DoD Instruction 5000.02 8 December 2008 Operation of the Defense Acquisition System Statutory and Regulatory Changes Sam Fazio DAU Midwest Region 20.

DoD Instruction December Operation of the Defense Acquisition System Statutory and Regulatory Changes Sam Fazio DAU Midwest Region April2009 (937)

The Revised DoDI 5000.02 Topics:
Changes in Defense Acquisition System: vs. 2008 The Defense Acquisition System Phases New policy directed by Congress New or revised regulatory policy Enclosures Statutory/Regulatory Requirements; IT Considerations; T&E; Resource Estimation; Human Systems Integration; Acquisition of Services; Program Management; Business Systems; Systems Engineering This 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 2 Dec 2008 DoDI Read Defense Acquisition Guidebook chapters: 2, Acquisition Strategy 4, Systems Engineering, Part 4.3, Systems Engineering Activities in the System Life Cycle 5, Life Cycle Logistics, Part , Life Cycle Sustainment Plan .

Source of Changes Policy from numerous new/revised sections of Public Law since 2003 (some with multiple requirements) Approved policy appearing in over 25 policy memos and DoD responses to the GAO, IG, and Congress Reference to 10 updated or newly issued DoD publications Consideration of over 700 Defense Acquisition Policy Working Group (DAPWG) comments -Content of has grown from 37 to 79 pages. About 113%. -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.

First Acquisition Framework in 1971 PRODUCTION/ DEPLOYMENT
FULL- SCALE DEVELOPMENT Full-Scale Development Decision CONCEPTUAL EFFORT PRODUCTION/ DEPLOYMENT Program Initiation Production Go-ahead Decision Decision points: 3 Phases: 3 Milestone documents: 1 (Decision Coordinating Paper (DCP))

Defense Acquisition Framework 2003
Process entry at Concept Decision or Milestones A, B, or C Entrance criteria met before entering phases Evolutionary Acquisition (EA) or Single Step to Full Capability EA is preferred User Needs & Technology Opportunities A B C IOC FOC Concept Refinement Technology Development System Development & Demonstration Production & Deployment Operations & Support System Integration System Demonstration LRIP Full-Rate Prod & Deployment Sustainment Disposal Design Readiness Review FRP Decision Review Concept Decision PDR CDR Pre-Systems Acquisition Systems Acquisition Sustainment Decision points: 6 Phases: 5 Milestone documents: 30+

Defense Acquisition System 2008
The Materiel Development Decision precedes entry into any phase of the acquisition framework Entrance criteria met before entering phases Evolutionary Acquisition or Single Step to Full Capability User Needs Technology Opportunities & Resources A B C IOC FOC Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Development Engineering & Manufacturing Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support Operations & Support Integrated System Design System Capability & Manufacturing Process Demonstration LRIP Full-Rate Prod & Deployment Life Cycle Sustainment Materiel Development Decision FRP Decision Review Post CDR Assessment Disposal Post PDR Assessment PDR PDR CDR Pre-Systems Acquisition or Systems Acquisition Sustainment Decision points: 6 Phases: 5 Milestone documents: 40+

Comparison of 2003 vs. 2008 Defense Acquisition Management
User Needs & Technology Opportunities Defense Acquisition Management Framework- 2003 A B Program Initiation C IOC FOC Concept Refinement Technology Development System Development & Demonstration Production & Deployment Operations & Support Design Readiness Review FRP Decision Review Concept Decision Focus of major changes User Needs Defense Acquisition Management System Technology Opportunities & Resources The 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. A B Program Initiation C IOC FOC Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Development Engineering and Manufacturing Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support Materiel Development Decision FRP Decision Review PDR Post PDR Assessment Post-CDR Assessment or 3 Dec 2008 7

Evolutionary Approach
AoA EMD Increment 1 Materiel Solution Analysis DAB JROC Gap Analysis ICD CPD1 CDD2 C Increment 2 CPD2 CDD3 Increment 3 CPD3 B Joint Operating Concepts Joint Functional Concepts DoD Strategic Guidance A MDD Continuous Technology Development and Maturation Technology Development CDD1 This is Figure 2., DoDI Key Point: While EA should get systems to the field faster, there are some complex areas that need attention: -The user needs to specify timing of requirements leading to full capability over a selected number of increments/period of time. The PM must be involved in the development of the requirements documents (CDD/CPD). -Sustainment must consider how feedback from fielded systems will be captured to determine impact on sustainment, not just on warfighting capability. The sustainment strategy must also consider PBL, and must consider any need to upgrade fielded systems or to manage various configurations. Note: The “gap analysis” is short-hand for the JCIDS Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) process. As previously pointed out: CBA is under revision, and will not longer include a detailed analysis of materiel alternatives. The ICD is being modified to eliminate the priority listing of materiel alternatives. The assessment of materiel alternatives is being shifted to the AoA process. Milestone A. Major systems that have technology development phase must have a MS A to authorize entry. This applies to ACAT I and II programs and is likely to be extended to other ACATs by the CAEs. Also applies to subsequent increments of an EA program that need a TD phase to mature technology (not all will).

Evolutionary Acquisition
From two processes… To one process… Incremental Development: End-state is known; requirements met over time in several increments Spiral Development: End-state is not known; requirements for increments dependent upon technology maturation and user feedback. Capability delivered in increments, recognizing up front need for future capability improvements Each increment: depends on mature technology is a militarily useful and supportable operational capability Successive Technology Development Phases may be needed to mature technology for multiple increments No spirals! -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. .

Determining the Appropriate Entry Point
Technology Opportunities & Resources User Needs A B C Operations & Support Strategic Guidance Joint Concepts Capabilities - Based Assessment ICD Materiel Solution Analysis Engineering & Manuf Development CDD CPD Production & Deployment O&S MDD Technology Development FCB Incremental Development OSD/JCS COCOM For 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. JCIDS Acquisition 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.”

Changes to Decision Points
User Needs Technology Opportunities & Resources A C B IOC FOC Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Development Engineering and Manufacturing Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support ICD CDD CPD Materiel Development Decision Post PDR Assessment Post CDR Assessment FRP Decision Review AoA PDR PDR CDR Pre-Systems Acquisition or Systems Acquisition Sustainment MDD: 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. Changes to Decision Points Old (2003) New (2008) Change from 2003 Concept Decision (CD) Materiel Development Decision (MDD) MDD required prior to entering the process at any point N/A Post-PDR Assessment MDA’s assessment of PM’s PDR Report (if PDR after MS B) Design Readiness Review DRR Post-CDR Assessment MDA’s assessment of PM’s CDR Report

Changes to Phases Changes to Phases A C B IOC FOC
User Needs Technology Opportunities & Resources A C B IOC FOC Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Development Engineering and Manufacturing Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support ICD CDD CPD Materiel Development Decision Post PDR Assessment Post CDR Assessment FRP Decision Review AoA PDR PDR CDR Pre-Systems Acquisition or Systems Acquisition Sustainment Materiel 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. Changes to Phases Old (2003) New (2008) Change from 2003 More robust AoA (result of changes to JCIDS) Concept Refinement (CR) Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Development (TD) Competitive prototyping Systems Development & Demonstration (SDD) Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) More robust system engineering

Preliminary Design Review Engineering & Manufacturing
B C Technology Development Engineering & Manufacturing Development CDD CPD Post PDR Assessment Post CDR Assessment PDR PDR CDR or PDR 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 B PDR After Milestone B Planned for in Technology Development Strategy PDR Report provided to MDA at MS B Includes recommended requirements trades Planned for in Acquisition Strategy PDR Report provided to MDA prior to Post PDR Assessment Reflects requirements trades At Post PDR Assessment, MDA considers PDR report; determines action(s) required to achieve APB objectives and issues ADM

Manufacturing Process Demonstration
EMD Work Efforts B C Integrated System Design System Capability & Manufacturing Process Demonstration CDD CPD Post PDR Assessment Post CDR Assessment PDR PDR CDR or Integrated 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 2003 Establishment of Product Baseline for all Configuration Items System Integration Integrated System Design System Demonstration System Capability & Manufacturing Process Demonstration Manufacturing 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.

Preliminary Design Review (PDR)
MS A MS B MS C FRP DR MDD Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Development P- PDR A Engineering & Manufacturing PD O&S SRR PDR PDR Development or CPD CDD PDR Before Milestone B or PDR after B and Post-PDR Assessment “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 and 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.” “Post-PDR Assessment (P-PDR A). 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.”

EMD Phase MS A MS B MS C FRP DR Engineering & Manufacturing Development MDD Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Development P- PDR A SRR P-CDRA PDR PDR PD O&S or CDD CPD “The purpose of the EMD phase is to develop a system or an increment of capability; complete full system integration (technology risk reduction occurs during Technology Development); develop an affordable and executable manufacturing process; ensure operational supportability with particular attention to minimizing the logistics footprint; implement human systems integration; design for producibility; ensure affordability; protect CPI by implementing appropriate techniques such as anti-tamper; and demonstrate system integration, interoperability, safety, and utility. The Capability Development Document, Acquisition Strategy, Systems Engineering Plan, and Test and Evaluation Master Plan shall guide this effort.” “Integrated 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 shall include 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 key performance parameters and that system production can be supported by demonstrated manufacturing processes. The program shall enter System Capability and Manufacturing Process Demonstration upon completion of the Post-Critical Design Review Assessment and establishment of an initial product baseline. This effort shall end 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 in a pilot line environment; industrial capabilities are reasonably available; and the system meets or exceeds exit criteria and Milestone C entrance requirements.” 16

Post-CDR Assessment MS A MS B MS C FRP DR MDD Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Development P- PDR A P-CDRA SRR PDR PDR EMD PD O&S or CDD CPD Post- Critical Design Review Assessment Post-CDR Assessment replaces Design Readiness Review. Review considers whether, based on the Program Manager’s report, the program is able to provide capability consistent with the Acquisition Program Baseline approved at Milestone B. The MDA determines whether (1) an adjustment should be made, or (2) the program should be permitted to proceed without change. “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; the maturity of critical manufacturing processes; and an estimate of system reliability based on demonstrated reliability rates.” 17

Prototyping and Competition
“Evolutionary acquisition requires . . . Technology development preceding initiation of an increment shall continue until the required level of maturity is achieved, and prototypes of the system or key system elements are produced . . .” “The TDS and associated funding shall provide for two or more competing teams producing prototypes of the system and/or key system elements prior to, or through, Milestone B. Prototype systems or appropriate component-level prototyping shall be employed to reduce technical risk, validate designs and cost estimates, evaluate manufacturing processes, and refine requirements ” 18

Configuration Steering Boards
Configuration Steering Boards (CSB). The Acquisition Executive of each DoD Component shall establish a CSB with broad executive membership including senior representatives from the Office of the USD(AT&L) and the Joint Staff. The CSB shall meet at least once annually to review all requirements changes and any significant technical configuration changes for ACAT I and IA programs in development that have the potential to result in cost and schedule impacts to the program. Such changes will generally be rejected, deferring them to future blocks or increments. Changes shall not be approved unless funds are identified and schedule impacts mitigated. The PM, in consultation with the PEO, shall, on a roughly annual basis, identify and propose a set of de- scoping options, with supporting rationale addressing operational implications, to the CSB that reduce program cost or moderate requirements. The CSB shall recommend to the MDA (if an ACAT ID or IAM program) which of these options should be implemented. Final decisions on de-scoping option implementation shall be coordinated with the Joint Staff and military department requirements officials.

Test and Evaluation Integrated DT&E / OT&E activities
Evaluations include comparison with current capability Evaluations conducted in the expected “mission context”

Pre-Systems Acquisition Activity
User Needs Technology Opportunities & Resources A B Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Development Materiel Development Decision User Need JCIDS Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) Technology Opportunities All sources foreign & domestic Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Technology Projects: JCTDs, Coalition Warfare Program, Defense Acquisition Challenge Program, etc… Acquisition Process: includes pre-systems acquisition, systems acquisition and sustainment. The term “pre-systems acquisition” is used to designate activities that take place prior to program initiation (normally Milestone B) User Need: This is the JCIDS process. The CBA and development of the ICD take place prior to the MDD “outside” of the acquisition process; however, CDD and CPD development take place during the acquisition process. Technology Opportunities: Placement of the text just below the TD phase can mislead some who see this chart. It is not intended to reflect that technology opportunities are only considered during TD phase. Technology opportunities may be considered during the CBA (albeit not as rigorously as before current revisions to 3170 series), most importantly during the AoA, and at any point during the acquisition process. Sources include government labs and centers, academia, and the commercial sector. Technology Projects: Encl. 3, DoDI has an extensive list of technology projects. Some, like JCTDs and prototype projects intended for direct transition to the field that are highlighted in the new JCIDS Manual (replaces CJCSI C), may not require an ICD to transition to the acquisition process. New terms/requirements in blue

Materiel Development Decision
MDA: Approves AoA Study Guidance Determines acquisition phase of entry Identifies initial review milestone Designates Lead DoD Component Approves Acquisition Decision Memorandum(ADM) Regulatory Requirements -Not every program requires own ICD – an ICD may support many programs -MDD will take place for all programs, regardless of entry point -Lead DoD component – could be for joint acquisition program, or not. -Note that a more detailed AoA plan due after MDD. Not sure what “immediately” really means. -Study guidance for an ACAT I program comes from OSD, Dir, PA&E. AoA Plan comes from organization that will do the AoA. Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) AoA Study Guidance (AoA Plan due immediately following the MDD) New terms/requirements in blue

Materiel Solution Analysis New terms/requirements in blue
Purpose: Assess potential materiel solutions Materiel Solution Analysis Materiel Development Decision Enter: Approved ICD and study guidance for conducting AoA. Activities: Conduct AoA, develop Technology Development Strategy (TDS) & draft CDD Guided by: ICD and AoA Plan Exit: Materiel solution to capability need in ICD recommended by lead Component conducting AoA, and phase-specific exit criteria have been satisfied Point out requirements to enter and leave (exit) each phase -Note the activities, and importance of JCIDS documents (ICD) to guide each phase. -The enter and exit bullets on these charts are “generic” to all programs. Read about program specific “exit criteria” in the DAG. Materiel Solution Analysis: The purpose of this phase is different from Concept Refinement (CR). The AoA during CR was conducted to “refine” the materiel solutions prioritized in the ICD. The ICD no longer does this, so the AoA is now focused on alternative solutions provided from a number of sources: “a diversified range of large and small businesses”. Revisions to JCIDS: Because portions of the , like the MSA phase, take into account upcoming changes to JCIDS, these changes should be pointed out. -The Functional Solutions Analysis (FSA) part of the Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) has been eliminated. -ICD will no longer contain a prioritized list of potential materiel alternatives. The ICD will define non-materiel options, DOTMLPF and policy changes that may lead to a Joint DCR. If non-materiel approaches are not sufficient to mitigate the warfighting capability gap, and a materiel solution is required, the ICD will make a recommendation on the type of materiel solution preferred: IT system, evolution of existing systems with significant capability improvement, or a transformational approach for “breakout” systems that differ significantly in form, function, operation and capabilities from existing systems and offer significant improvement over current capabilities or transform how the mission is accomplished. -These materiel options will be investigated during the MSA phase during the AoA. Concurrent with the AoA, a draft CDD (see draft CJCSI G) will be prepared to guide the TD phase activities. New terms/requirements in blue

Statutory & Regulatory Requirements New terms/requirements in blue
Milestone A Milestone A MDA approves: Materiel solution Technology Development Strategy (TDS) Exit criteria for next phase Milestone A Certification (10 USC 2366a) Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) Statutory & Regulatory Requirements Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Acquisition Information Assurance Strategy Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) Compliance Clinger-Cohen Act Certification (MAIS) CIO Confirmation of CCA Compliance for all non-MAIS IT Consideration of Technology Issues Component Cost Estimate (CCE) Economic Analysis (MAIS) Exit Criteria Exit Criteria Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) Item Unique Identification (IUID) Implementation Plan Life Cycle Signature Support Plan Market Research MDA Program Certification Program Protection Plan (PPP) Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) Technology Development Strategy (TDS) Test & Evaluation Strategy (TES) -Materiel Solution: Previously, the term “preferred solution” was used to describe what the MDA approved at MS A. “Approved materiel solution” makes a clearer statement. -Technology Development Strategy must be approved before release of final RFP for TD phase. -Milestone A Certification, (MDA Program Certification) at Milestone A, is a statutory requirement (see backup slide). It is a signed MFR from the MDA; cannot be delegated. -Component Cost Estimate (CCE): a new name for Component Cost Analysis (CCA) -Item Unique Identification (IUID) Implementation Plan. DoDI , requires unique IUID identifiers be established to enable items to be tracked and traced throughout their lifecycle -Life Cycle Signature Support Plan. Signature. A distinctive basic characteristic or set of characteristics that consistently re-occurs and uniquely identifies a piece of equipment, activity, individual, or event. Life-Cycle Signature Support Plans. A management plan that is applied throughout the life of a signature-dependent acquisition that bases all programmatic decisions on the anticipated mission-related and economic benefits derived over the life of a signature-dependent acquisition. See DoDD -Systems Engineering Plan. PM prepares a SEP for each milestone review, beginning with MS A. At MS A, the SEP supports the TDS; at MS B or later, the SEP supports the Acquisition Strategy. The SEP describes the program’s overall technical approach, including key technical risks, processes, resources, metrics, and applicable performance incentives. It also details the timing, conduct, and success criteria for technical reviews. New terms/requirements in blue

Milestone A Certification (10 USC 2366a)
A major defense acquisition program may not receive Milestone A approval, or Key Decision Point A approval in the case of a space program, until the MDA certifies, after consultation with the JROC on matters related to program requirements and military needs— (1) That the system fulfills an approved initial capabilities document; (2) That the system is being executed by an entity with a relevant core competency as identified by the Secretary of Defense under section 118b of Title 10, U.S. Code; (3) If the system duplicates a capability already provided by an existing system, the duplication provided by such system is necessary and appropriate; and (4) That a cost estimate for the system has been submitted and that the level of resources required to develop and procure the system is consistent with the priority level assigned by the JROC

Technology Development New terms/requirements in blue
A B Purpose: Reduce technology risk, Demonstrate Critical Technology on Prototypes, Complete Preliminary Design Enter: MDA approved materiel solution and TDS; funding for TD phase activities Activities: Competitive prototyping; Develop RAM strategy; conduct Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Guided by: ICD & TDS and supported by SE planning Exit: Affordable increment of military-useful capability identified; technology demonstrated in relevant environment; manufacturing risks identified; PDR conducted for candidate solutions; system or increment ready for production within short time frame (normally less than 5 years for weapon systems) The blue bold items in italics highlight the emphasis on systems engineering in technology development. Competitive Prototyping: Two or more competing teams producing prototypes of the system and/or key system elements. RAM Strategy: Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability strategy that includes a reliability growth program is documented in the SEP, in the LCSP, and assessed during tech reviews, T&E and Program Support Reviews. Preliminary Design Review (PDR). -A PDR will be 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. -A successful PDR informs requirements trades; improves cost estimates; and identifies remaining design, integration, and manufacturing risks. -The PDR will be conducted at the system level and include user representatives and associated certification authorities. -A 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. -Note: The CDD KPPs and other performance attributes should reflect the trades from the PDR report; however, the CDD must be approved before MS B. The requirements trades recommended at MS B could be the “derived” technical requirements, not sure. New terms/requirements in blue

New terms/requirements in blue
Milestone A Milestone B MDA approves: Program Initiation (for most programs) Entry into EMD Acquisition Strategy Acquisition Program Baseline LRIP quantities Exit criteria for next phase Type of Contract Milestone B Certification (10 USC 2366b) ADM Program Initiation (not “new start”). Effort was a new start in PPBE when funding for MSA and TD phases were sought) -Important: at MS B PM must demonstrate “full funding” in FYDP – i.e., at least 6 years of funding. -PM was probably assigned prior to MS A – need someone in charge to get ready for MS A and B. -Content of acq strategy is in DAG, Chapt. 2. -Acq Strategy must be approved before release of final RFP for EMD. -APB reflects KPPs, and other data for schedule and cost – all related to the CDD and to key programmatic activities (such as T&E) -Certification required by Congress (see backup). Nothing in required certification not already required by -Exit criteria is program specific (e.g., attain first flight prior to MS C). -Type of contract: If MDAP and cost-type is chosen, needs written determination by MDA. DAG will have to address this. Waiting for MS B to get decision is no-go. Need contractor proposals in hand prior to MS B for obvious reasons. New terms/requirements in blue

New terms/requirements in blue
MS B: Documentation Requirements All programs except where noted (see encl. 4, DoDI ) Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) (update) Acquisition Strategy Affordability Assessment Acquisition Program Baseline Acquisition Information Assurance Strategy Alternate Live Fire T&E Plan Benefit Analysis & Determination Capability Development Document (CDD) Title 40/Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) Compliance Title 40/Clinger-Cohen Act Certification (MAIS) CIO Confirmation of CCA Compliance (non-MAIS IT) Consideration of Technology Issues (ACAT I & II) Competition Analysis Component Cost Estimate (CCE) (MAIS) Cooperative Opportunities Core Logistics Analysis/Source of Repair Analysis Cost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD) (MDAP & MAIS) Corrosion Prevention Control Plan Data Management Strategy (in acquisition strategy) Economic Analysis (MAIS) Exit Criteria Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) Independent Cost Estimate (ACAT I) Independent Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) (ACAT ID) Information Support Plan (ISP) Industrial Base Capabilities (MDAP) Item Unique Identification Impl Plan (SEP annex) Live Fire T&E Waiver Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) Life Cycle Signature Support Plan LRIP Quantities (ACAT I & II) Manpower Estimate (MDAP) Market Research MDA Program Certification MDA Assessment of compliance with Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Survivability Requirements Net-Centric Data Strategy (in ISP) Operational Test Agency OT&E Report Preliminary Design Review Report Program Protection Plan (PPP) Programmatic Environmental Safety & Occupational Health Evaluation (PESHE) Replaced System Sustainment Plan (MDAP) Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) (MDAP) Spectrum Supportability Determination Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) System Threat Assessment Report (STAR)(ACAT I) System Threat Assessment (ACAT II) Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Test & Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) Point out new requirements in bold face type. 1: Part of Acquisition Strategy : Program Initiation for Ships : OSD LFT&E Oversight Programs New terms/requirements in blue

Milestone B Certification (10 USC 2366b)
MDA Certifies at Milestone B Program is Affordable When Considering Unit Cost and Total Acquisition Cost During FYDP Program is Affordable When Considering Ability of DOD to Accomplish Program's Mission Using Alternative Systems Reasonable Cost and Schedule Estimates have been Developed Funding is Available to Execute Development and Production Through the Period Covered by the FYDP Appropriate Market Research has been Conducted DoD Completed an Analysis of Alternatives JROC has Accomplished Its Duties Technology Demonstrated in a Relevant Environment Program Demonstrates High Likelihood of Accomplishing Its Intended Mission Program Complies with all Relevant DoD Policies, Regulations, and Directives

Engineering & Manufacturing Development
Purpose: Develop a system or increment of capability, develop an affordable manufacturing process, minimize logistics footprint B C Engineering and Manufacturing Development Integrated System Design System Capability & Manufacturing Process Demonstration Post PDR Assessment Post CDR Assessment Enter: Mature Technology; Approved Requirements; Full Funding in FYDP Activities: Define System of System Functionality & Interfaces, Complete Detailed Design, System-Level PDR (as needed)/CDR, Establish Product Baseline, Guided by: CDD, Acq Strategy, SEP & TEMP Exit: Complete System-Level CDR and Post-CDR Assessments by MDA Enter: Post-CDR Assessment and Establishment of initial Product Baseline Activities: Developmental Testing (DT) Assesses Progress Against Technical Parameters, and Operational Assessments (OA) Against CDD Guided by: CDD, Acq Strategy, SEP & TEMP Exit: System Demonstrated in Intended Environment using production-representative articles; Manufacturing Processes Demonstrated; Meets Exit Criteria and MS C Entrance Requirements PDR conducted if not conducted prior to MS B. Applies to programs that enter at MS B, or if design changes occur during TD that require PDR after EMD contract award. PDR report provided by PM to MDA. Post-PDR Assessment required if PDR conducted after MS B. Same rules as for pre-MS B PDR (see Technology Development chart), to include ADM. Post CDR Assessment: -System-Level CDR Conducted as soon as practicable after Program Initiation -PM Provides a Post-CDR Report -MDA Reviews the Post-CDR Report and the PM’s Plans to Resolve or Mitigate Issues/Risks -Results of the Post-CDR Assessment are Documented in an ADM Note use of Production-Representative articles. Previous said, “prototypes or EDMs”. Even though DAU defines EDMs as production representative, there is no DoD-level standard use of the term. The use of production-representative articles is particularly important for those programs that do not have LRIP and MS C is the production decision. New terms/requirements in blue

Milestone A Milestone C MDA Approves:
Updated Acquisition Strategy and Acquisition Program Baseline Entry into LRIP for systems that require a LRIP, into production or procurement for systems that do not require LRIP, or into limited deployment for MAIS programs or software intensive systems with no production components Exit criteria for LRIP if appropriate Acquisition Decision Memorandum No change from 2003 DoDI

MS C: Documentation Requirements
All programs except where noted (see encl. 4, DoDI ) Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) (update) Acquisition Strategy Affordability Assessment Acquisition Program Baseline Acquisition Information Assurance Strategy Benefit Analysis & Determination Capability Production Document (CPD) Title 40/Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) Compliance Title 40/Clinger-Cohen Act Certification (MAIS) CIO Confirmation of CCA Compliance (non-MAIS IT) Consideration of Technology Issues (ACAT I & II) Competition Analysis Component Cost Estimate (CCE) Cooperative Opportunities Core Logistics Analysis/Source of Repair Analysis Cost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD) (MDAP & MAIS) Corrosion Prevention Control Plan Data Management Strategy (in acquisition strategy) Exit Criteria Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) (if program initiation) Independent Cost Estimate (ACAT I) Independent Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) (ACAT ID) Information Support Plan (ISP) Industrial Base Capabilities (MDAP) Item Unique Identification Plan (SEP annex) Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) Life Cycle Signature Support Plan Manpower Estimate (MDAP) MDA Program Certification (if program initiation) Military Equipment Valuation (in acquisition strategy) Net-Centric Data Strategy (in ISP) Operational Test Agency OT&E Report Program Protection Plan (PPP) Programmatic Environmental Safety & Occupational Health Evaluation (PESHE) Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) MDAP (if re-baselined) Spectrum Supportability Determination Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) System Threat Assessment Report (STAR)(ACAT I) System Threat Assessment (ACAT II) Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Test & Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) Statutory & Regulatory Requirements Point out new requirements in bold face type. New terms/requirements in blue

Production & Deployment New terms/requirements in blue
FRP Decision Review LRIP/IOT&E C Full-Rate Production & Deployment Purpose: Achieve an operational Capability that satisfies mission needs Enter: Acceptable performance in DT & OA; mature software; no significant manufacturing risks; approved CPD; refined integrated architecture; acceptable interoperability and operational supportability; demonstration of affordability; fully funded; phased for rapid deployment. Activities: IOT&E, LFT&E and Interoperability Testing of Production-Representative Articles; IOC possible Guided by: CPD, TEMP Exit: System Operationally Effective, Suitable and Ready for Full-Rate Production Enter: Beyond LRIP & LFT&E Reports (OSD T&E/LFT&E programs) Submitted to Congress Activities: Full-Rate Production; Fielding and Support of Fielded Systems; IOC/FOC Guided by: Acq Strategy & Life Cycle Sustainment Plan Exit: Full Operational Capability; Deployment Complete Essentially same as the 2003 DoDI Guided By: DoDI indicates what documents “guide” the phase activities for MSA, TD and EMD; however, it does not state what documents guide Production and Deployment. So, shown here some obvious documents that guide the activities. New terms/requirements in blue

Full Rate Production Decision Review
Milestone A Full Rate Production Decision Review MDA Approves: Full-rate production Updated Acquisition Strategy Updated Acquisition Program Baseline Exit criteria, if appropriate Provisions for evaluation for post-deployment performance Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) No change from 2003 version of DoDI

FRPDR Documentation Requirements New terms/requirements in blue
All programs except where noted (see encl. 3, DoDI ) Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) (AIS only) Acquisition Strategy Acquisition Program Baseline Acquisition Information Assurance Strategy Beyond LRIP Report (DOT&E T&E Oversight Programs) Title 40/Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) Compliance Title 40/Clinger-Cohen Act Certification (MAIS) CIO Confirmation of CCA Compliance (all non-MAIS IT) Component Cost Estimate (CCE) Cost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD) (MDAP & MAIS) Data Management Strategy (part of Acquisition Strategy) Economic Analysis Exit Criteria IT and NSS Joint Interoperability Test Certification (all IT includingNSS) IOT&E Completed ACAT I and II (conventional weapons systems for use in combat) Independent Cost Estimate (ACAT I) (if MDA requests) Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) Live Fire T&E Report (OSD LFT&E Programs) Manpower Estimate (MDAP) Military Equipment Valuation (part of Acquisition Strategy) Operational Test Agency OT&E Report Post Implementation Review Programmatic Environmental Safety & Occupational Health Evaluation (PESHE) Test & Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) Point out new requirements in bold face type. For AIS systems, FRPDR is the Full Deployment Decision Review New terms/requirements in blue

Life Cycle Sustainment New terms/requirements in blue
Operations & Support Purpose: Execute a support program that meets materiel readiness and operational support performance requirements, and sustains the system in the most cost-effective manner over its total life cycle. FOC Operations & Support Life Cycle Sustainment Disposal Entrance: Approved CPD; approved LCSP; successful FRP Decision Activities: Performance-Based Life-Cycle Product Support (PBL) planning, development, implementation, and management; initiate system modifications as necessary; continuing reviews of sustainment strategies Guided by: Acquisition Strategy/LCSP Activities: Demilitarize and Dispose of Systems IAW Legal and Regulatory Requirements, Particularly Environmental Considerations and Explosives Safety Guided by: Programmatic Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health Evaluation (PESHE) Performance-Based Life-Cycle Product Support (PBL), has the same meaning as Performance-Based Logistics (PBL) and uses the same acronym. Guided By: DoDI indicates what documents “guide” the phase activities for MSA, TD and EMD; however, it does not state what documents guide Operations and Support. So, shown here are some obvious documents that guide the activities. New terms/requirements in blue

New Policy Directed by Congress
Military Equipment Valuation (accounting for military equipment) MDA Certification at Milestones A & B Cost type contract for EMD Phase requires written determination by MDA Lead Systems Integrator Restrictions Replaced System Sustainment Plan Configuration 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)

New MAIS Reporting Requirements “Time-Certain” IT Business Systems Development Defense Business Systems Oversight MDA assessment of compliance with chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear survivability (CBRN) requirements at Milestones B and C -MAIS 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 S

Detailed Acquisition of Services Policy Independent management reviews (Peer Reviews) for supplies and services contracts Interim Beyond LRIP Report DOT&E’s Role in Testing Force Protection Equipment / Non-Lethal Weapons Nunn-McCurdy breach / APB Revision Procedure -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)

New or Revised Regulatory Policy
Detailed Systems Engineering Policy Program Support Reviews (PSRs) Integrated Test & Evaluation Restricted use of performance requirements that do not support KPPs Comparison with current mission capabilities during OT&E Assessment of Operational Test Readiness (AOTR) Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) Cost of energy in AoA and resource estimates -SE 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. -Life Cycle Sustainment Plan: Describes how the sustainment strategy is being implemented. See DAG Chapt. 5 for content. -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.

New or Revised Regulatory Policy
Contract Incentives Strategy Contracting for Operational Support Services Approval of Technology Development Strategy prior to Release of final RFP for Technology Development Phase Approval of Acquisition Strategy prior to release of final RFP for EMD or any succeeding phase. Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) strategy Data Management Strategy Evolutionary Acquisition Revised 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 employ Ability One program (formerly Javits-Wagner-O’Day) Contracting 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. Data 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. Evolutionary Acquisition description revised (next chart).

} Enclosures to DoDI 5000.02 1 References 2 Procedures 3 ACAT and MDA
4 Statutory and Regulatory Information and Milestone Requirements Table 5. EVM Implementation Policy Table 6. APB Policy Table 7. Unique Decision Forums 5 IT Considerations 6 Integrated T&E 7 Resource Estimation 8 Human Systems Integration 9 Acquisition of Services 10 Program Management 11 Management of Defense Business Systems 12 Systems Engineering } Tables Updated -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.

The Acquisition Warrior
Questions The Acquisition Warrior The AT&L workforce is faced with a daunting array of mandatory policy, directives, instructions, milestone documentation, best practices, local practices and oversight directions, The AT&L Knowledge Sharing System (AKSS) is specifically designed to help the workforce work efficiently within the three principle DoD management systems, (JCIDS, AT&L, and PPBE) by centrally providing the policy, processes, best practices, tools and expertise needed at the point of need. In support of AT&L’s objectives DAU has moved away from its historical “intermittent” classroom based training model, to a model where we support the workforce before, during and after formal training events.

BACK-UP SLIDES

Changes to Encl 5, IT Considerations
“Title 40/CCA” replaces term CCA. Subtitle III of Title 40, US Code was formerly known as Division E of the Clinger-Cohen Act Table E.4.T1 slightly modified for readability Added: Investment Review Board (IRB) role as “OIPT” for MAIS and MDAP business systems Time-Certain Acquisition of IT Business Systems (No MS A approval unless can achieve IOC within 5 years) Defense Business System Management Committee (DBSMC) Certification approval for business systems with modernization funding over $1 million – prior to any milestone or FRP approval DoD CIO notification to Congress 60 days before any MDA cancels or significantly reduces size of MAIS fielded or has received MS C approval Revised: USD(Comptroller) certification for Defense Financial System Improvements – compliance with Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA) -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”. This is defined as for technology development (Milestone A) or EMD (MS B) if there is no MS A/TD phase. So, evidently the 5-year from “MS A” requirement for IOC applies to both IT Business Systems and to MAIS. -DBSMC process covered in more detail in new Encl. 11. -Revision to include BEA: The BEA replaces both the DoD Financial Management Enterprise Architecture and the DoD Financial Management Enterprise Architecture Transition Plan.

Changes to Encl 6, Test & Evaluation
PM, in concert with user and test community, must provide safety releases to developmental and operational testers prior to any test using personnel Systems that provide capabilities for joint missions must be tested in joint operational environment Embedded instrumentation must be developed to facilitate training, logistics support and combat data collection Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC), “regardless of ACAT” will provide interoperability test certification memoranda to J-6 At test readiness reviews, PM must ensure impact of all deviations and waivers is considered in decision to proceed to next phase of testing This chart requires no further explanation.

Changes to Encl 6, Test & Evaluation
OUSD(AT&L), Dir 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&E OSD 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 DoDI Force protection equipment (including non-lethal weapons) will be identified as a separate category on OSD T&E Oversight List AOTR 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.

Changes to Encl 7, Resource Estimation
PMs must use Cost and Software Data Reporting System to report data on contractor costs and resource usage CARD must be in sync with other program documents, and at MS B CARD must reflect results of the PDR. 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 Following areas of assessment added to AoA: Alternative ways to improve the energy efficiency of DoD tactical systems consistent with mission and cost effectiveness Appropriate 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.

Changes to Encl 8, Human Systems Integ
Mix of military, DoD civilian, and contractor support to operate, maintain and support (including training) system must be determined based on Manpower Mix Criteria and reported in Manpower Estimate Economic 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 benefits Details on Environment, Safety and Occupational Health (ESOH) moved to new encl 12, Systems Engineering -DoDI , requires use of DoDI to determine workforce mix.

Changes to Encl 9, Acquisition of Services
Planning for acquisition of services must consider: Requirements development and management Acquisition planning Solicitation and contract award Risk management Contract tracking and oversight Performance evaluation Special 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 $1B Review by ASD(NII)/USD(AT&L) initiates review of acquisition strategy – final RFPs cannot be released until approval. This chart needs no further explanation.

Policy extended to services acquired after program achieves Full Operational Capability (FOC), if those services were not subject to previous milestones Policy does not apply to R&D activities, or services that are approved part of an acquisition program managed IAW DoDI Senior Officials and decision authorities may apply policy to R&D services at their discretion SAEs are Senior Officials for acquisition of services USD(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 components Independent management reviews (Peer Reviews) required for contracts of $1B or more Peer 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.

Acquisition of Services Categories (Table 9) Category Threshold Decision Authority Acquisitions > $1B Any services acquisition with total estimated cost of $1B or more USD(AT&L) or designee IT Acquisitions > $500M IT services with total estimated cost of $500M or more ASD(NII)/DoD CIO or as designated Special Interest Designated by USD(AT&L), ASD(NII)/ DoD CIO, or any Mil Dept Senior Official USD(AT&L) or Senior Officials Services Category I Services estimated to cost $250M or more Senior Officials or as designated This chart needs no further explanation. Services Category II Services estimated to cost $10M or more, but less than $250M Senior Officials or as designated Services Category III Services estimated to cost more than simplified acq threshold, but less than $10M Senior Officials or as designated All dollars in FY 2006 constant year dollars

Changes to Encl 10, Program Management
Requires PMs for ACAT II and other significant non-major programs to be assigned for not less that 3 years. Program Management Agreements (PMAs) implemented to establish “contract” between PM and acquisition and resource officials Provides that waivers for PM/PEO experience and certifications “should be strictly avoided.” Provides for USD(AT&L) waiver for PEO’s to assume other command responsibilities Adds 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. -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.

Encl 11, Mgt of Business Systems (New)
Applies to “defense business systems” modernizations with total modernization or development funding exceeding $1 million. Defines 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 infrastructure. Defense Business Systems support activities such as acquisition, financial management, logistics, strategic planning and budgeting, installations and environment, and human resource management. This chart needs no further explanation.

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; or Is necessary to achieve a critical national security capability or address a critical requirement in an area such as safety or security; or Is necessary to prevent a significant adverse impact on a project that is needed to achieve an essential capability The IRB functions as an “OIPT” for business systems.

Business Systems Certification and Approval Process 5 Program Manager (PM) 1 Component Pre-Certification Authority (PCA) 2 Investment Review Board (IRB) Defense Business Systems Management Committee (DBSMC) 5 3 6 Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) Certification Authority (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&L Note: 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 PCA PCA Validates info from PM, forwards certification request to appropriate IRB IRB reviews request, IRB chair recommends appropriate approval authority sign certification memo and request DBSMC approval CA sends signed certification memo to DBSMC for approval DBSMC Chair approves certification and sends decision to the PM through the PCA. PM requests MDA conduct milestone review

Encl 12, Systems Engineering (New)
Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) required at each milestone MDA is approval authority for the SEP For programs where USD(AT&L) is MDA, and 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 review PEOs must have lead systems engineer – oversees SE across PEOs portfolio; reviews SEPs; assesses performance of subordinate systems engineers with PEO and PM Event-driven technical reviews required – with SMEs independent of program, unless waived by MDA Requires configuration management to establish and control product attributes and the technical baseline Encl 12 includes SE policy previously directed by AT&L memos.

Encl 12, Systems Engineering (New)
ESOH risk management required to be integrated with overall SE process; Programmatic ESOH Evaluation (PESHE) required of all programs regardless of ACAT NEPA and EO (Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions) analysis required of PM, approved by CAE Addresses PM support of Mishap Accident Investigations Requires Corrosion Prevention Control Plan for ACAT I programs at MS B and C Requires PMs to employ modular open systems approach to design Data Management Strategy (DMS) required to assess long-term technical data needs of the system – included in Acquisition Strategy Encl 12 includes SE policy previously directed by AT&L memos.

DoD Instruction 5000.02 8 December 2008 Operation of the Defense Acquisition System Statutory and Regulatory Changes Sam Fazio DAU Midwest Region 20.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "DoD Instruction 5000.02 8 December 2008 Operation of the Defense Acquisition System Statutory and Regulatory Changes Sam Fazio DAU Midwest Region 20."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

DoD Instruction 5000.02 8 December 2008 Operation of the Defense Acquisition System Statutory and Regulatory Changes Sam Fazio DAU Midwest Region 20.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "DoD Instruction 5000.02 8 December 2008 Operation of the Defense Acquisition System Statutory and Regulatory Changes Sam Fazio DAU Midwest Region 20."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback