPL &Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards, No 6MS C &FRPDR (orequivalent)Part of AcquisitionStrategy
71Enclosure 4, Table 3Regulatory Requirements Added/Revised For All Programs(unless otherwise noted)RequirementReferenceWhen RequiredCommentAcquisition InfoAssurance StrategyDoDIMS A, B, C, &FRPDR or FDDRAll ITincluding NSSAnalysis ofAlternatives (AoA)DoDIMS A, B, & CFDDR for AISUpdated as necessary at MS B and CAoA Study GuidanceDoDIMDDComponent Cost EstimateDoDIMDAP: MS A & B & FRPDR MAIS: whenever an EA is requiredMandatory for MAIS; optional for MDAPAcquisition Information Assurance Strategy. Applies to all acquisitions of automated information systems (AIS), outsourced information technology (IT)-based processes, and platforms or weapon systems with IT interconnections to the Global Information Grid (GIG).Analysis of Alternatives (AoA). Previous version of required “AoA Plan” for all programs; however, it implied AoA was required only for MDAP and MAIS. Most Components extended requirement for AoA to all programs.AoA Study Guidance. Approved at the MDD by the MDA. After approval, the AoA Plan is developed based on the guidance. For ACAT 1/IA programs, the OSD, Dir. PA&E develops the Study Guidance and approves the Study Plan.Component Cost Estimate. Evidently new term for Component Cost Analysis (CCA)Corrosion Prevention Control Plan. Corrosion prevention and mitigation methods include, but are not limited to, the use of effective design practices, material selection, protective finishes, production processes, packaging, storage environments, protection during shipment, and maintenance procedure. See DAG, Chapter 4.Life Cycle Sustainment Plan. Describes how the sustainment strategy is being implemented. See DAG Chapt. 5 for content.Life Cycle Signature Support Plan. To provide standardized signature data that allows applications to accurately identify equipment, activities, individuals, and events. Signature data must meet universal data tagging standards and use machine-understandable information templates to be effective in dynamic operational environments and facilitate sensor-to-shooter connections.Corrosion Prevention Control PlanDoDIMS B & CPart of Acq Strategy for ACAT I onlyLife Cycle Sustainment PlanDoDIMS B, C, & FRPDRPart of Acq StrategyLife-Cycle Signature Support PlanDoDDMS A, B, & CUpdated asnecessary forMS C
72Enclosure 4, Table 3Regulatory Requirements Added/Revised For All Programs(unless otherwise noted)WhenRequiredRequirementReferenceCommentPreliminary Design Review (PDR) ReportDoDIMS B afterSystem-levelPDRMay be after MS B – requires a Post-PDR Assessment & ADMPost-Critical Design Review (CDR) ReportDoDIAfter system-level CDRPost-CDRAssessment & ADMNet-Centric Data StrategyDoDDMS A, B, C, &PI for ShipsSummarized in TDA;detailed in the ISPPDR Report.-PDR Before MS B. PDR conducted for each candidate design. PDR Report includes recommended requirements trades based upon an assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk.-PDR After MS B. PM submits a PDR report and the MDA conducts a formal Post-PDR Assessment. The PDR report reflects requirements trades based upon the PM’s assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk. The MDA considers results of the PDR and the PM’s assessment, and determines whether remedial action is necessary to achieve APB objectives.CDR Report. The PM provides a CDR Report to the MDA that provides an overall assessment of design maturity and a summary of the system-level CDR results. The MDA reviews the CDR Report and the PM's resolution/mitigation plans and determines at the Post-CDR Assessment whether additional action is necessary to satisfy EMDD Phase exit criteria and to achieve the program outcomes specified in the APB.Net-Centric Data Strategy. Net-centricity is a robust, globally interconnected network environment (including infrastructure, systems, processes, and people) in which data is shared timely and seamlessly among users, applications, and platforms. Net-centricity enables substantially improved military situational awareness and significantly shortened decision making cycles.Systems Engineering Plan (SEP). Describes the program’s overall technical approach, including key technical risks, processes, resources, metrics, and applicable performance incentives; timing, conduct, and success criteria of technical reviews.IUID Implementation Plan. “DoD unique item identification” means a system of marking items delivered to DoD with unique item identifiers that have machine-readable data elements to distinguish an item from all other like and unlike items. See DoDISystems Engineering Plan (SEP)DoDIMS A, B, & CIUID Implementation PlanDoDIMS A, B, & CAnnex to the SEP atMS B and C
73Enclosure 4, Table 3Regulatory Requirements Added/Revised For All Programs(unless otherwise noted)WhenRequiredRequirementReferenceCommentProgram Deviation ReportDoDIImmediately upon a program deviationAPB breachesSystem Threat Assessment Report (STAR)DoDIDoDDDIA DirDIA InstMS B & C &Program Initiation forShipsACAT I and all DOT&E Oversight List ProgramsSystems Threat Assessment (STA)DoDIDoDDDIA DirDIA InstMS B & CACAT IIProgram Deviation Report. Refers to reporting acquisition program baseline breaches (deviations from threshold values. See chapter 2, DAG.PM’s Report of DT Results. Identifies strengths and weaknesses in meeting the warfighters’ documented needs based on developmental evaluationsSTAR and STA. Term “STAR” now used for ACAT I, IA and DOT&E Oversight Programs. STA is used for ACAT II programs. Apparently, same report format. DIA references are not available through public sources. DIA validates STAR for ACAT ID; Component validates for ACAT IC. STA for ACAT II validated by Components.Spectrum Supportability Determination is required for all systems/equipment that use the electromagnetic spectrum in the U.S. and in other host nations.Test and Evaluation Strategy (TES). Describes the overall test approach for integrating developmental, operational, and live-fire test and evaluation and addresses test resource planning. Include a test plan that addresses Technology Development phase activity, including the identification and management of technology risk, and the evaluation of system design concepts against the preliminary mission requirements resulting from the AoA.Spectrum Supportability DeterminationDoDDMS B & CTest and Evaluation Strategy (TES)DoDIMS A
74Enclosure 5: IT Considerations . . . changes “Title 40/CCA” replaces term CCA. Subtitle III of Title 40, US Code was formerly known as Division E of the Clinger-Cohen ActTable 8 slightly modified for readability:Added:Investment Review Board (IRB) role as “OIPT” for MAIS and MDAP business systemsTime-Certain Acquisition of IT Business Systems (No MS A approval unless can achieve IOC within 5 years)Defense Business System Management Committee (DBSMC) Certification for business systems with modernization funding over $1 million – prior to any milestone or FRP approvalDoD CIO notification to Congress 60 days before any MDA cancels or significantly reduces size of MAIS fielded or post-MC C MAIS programRevised: Eliminated requirement for DoD CIO certification of CCA compliance.Investment Review Board (IRB). Replaces OIPTs for business systems that are MAIS and MDAP. Also, supports DBSMC for certification of all business systems valued at $1 million or more (see new incl. 11)Time Certain acquisition of IT business systems, also see Table 2-1, Statutory Requirements for MAIS Acquisition Programs, Note 4, and chart 11 of this presentation. For all MAIS, a critical program change that must be reported to Congress is “system failed to achieve IOC within 5 years after funds were first obligated for the program”.DBSMC process covered in more detail in new Encl. 11.CCA Certification: Requirement for DoD CIO to certify compliance with CCA, and notify Congress, was not re-enacted in the DoD Appropriations Act for FY2009, so no longer required.
75Enclosure 6: Test and Evaluation . . . changes PM, in concert with user and test community, must provide safety releases to developmental and operational testers prior to any test using personnelSystems that provide capabilities for joint missions must be tested in joint operational environmentEmbedded instrumentation must be developed to facilitate training, logistics support, and combat data collectionJoint Interoperability Test Command (JITC), “regardless of ACAT” will provide interoperability test certification memoranda to J-6At test readiness reviews, PM must ensure impact of all deviations and waivers is considered in decision to proceed to next phase of testingThis chart requires no further explanation.
76Enclosure 6: Test and Evaluation . . . changes Continued…OUSD(AT&L), Director, Systems Software and Engineering, will conduct an independent Assessment of Operational Test Readiness (AOTR) for ACAT ID and special interest programs designated by USD(AT&L). CAE will consider AOTR prior to making determination of materiel readiness for IOT&EOSD T&E Oversight List categories: developmental testing, operational testing, or live fire testing. Programs on list designated for OT or live fire testing will be considered same as MDAPs or “covered programs” and subject to all provisions of Title 10, US Code, and DoDIForce protection equipment (including non-lethal weapons) will be identified as a separate category on OSD T&E Oversight ListAOTR does not replace Operational Test Readiness Review (OTRR) conducted at Service level. The SAE must consider results of AOTR when making decision on readiness for operational testing.
77Enclosure 7: Resource Estimation . . . changes PMs must use Cost and Software Data Reporting System to report data on contractor costs and resource usageCARD must reflect program definition achieved during TD phase, be in sync with other program documents, and if PDR is before MS B, the final CARD at MS B must reflect results of the PDRFully burdened cost of delivered energy must be used in trade-off analyses for all tactical systems with end items that create a demand for energyFollowing areas of assessment added to AoA:Alternative ways to improve the energy efficiency of DoD tactical systems consistent with mission and cost effectivenessAppropriate system training to ensure that training is provided with the system-Both the Contractor Cost Data Report (CCDR) and the Software Resources Data Report (SRDR) were required by Table E3.T3, May 2003 ver. Of DoDI Change here is the highlighting of both in Encl. 7, instead of just the CCDR.-CARD: makes sense that CARD should reflect results of PDR; also remember, the final CDD at MS B should also reflect trades conducted during TD phase, and the cost estimate at MS B should be in sync with the CDD.
78Enclosure 8: Human Systems Integration . . . changes Mix of military, DoD civilian, and contractor support to operate, maintain, and support (including training) a system must be determined based on Manpower Mix Criteria and reported in the Manpower EstimateEconomic analyses to support workforce mix decisions must use tools that account for all variable and fixed costs, compensation and non-compensation costs, current and deferred benefits, cash, and in-kind benefitsDetails on Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (ESOH) moved to new Enclosure 12, Systems Engineering-DoDI , requires use of DoDI to determine workforce mix.
79Enclosure 9: Acquisition of Services . . . changes Planning for acquisition of services must consider:Requirements development and managementAcquisition planningSolicitation and contract awardRisk managementContract tracking and oversightPerformance evaluationSpecial procedures for IT services that cost over $500M, all services that cost over $1B, and special interest programs designated by ASD(NII), USD(AT&L), or their designees:Senior officials/decision authorities must be notified prior to issuing final solicitation (briefing or written)ASD(NII)/DoD CIO notifies USD(AT&L) of any proposed acquisition of IT services over $1BReview by ASD(NII)/USD(AT&L) initiates review of acquisition strategy – final RFPs cannot be released until approvalThis chart needs no further explanation.
80Enclosure 9: Acquisition of Services . . . changes Continued…Policy extended to services acquired after program achieves Full Operational Capability (FOC), if those services were not subject to previous milestonesPolicy does not apply to R&D activities or services that are approved as part of an acquisition program managed IAW DoDISenior Officials and decision authorities may apply policy to R&D services at their discretionSAEs are Senior Officials for acquisition of servicesUSD(AT&L) is Senior Official for acquisition of services for Components outside of military departments – he may delegate decision authority to commanders/ directors of these componentsIndependent management reviews (Peer Reviews) required for contracts of $1B or morePeer Reviews: Service contracts valued at $1B or more.-Organized by Dir, DPAP.-Teams comprised of senior contracting officials from across DoD. Pre-award of all contracts and post-award reviews for service contracts will be conducted.-Senior officials and Component decision authorities will establish procedures for peer reviews for contracts valued at less than $1B.
81Enclosure 9: Acquisition of Services . . . changes Continued…Acquisition of Services Categories (Table 9)CategoryThresholdDecision AuthorityAcquisitions> $1BAny services acquisition with total estimated cost of $1B or moreUSD(AT&L)or designeeIT Acquisitions> $500MIT services with total estimated cost of $500M or moreASD(NII)/DoD CIO or as designatedSpecialInterestDesignated by USD(AT&L), ASD(NII)/ DoD CIO, or any Military DepartmentSenior OfficialUSD(AT&L) orSenior OfficialsServicesCategory IServices estimated tocost $250M or moreSenior Officials or as designatedThis chart needs no further explanation.ServicesCategory IIServices estimated to cost $10M or more, but less than $250MSenior Officials or as designatedServicesCategory IIIServices estimated to cost more than simplified acquisition threshold, but less than $10MSenior Officials or as designatedAll dollars in FY 2006 constant year dollars
82Enclosure 10: Program Management . . . changes Requires PMs for ACAT II and other significant non-major programs to be assigned for not less that 3 yearsProgram Management Agreements (PMAs) implemented to establish “contract” between PM and acquisition and resource officialsProvides that waivers for PM/PEO experience and certifications “should be strictly avoided”Provides for USD(AT&L) waiver for PEOs to assume other command responsibilitiesAdds US-ratified materiel international standardization agreements to consideration for international cooperative programs-Previously the 4-year requirement for PMs and Deputy PMs to be assigned until at least a major milestone closest to 4 years in the position also applied to PMs of ACAT II programs; changed to 3 years for those programs.-PMAs: Required for ACAT I & II programs. Described as an “achievable and measurable annual plans that are fully resourced”. Signed by the PM, CAE, requirements and resource authority. PMA’s must establish PM’s clear authority to object to addition of new requirements that would be inconsistent with parameters established at MS B and reflected in the PMA unless approved by the CSB.-Note: PEO command responsibilities/waivers:--The Air Force has dual-hatted the commanders of their Product Centers as PEOs.--The Army had obtained a number of waivers to dual hat some PEO’s; however, lessons learned may have reversed the process in the Army. For example, the Commander, Communications & Electronics Command (CECOM) is no longer dual-hatted as PEO C3T. Commander, Joint Munitions and Lethality Life Cycle Management Command is still dual-hatted as Commanding General, Picatinny Arsenal and PEO Ammunition.--Navy PEOs have no other command responsibilities.
83Enclosure 11: Management of Business Systems (New) Applies to “defense business system” modernizations with total modernization or development funding exceeding $1 millionDefines Defense Business System as an information system, other than a national security system, operated by, for, or on behalf of DoD, including financial management systems, mixed systems, financial data feeder systems, and IT and information assurance infrastructureDefense Business Systems support activities such as acquisition, financial management, logistics, strategic planning and budgeting, installations and environment, and human resource managementThis chart needs no further explanation.
84Enclosure 11: Management of Business Systems (New) Continued…Funds cannot be expended until the Defense Business System Management Committee (DBSMC) approves Investment Review Board Certification (IRB) that the system:Is in compliance with the enterprise architecture; orIs necessary to achieve a critical national security capability or address a critical requirement in an area such as safety or security; orIs necessary to prevent a significant adverse impact on a project that is needed to achieve an essential capabilityThe IRB functions as an “OIPT” for business systems.
85Enclosure 11: Management of Business Systems (New) Continued…Business Systems Certification and Approval Process5ProgramManager(PM)1ComponentPre-CertificationAuthority (PCA)2InvestmentReviewBoard (IRB)Defense BusinessSystems ManagementCommittee (DBSMC)536MilestoneDecisionAuthority (MDA)CertificationAuthority(CA)4-Components appoint PCA who reviews and validates certification requests and sends to responsible IRB-IRB reviews request, Chair signs Certification Authority Memorandum, and requests DBSMC approval – before first milestone review. The IRB Chair determines each request:(a) is in compliance with the enterprise architecture; or(b) is necessary to achieve a critical national security capability or address a critical requirement in an area such as safety or security; or(c) is necessary to prevent a significant adverse effect on a project that is needed to achieve an essential capability, taking into consideration the alternative solutions for preventing such adverse effect.-IRB conducts annual review and may request de-certification if system fails to comply with certification conditions or risks are not acceptable-Certification Authorities (CA)--USD(AT&L): business system of which the primary purpose is to support acquisition, logistics, or installations and environment activities--USD(C): business system of which the primary purpose is to support financial management, or strategic planning and budgeting activities--USD(P&R): business system of which the primary purpose is to support human resource management activities--ASD(NII): business system of which the primary purpose is to support information technology infrastructure or information assurance activities--Deputy Secretary of Defense: business system of which the primary purpose is to support any DoD activity not covered above-DBSMC Chair: DEPSECDEF; Vice Chair: USD(AT&LNote: The Deputy Chief Mgmt Officer of DoD is to be the Vice Chair of the DBSMC. This is a new political position that will be nominated and filled by the next administration.PM completes economic viability review & other plans/analysis as requested by the PCAPCA Validates info from PM, forwards certification request to appropriate IRBIRB reviews request, IRB chair recommends appropriate approval authority sign certification memo and request DBSMC approvalCA sends signed certification memo to DBSMC for approvalDBSMC Chair approves certification and sends decision to the PM through the PCAPM requests MDA conduct milestone review
86Enclosure 12: Systems Engineering (New) Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) required at each milestoneMDA is approval authority for the SEPFor programs where USD(AT&L) is MDA and for programs on the DT-only portion of OSD T&E Oversight List, SEPs must be submitted to Director, Systems and Software Engineering 30 days prior to DAB/ITAB reviewPEOs must have lead systems engineer – oversees SE across PEO’s portfolio; reviews SEPs; assesses performance of subordinate systems engineers with PEO and PMsEvent-driven technical reviews required – with SMEs independent of program, unless waived by the MDARequires configuration management to establish and control product attributes and the technical baseline; at completion of the system-level CDR, PM assumes control of the initial product baseline for all Class 1 configuration changesSpectrum Supportability determination requiredEncl 12 includes SE policy previously directed by AT&L memos, and in addition:SPECTRUM SUPPORTABILITY. For all electromagnetic spectrum-dependent systems, PMs shall comply with U.S. and host nation spectrum regulations. They shall submit written determinations to the DoD Component CIO or equivalent that the electromagnetic spectrum necessary to support the operation of the system during its expected life cycle is, or will be, available (DoD Directive , Reference
87Enclosure 12: Systems Engineering (New) Continued…ESOH risk management required to be integrated with overall SE process; Programmatic ESOH Evaluation (PESHE) required of all programs regardless of ACATNEPA and EO (Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions) analyses required of PM, approved by CAEAddresses PM support of Mishap Accident InvestigationsRequires Corrosion Prevention Control Plan for ACAT I programs at MS B and CRequires PMs to employ a modular open systems approach to designData Management Strategy (DMS) required to assess long-term technical data needs of the system – included in Acquisition StrategyEncl 12 includes SE policy previously directed by AT&L memos.