Director for Acquisition

Director for Acquisition
DoD Instruction December Operation of the Defense Acquisition System Statutory and Regulatory Changes (including policy impacts from DTM , Implementation of the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009) Bradford Brown Director for Acquisition & Program management

DoDI 5000.02, December 2008 Topics: DoDI 5000.2: 2003 vs. 2008
New Policy Directed by Congress New or Revised Regulatory Policy Statutory & Regulatory Information & Milestone Requirements New/Revised Enclosures to DoDI The Defense Acquisition Management System - Milestones, Phases and Key Activities 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 8 Dec 2008 DoDI Read Defense Acquisition Guidebook chapters (revised DAG due out on 18 May): 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 .

Changes to the May 2003 DoDI Policy Flowing 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 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.

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. Preliminary Design Review (PDR) is conducted for candidate designs, and PDR report provided to the MDA with recommended trades. (The final CDD should contain trade-offs determined during the TD phase). For MDAPs, PDR prior to MS B and Post PDR Assessment at MS B is mandatory (WSARA). -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. PM 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 Post-CDR Assessment FRP Decision Review PDR Dec ver. 5.6 4

The Defense Acquisition Management System 2008
Technology Opportunities & Resources User Needs A B C Operations & Support Strategic Guidance Joint Concepts Capabilities - Based Assessment ICD Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Development Engineering & Manuf Development CDD CPD Production & Deployment O&S MDD FCB AOA 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 has been revised with a new 27 Feb 2009 CJCSI G, and a new JCIDS Manual. CJCSM C was eliminated. The JCIDS Manual can be assessed at or, 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.”

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 Systems Acquisition Sustainment Changes to Decision Points 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: At MS B for MDAPs; for non-MDAPs 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 (2008/2009) Change from 2003 Concept Decision (CD) Materiel Development Decision (MDD) MDD required prior to entering process at any point MDAPs require PDR prior to MS B & Post-PDR Assessment at MS B.* Non-MDAPs may have PDR & Post-PDR Assessment after MS B. N/A MDA’s assessment of PM’s PDR Report Design Readiness Review (DRR) Post-CDR Assessment MDA’s assessment of PM’s CDR Report *WSARA requires PDR before MS B for MDAPS

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 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; more on this later). DTM Implementing WSARA: TDS for MDAPs shall provide for prototypes of the system or, if system prototype is not feasible, for prototypes of critical sub-systems before MS B approval MDA may waive if Cost exceeds life-cycle benefits (constant year dollars), including benefits of improved performance and increased technological and design maturity DoD would not be able to meet national security objectives without a waiver. If waived, a prototype still must be produced before MS B approval if expected life cycle benefits exceed cost of the prototype, and production of prototype is consistent with national security objectives If MDA waives competitive prototyping for a MDAP congressional defense committees and Comptroller General must be notified NLT 30 days after the waiver 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) N/A Competitive prototyping Systems Development & Demonstration (SDD) Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) More robust system engineering

Preliminary Design Review B C Technology Development Engineering & Manufacturing Development CDD CPD Post CDR Assessment Post PDR Assessment PDR PDR CDR PDR Before MS B: For MDAPs, WSARA requires 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. Final CDD: Important to understand that requirements trades need to be reflected in CDD and that the CDD is approved prior to MS B. PDR After MS B: WSARA implementation* provides for PDR after Milestone B for non-MDAPs (ACAT II/III). The PM nust 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. *Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) – Implementation of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of December 2009 PDR Before Milestone B (MDAPs) PDR After Milestone B (non-MDAPs) 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

Engineering & Manufacturing Development – Two Major Efforts B C Integrated System Design System Capability & Manufacturing Process Demonstration CDD CPD Post CDR Assessment CDR 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 Design 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.

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, PDR conducted, 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.

Continued… 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 Data Management Strategy 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. DCAPE must conduct ICE when critical program change occurs (WSARA) 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 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.

Continued… 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 Cost 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. (see backup charts for WSARA revisions that replace table 6) 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.

Continued… Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) of 2009 Signed by President May 22, 2009 (Public Law ) Established requirements that directly impact operation of the Defense Acquisition System and duties of key officials Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) , 4 Dec 2009, Implements WSARA DTM is effective immediately and will be incorporated into DoDI , the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and the Defense Acquisition Guidebook within 180 days. WSARA DTM is available at

Continued… Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) of 2009 Analysis of Alternatives Study Guidance Acquisition Strategies to Ensure Competition Competition and Considerations for the Operation and Sustainment (O & S) of Major Weapon Systems Competitive Prototyping Cost Estimation Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E) Systems Engineering Performance Assessments and Root Cause Analysis (PARCA) Assessment of MDAP Technologies Preliminary Design Reviews (PDR) Certification IAW 10 USC 2366a and 2366b Critical Cost Growth Revised MDAP Definition Most apply to MDAPs (ACAT I); some apply to MAIS (ACAT IA); some apply only to MDAPs/MAIS for which USD(AT&L) is MDA (ACAT ID/IAM); some apply to Major Weapon Systems (ACAT II); some apply to all programs RDT presentations on WSARA and the DTM implementing WSARA are available from the DAU Center for Acquisition and Program Management. Implementation of WSARA has been integrated with the charts, notes pages, and addition backup charts in this presentation where applicable. Detailed information on WSARA is contained in the Act, and in two RDT presentations dealing with the Act and the DTM that implements the Act. The following WSARA requirements were not otherwise included in this presentation: Acquisition Strategies and competition: WSARA makes the required acquisition strategy and sustainment competition for MDAPs slightly more robust. DT and SE: The positions of Dir, DT and Dir, SE were institutionalized in Title 10 under the DDR&E. PARCA: New OSD position responsible for conduct of assessments when a UCR (Nunn McCurdy) breach occurs, or when requested by SECDEF, Secretary of a Military Department, or head of Defense Agency. 14

New or Revised Regulatory Policy
Detailed Systems Engineering Policy Program Support Reviews (PSRs) Integrated Developmental and Operational 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) Contract Incentives Strategy Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) 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. 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.

New or Revised Regulatory Policy
Continued… 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 Review and Assessment of New or Modified Communications Waveforms. Evolutionary Acquisition Revised 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. 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). c

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. .

} ▀ New 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). However, DSAB was eliminated in Jan 09, and NSS under revision. --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

Statutory Requirements Added For MDAPs & MAIS
Enclosure 4, Table 2-1 Statutory Requirements Added For MDAPs & MAIS When Required Requirement Reference Comment Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)* 10 USC 2366a Title 40, Sec III MS A, B C Pgm Initiation for Ships Updated as necessary at MS B and C Data Management Strategy 10 USC 2320 MS A, B, C & FRPDR Part of TDS or Acq Strategy Military Equipment Program Valuation PL & Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards, No 6. MS C & FRPDR (or Equiv) Part of Acq Strategy Analysis 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. *WSARA requires Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (DCAPE) (new position replaces Dir, PA&E) to develop AoA study guidance for joint requirements for which the JROC is validation authority. MDA attaches the study guidance to the Materiel Development Decision ADM.

Statutory Requirements Added For MDAPs Only
Enclosure 4, Table 2-1 Statutory Requirements Added For MDAPs Only When Required Requirement Reference Comment MDA Program Certification 10 USC 2366 a & b MS A & B MS C (if program initiation) Requires cost est. at MS A Nunn-McCurdy Assessment & Certification 10 USC 2433 When Service Secretary reports an increase in cost that equals or exceeds the critical cost threshold increase of 25% over “current” PAUC or APUC APB values. Increase of 50% over “original” PAUC or APUC APB values MDA Program Certification (see backup charts for new certification statements from DTM implementing WSARA) - Cost estimate required for MS A Certification is a Component Cost Estimate (CCE) reviewed by the DCAPE. Nunn-McCurdy Assessment & Certification. MDAPs only. See back up charts for a summary of Critical Cost Growth policy implemented by the WSARA DTM that replaces the policy in the Dec and DAG guidance. 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 Plan 10 USC 2437 MS B Program initiation for ships

Statutory Requirements Added For MAIS Only
Enclosure 4, Table 2-1 Statutory Requirements Added For MAIS Only When Required Requirement Reference Comment Assessment & certification of a critical change to the Defense Committees 10 USC 2445c NLT 60 days after receiving a MAIS Quarterly Report indicating a critical program change Failed to achieve IOC w/in 5 yrs after funds were first obligated; schedule change of 1 yr or more; incr 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 functions Notification of a significant change to the Defense Committees 10 USC 2445c NLT 45 days after receiving MAIS Quarterly Report indicating a significant change Schedule change of more than 6 mos, but less than 1 yr; incr in development cost or life cycle cost of at least 15%, but less than 25%; or significant adverse change in expected performance SAEs 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 Compliance Sec 811, PL MS A, B, C, Full Deployment DR MS C if pgm initiation or equiv to Full Deply DR

Statutory Requirements Added For MAIS Only, continued…
Enclosure 4, Table 2-1 Statutory Requirements Added For MAIS Only, continued… When Required Requirement Reference Comment DBSMC Certification for Business Systems Modernization 10 USC 2222 Prior to obligation of funds See Encl. 11, DoDI Notice of MAIS Cancellation or significant reduction in Scope Sec 806, PL 60 Days prior to MDA decision to cancel or significantly reduce scope of fielded or post MS C MAIS MAIS Annual Report to Congress 10 USC 2445b Annually, after first occurrence of any of the following events: MDA designation, MS A, or MS BD Due 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 Report 10 USC 2445c Quarterly following initial submission of a MAIS Annual Report

Enclosure 4, Table 2-2 Statutory Requirements Added For ACAT II and Below Programs (unless otherwise noted) When Required Requirement Reference Comment Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) – all IT including NSS 40 USC Subtitle III MS A, B & C Updated as necessary at MS B and C Data Management Strategy (ACAT II only) 10 USC 2320 MS B, C & FRPDR Part of Acq Strategy LRIP Quantities (ACAT II only) 10 USC 2400 MS B This 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 Valuation PL & Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards, No 6. MS C & FRPDR (or Equiv) Part of Acq Strategy

Enclosure 4, Table 3 Regulatory Requirements Added/Revised For All Programs (unless otherwise noted) Requirement Reference When Required Comment Acquisition Info Assurance Strategy DoDI MS A, B, C & FRPDR or FDDR All IT, Including NSS Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) DoDI MS A, B, & C Full Deployment DR for AIS Updated as necessary at MS B and C AoA Study Guidance DoDI MDD Component Cost Estimate DoDI MDAP: MS B & FRPDR MAIS: whenever EA is required Mandatory for MAIS; optional for MDAP Acquisition 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 (CCE). New term for Component Cost Analysis (CCA). -Note: Table 3 indicates the CCE is optional for MDAPs, but “required at MS C and FRPDR. Not quite accurate – at MS A a CCE is mandatory to support MS A certification for MDAPs. Watch for revised Chapter 3 of DAG for updated requirements for CCE. Components likely to require a CCE for all ACAT I/II programs minimum, not just MAIS. 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 revised 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 Plan DoDI MS B & C Part of Acq Strategy ACAT I only Life Cycle Sustainment Plan DoDI MS B, C & FRPDR Part of Acq Strategy Life Cycle Signature Support Plan DoDD MS A, B, & C

Enclosure 4, Table 3 Regulatory Requirements Added/Revised For All Programs (unless otherwise noted) When Required Requirement Reference Comment Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Report* DoDI MS B Requires a Post-PDR Assessment Post Critical Design Review (CDR) Report DoDI Post-CDR Assessment Net-Centric Data Strategy DoDD MS A, B, C PDR Report. -PDR Before MS B (MDAPS). PDR conducted for each candidate design. PDR Report includes recommended requirements trades based upon an assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk. Remember, requirements trades must be reflected in CDD as appropriate and CDD is approved before MS B. Post PDR-Assessment at MS B; however, implication is that the trades should be discussed with the MDA before the CDD is approved. -PDR After MS B (if applicable (non-MDAPs). 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 DoDI Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) DoDI MS A, B, & C IUID Implementation Plan DoDI MS B & C *PDR and PDR Report are mandatory prior to MS B for MDAPS (WSARA) – included in the MS B program certification to Congress (10 USC 2366b). For non-MDAPs, if conducted after MS B, requires a formal Post-PDR decision point scheduled in the acquisition strategy.

Enclosure 4, Table 3 Regulatory Requirements Added/Revised For All Programs (unless otherwise noted) When Required Requirement Reference Comment Program Deviation Report DoDI Immediately upon a program deviation APB breaches System Threat Assessment Report (STAR) DoDI DoDD DIA Dir DIA Inst MS B & C ACAT I & IA, & all DOT&E Oversight List Programs Systems Threat Assessment (STA) DoDI DoDD DIA Dir DIA Inst MS B & C ACAT II Program 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 evaluations STAR 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 Determination DoDD MS B & C Test & Evaluation Strategy (TES) DoDI MS A

Encl 5, IT Considerations, changes
“Title 40/CCA” replaces term CCA. Subtitle III of Title 40, US Code was formerly known as Division E of Clinger-Cohen Act Table 8 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: Requirement for DoD CIO certification of CCA compliance eliminated. 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.

Encl 6, Test & Evaluation, changes
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.

Encl 6, Test & Evaluation, changes
Continued OUSD(AT&L), Dir Systems 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. *WSARA established Dir, SE under DDR&E.

Encl 7, Resource Estimation, changes
PMs must use Cost and Software Data Reporting System to report data on contractor costs and resource usage CARD 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 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.

Encl 8, Human Systems Integration, changes
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.

Encl 9, Acquisition of Services, changes
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.

Continued… 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.

Continued… 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

Encl 10, Program Management, changes
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. -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.

Encl 11, Management 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.

Encl 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; 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.

Encl 11, Management of Business Systems (New),
Continued… 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 Obama 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 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 Spectrum Supportability determination required Encl 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

Encl 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 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.

Now for the Acquisition Management System
We will “walk through” the process and highlight major changes

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))

The Defense Acquisition Framework 2003
Process entry at Milestones A, B, or C Entrance criteria met before entering phases Evolutionary Acquisition (EA) or Single Step to Full Capability (EA 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+

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+ New in bold blue italics

Evolutionary Approach
DoD Strategic Guidance Joint Operating Concepts Joint Functional Concepts Gap Analysis DAB DAB DAB Materiel Solution Analysis ICD MDD A Technology Development B EMD Increment 1 C CDD1 CPD1 AoA JROC JROC JROC DAB DAB DAB Technology Development B CDD2 EMD Increment 2 C 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. 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). A CPD2 JROC JROC DAB DAB DAB Technology Development B EMD Increment 3 C A CDD3 CPD3 . . . JROC JROC Continuous Technology Development and Maturation

The Defense Acquisition Management System
The Materiel Development Decision precedes entry into any phase of the acquisition management system Entrance Criteria met before entering phase Evolutionary Acquisition or Single Step to Full Capability 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 CDR Assessment FRP Decision Review Post PDR Assessment AoA PDR PDR CDR Pre-Systems Acquisition Now we will use the structure show here to briefly go thru each decision point and phase to point out key activities. Systems Acquisition Sustainment Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) Capability Development Document (CDD) Capability Production Document (CPD) Relationship to JCIDS PDR: Preliminary Design Review CDR: Critical Design Review FRP: Full Rate Production IOC: Initial Operational Capability FOC: Full Operational Capability

Materiel Solution Analysis New terms/requirements in bold blue italics
Pre-Systems Acquisition 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 Innovation Research (SBIR) Program 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. For JCTDs, a Military Utility Assessment (MUA) (also called an Operational Utility Assessment (OUA) by DDR&E) is required. New terms/requirements in bold blue italics

Materiel Development Decision (MDD)
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 Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) AoA Study Guidance (AoA Plan due immediately following the MDD) -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. New terms/requirements in bold blue italics

Materiel Solution Analysis New terms/requirements in bold blue italics
Purpose: Assess potential materiel solutions 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: AoA completed, materiel solution options for the capability need identified in ICD have been recommended by lead Component conducting AoA, and phase-specific entrance criteria for the initial review milestone 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 changes to JCIDS, these changes should be pointed out. -The Functional Area Analysis, Functional Needs Analysis and Functional Solutions Analysis parts of the Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) have been eliminated. ICD no longer contains a prioritized list of potential materiel alternatives. The ICD defines 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 makes 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. -Concurrent with the AoA, a draft CDD may be prepared to guide the TD phase activities. TD phase contract has to describe product with contract specs - the technical specs derived from the operational performance parameters in the draft CDD, or risk that competing contractors provide products do different, competitive assessment is not possible. New terms/requirements in bold blue italics

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 CIO Confirmation of CCA Compliance (for MDAPs & MAIS, DoD CIO confirms) Consideration of Technology Issues Component Cost Estimate (CCE) Economic Analysis (MAIS) 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 bold blue italics

Technology Development New terms/requirements in bold blue italics
Purpose: Reduce Technology Risk, determine and mature appropriate set of technologies to be integrated into a full system, and to demonstrate Critical Technology Elements on Prototypes. Technology Development Enter: MDA approved materiel solution and TDS; funding for TD phase activities Activities: Competitive prototyping; Develop RAM strategy; conduct Preliminary Design Review (PDR); Post PDR Assessment at MS B 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; 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. Guided by: Although not stated in , the “performance goals” in the TDS should reflect AoA results that support the materiel solution (approved at MS A). The user may also prepare a draft CDD before or shortly after MS A. Performance attributes are needed for the TD contract. 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 bold blue italics

New terms/requirements in bold blue italics
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 EMD phase was requested in the President’s budget – year of more in advance of MS B) -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 bold blue italics

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 for non-MDAP only)/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 bold blue italics

New terms/requirements in bold blue italics
Milestone B: Statutory and Regulatory 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) Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) Compliance CIO Confirmation of CCA Compliance (for MDAPs & MAIS, DoD CIO confirms) 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 (Not in Encl 4) Net-Centric Data Strategy (in ISP) Operational Test Agency OT&E Report Preliminary Design Review Report Program Protection Plan (PPP) Programmatic Environment, 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 bold blue italics

Milestone B 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

Production & Deployment New terms/requirements in bold blue italics
Purpose: Achieve an operational Capability that satisfies mission needs Production & Deployment FRP Decision Review Full-Rate Production & Deployment LRIP/IOT&E 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 or 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 bold blue italics

Milestone C: Statutory and Regulatory 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 CIO Confirmation of CCA Compliance (for MDAPs & MAIS, DoD CIO confirms) 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 Environment, Safety, & Occupational Health Evaluation (PESHE) Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) MDAP (if rebaselined) 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 bold blue italics

Full Rate Production Decision Review (FRPDR)
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 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
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) Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) Compliance Confirmation of CCA Compliance (for MDAPs & MAIS, DoD CIO confirms) Component Cost Estimate (CCE) Cost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD) (MDAP & MAIS) Data Management Strategy (part of Acq Strategy) Economic Analysis Exit Criteria IT and NSS Joint Interoperability Test Certification (all IT incl NSS) 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 Acq Strategy) Operational Test Agency OT&E Report Post Implementation Review Programmatic Environment, 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 bold blue italics

Life Cycle Sustainment New terms/requirements in bold blue italics
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 bold blue italics

The Acquisition Warrior
Questions? 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.

Backups

S&T Linkage to the Acquisition Management System
B C IOC FOC Engineering & Manufacturing Development Materiel Solution Analysis Production & Deployment Operations & Support Technology Development Materiel Development Decision FRP Decision Review Post PDR Assessment Post CDR Assessment (1) (2) (2) (3) (3) (4) Systems S&T Warfighting Needs & R&D Objectives MDA DECISION Options (1) Concepts for new systems/ upgrade systems out of production. (2) Insert into ongoing systems development, or complete JCTD development. (3) Upgrade system in production/ fielded systems or produce mature JCTD. (4) Use of new technology for demilitarization/disposal. oversight panel oversight panel Adv Tech Dev STOP JCTD ATD Lab/field demo Warfighting Experiments Tech Base Basic Research Applied Research STOP

Systems Engineering Technical Reviews
Program Initiation C A B IOC FOC Materiel Solution Analysis Engineering and Manufacturing Development Technology Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support Materiel Development Decision FRP Decision Review Post PDR A Post- CDR A ISR PCA ITR ASR SRR SFR CDR PDR PDR TRR SVR (FCA)/ PRR MDAPs Non-MDAPs if not prior to MS B Effective Technical Reviews are a critical part of the Technical Assessment process. WSARA requires PDR prior to MS B for MDAPs, and a Post-PDR Assessment at MS B. If a program is approved at a MDD to enter the process at MS B, a literal interpretation of WSARA still requires a PDR prior to the MS B review. For non-MDAPs, PDR should also occur prior to MS B; however, if not must occur shortly after MS B and a Post-PDR Assessment decision point is required. For programs that experience significant design changes during the Technology Development phase, another series of technical reviews (SRR, SVR and PDR) may be required after Milestone B. In that case, the MDA will conduct a Post-PDR Assessment review and issue an ADM indicating the program is on track to meet EMD exit criteria and APB thresholds. IBRs, OTRR and AOTR: Not shown here, the Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) (essentially a business review), the Operational Test Readiness Review (OTRR) (a review conducted for the SAE to ensure readiness to proceed to operational testing), and the Assessment of Operational Test Readiness (AOTR) (a review conducted for designated ACAT ID and special interest program by OUSD(AT&L)/Systems and Software Engineering). These reviews also consider technical issues. The IBRs and OTRR are highlighted in draft Chapter 4 of the DAG. The AOTR requirement is in TRA (Ships) TRA TRA Initial Technical Review (ITR) Alternative Systems Review (ASR) Systems Requirements Review (SRR) System Functional Review (SFR) Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Critical Design Review (CDR) Post-PDR Assessment (Post-PDRA) Post-CDR Assessment (PCDRA) Test Readiness Review (TRR) System Verification Review (SVR) Functional Configuration Audit (FCA) Production Readiness Review (PDR) Operational Test Readiness Review (OTRR) Physical Configuration Audit (PCA) Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) In-Service Review (ISR)

Technology and Manufacturing Readiness
B C IOC FOC Materiel Solution Analysis TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT Engineering & Manufacturing Development PRODUCTION & DEPLOYMENT OPERATIONS & SUPPORT Materiel Development Decision FRP Decision Review Post CDR Assessment TRLs 1-3 TRL 4 TRL 5 TRL 6 TRL 7 TRL 8 TRL 9 Technology Readiness Levels Defense Acquisition Guidebook para Analytical/ Experimental Critical Function/ Characteristic Proof of Concept Component And/or Breadboard Validation In a Laboratory Environment Component And/or Breadboard Validation In a Relevant Environment System/ Subsystem Model or Prototype Demonstrated In a Relevant Environment System Prototype Demonstrated In an Operational Environment Actual System Completed Qualified Through Test and Demonstration Actual System “Mission Proven” Through Successful Operations MRLs 1-3 MRL 4 MRL 5 MRL 6 MRL 7 MRL 8 MRL 9 MRL 10 Manufacturing Readiness Levels Draft MRA Deskbook May 2008 Manufacturing Feasibility Assessed. Concepts defined/ developed Capability to produce Technology In Lab Environment. Manufacturing Risks Identified Capability to Produce Prototype Components Capability to Produce System/ Subsystem Prototypes Capability to Produce Systems, Subsystems Or Components in a Production Representative Environment Pilot Line Capability Demonstrated. Ready for LRIP Low Rate Production Demonstrated. Capability In Place for FRP Full Rate Production Demonstrated. Lean Production Practices In Place Manufacturing Cost Drivers Identified Cost Model Constructed Detailed Cost Analysis Complete Cost Model Updated To System Level Unit Cost Reduction Efforts Underway Engineering Cost Model Validated LRIP Cost Goals Met Learning Curve Validated FRP Unit Cost Goals Met Section 2366b of Title 10, United States Code, requires certification that: the technology in the program has been demonstrated in a relevant environment to enter Milestone B. [TRL 6]

Implementation of WSARA
Program Certifications IAW 10 USC 2366a and 2366b Following statements must be added to the ADM: MS A: “I have reviewed the program and have made the certifications required by Section 2366a of Title 10, United States Code. At any time prior to Milestone B approval, the Program Manager shall notify me immediately if the projected cost of the program exceeds the cost estimate for the program at the time of Milestone A certification by at least 25 percent or the PM determines that the period of time required for the delivery of an initial operational capability is likely to exceed the schedule objective provided at the time of Milestone A certification by more that 25 percent.” MS B: “I have reviewed the program and the business case analysis and have made the certifications required, or executed a waiver of the applicability of one or more of the components of the certification requirement as authorized by Section 2366b of Title 10, United States Code. The Program Manager shall notify me immediately of any changes to the program that alter the substantive basis for the certification relating to any component of such certification, or otherwise cause the program to deviate significantly from the material provided to me in support of such certification.”

Implementation of WSARA Program Certification for MS A (10 USC 2366a)
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD SUBJECT: Milestone A Program Certification As required by Section 2366a of Title 10, United States Code, I have consulted with the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) on matters related to program requirements and military needs for the (name of program) and certify that: (1) the program fulfills an approved initial capabilities document; (2) the program is being executed by an entity with a relevant core competency as identified by the Secretary of Defense; (3) an analysis of alternatives has been performed consistent with the study guidance developed by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation; (4) a cost estimate for the program has been submitted, with the concurrence of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, and the level of resources required to develop and procure the program is consistent with the priority level assigned by the JROC; and, (5) [include only if the system duplicates a capability already provided by an existing system] the duplication of capability provided by this system is necessary and appropriate. Changes highlighted in bold blue italics

Implementation of WSARA Program Certification for MS B (10 USC 2366b)
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD SUBJECT: Milestone B Program Certification As required by Section 2366b of Title 10, United States Code, (1) I have received a business case analysis for the (name of program) and certify on the basis of the analysis that: (A) the program is affordable when considering the ability of the Department of Defense to accomplish the program's mission using alternative systems; (B) appropriate trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives have been made to ensure that the program is affordable when considering the per unit cost and the total acquisition cost in the context of the total resources available during the period covered by the future-years defense program submitted during the fiscal year in which the certification is made; (C) reasonable cost and schedule estimates have been developed to execute, with the concurrence of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, the product development and production plan under the program; (D) funding is available to execute the product development and production plan under the program, through the period covered by the future-years defense program submitted during the fiscal year in which the certification is made, consistent with the estimates described in paragraph (C) for the program; and (2) I have received the results of the preliminary design review and conducted a formal post-preliminary design review assessment, and certify on the basis of such assessment that the program demonstrates a high likelihood of accomplishing its intended mission; and Changes highlighted in bold blue italics

Program Certification for MS B (10 USC 2366b), continued.. (3) I further certify that: (A) appropriate market research has been conducted prior to technology development to reduce duplication of existing technology and products; (B) the Depart of Defense has completed an analysis of alternatives with respect to the program; (C) the Joint Requirements Oversight Council has accomplished its duties with respect to the program pursuant to section 181(b) of Title 10, including an analysis of the operational requirements for the program; (D) the technology in the program has been demonstrated in a relevant environment, as determined by the Milestone Decision Authority on the basis of an independent review and assessment by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering; and (E) the program complies with all relevant policies, regulations, and directives of the Department of Defense. Changes highlighted in bold blue italics

Cost Estimate at Milestone A Source: 10 USC 2366a and DAG Chapter 3
Milestone A cost estimate conducted by Component Cost Center Component Cost Estimate (CCE), must include both development and procurement costs (not just cost of TD Phase) The Milestone Decision Authority Certification at Milestone A will be based on the DoD Component estimate The Program Manager’s report of a 25% increase will be based on the same estimate Source: 10 USC 2366a and DAG Chapter 3

Required KPPs/KSAs JCIDS Manual, Feb 2009
Survivability KPP. Mandatory for manned systems and systems designed to enhance personnel survivability in an asymmetric threat environment – KPPs that contribute to survivability (speed, maneuverability, detectability, and countermeasures) Force Protection KPP. Mandatory for manned systems and systems designed to enhance personnel survivability in an asymmetric threat environment – KPPs that contribute to protection of personnel (prevent or mitigate hostile actions against personnel) Sustainment (three factors) Availability KPP. Mandatory for ACAT I; sponsor decision for ACAT II/III. Two components: Materiel Availability: measure of percentage of total inventory of a system ready for mission tasking. Developed by PM. Operational Availability: percentage of time a system or group of systems within a unit are capable of performing assigned mission. Developed by Requirements Manager Reliability KSA. Mandatory – probability that system will perform without failure over a specified interval. Developed by Requirements Manager Ownership Cost KSA. Mandatory – unit operations, energy (POL, fuel – fully burdened cost, maintenance, sustaining support). Developed by PM Net-Ready KPP – required for all IT and NSS used to enter, process, store, display, or transmit information. (except systems that do not communicate with external sources) KPPs traceable to ICD capability definitions and to Joint Pub 3.0 – required for systems with a primary mission or other attributes that contribute to one or more of the capabilities described in the ICD or the joint functions. Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) are those attributes or characteristics of a system that are considered critical or essential to the development of an effective military capability KPPs must be testable to enable feedback from test and evaluation efforts to the requirements process. Key System Attributes (KSAs) are those attributes considered critical or essential for an effective military capability, but not selected as KPPs. The sustainment KSAs are inserted verbatim into the APB. KSAs do not apply to the Net-Ready KPP. The JROC validates KPPs for JROC Interest documents. The JCB validates KPPs for JCB Interest documents. Sponsor validates KPPs/KSAs for Joint Integration, Joint Information, and Independent documents.

Selectively Applied KPPs JCIDS Manual Feb 2009
Sponsor analysis will determine whether to adopt these parameters as KPPs. If not adopted, summary of justification for not adopting must be provided in the CDD. System Training KPP – system training addressed in the AoA and subsequent acquisition phases; training requirements and costs are addressed across the program life cycle Energy Efficiency KPP – Include fuel efficiency considerations in systems consistent with future force plans and approved planning scenarios. Set targets and thresholds for the fuel efficiency of materiel solutions. Chemical, Biological, Radiological, & Nuclear (CBRN) KPPs JCIDS Manual & DoDI Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) are those attributes or characteristics of a system that are considered critical or essential to the development of an effective military capability and those attributes that make a significant contribution to the characteristics of the future joint force as defined in the Capstone Concept for Joint Operations. KPPs must be testable to enable feedback from test and evaluation efforts to the requirements process. The JROC validates KPPs for JROC Interest documents. The DOD component validates KPPs for Joint Integration, Joint Information, and Independent documents. Nuclear Survivability KPPs – Mandatory (including EMP hardening) for systems covered under DoDD S , United States Nuclear Weapons Command, Control, Safety and Security. CBRN Attributes – For CBRN mission-critical systems, CBRN survivability performance attribute(s) will be evaluated to determine KPP or KSA designation (may be combined w/survivability, force protection or Net-Ready).

Implementation of WSARA Critical Cost Growth (1)
DTM contains policy implementing new 10 USC 2433a, Critical Cost Growth of MDAPs, that amends 10 USC 2433, Unit Cost Reports, and supersedes all previous USD(AT&L) policies addressing actions that must be taken following critical cost growth of a MDAP or designated subprogram PM shall notify the CAE immediately, whenever there is a reasonable cause to believe that the current estimate of either the program acquisition unit cost (PAUC) or average procurement unit cost (APUC) of a MDAP or designated subprogram (in base-year dollars) has increased by 25 percent (or more) over the PAUC or APUC objective of the currently approved APB estimate, or 50 percent (or more) over the PAUC or APUC of the original APB estimate. If the CAE determines that there is an increase in the current estimate of the PAUC or APUC of at least 25 percent over the PAUC or APUC objective of the currently approved APB, or 50 percent over the PAUC or APUC of the original APB, the CAE shall inform the USD(AT&L) and the Head of the DoD Component.

If the Component Head subsequently determines that there is, in fact, an increase in the current estimate of the PAUC or APUC of at least 25 percent over the currently approved APB, or 50 percent over the PAUC or APUC of the original APB, the Head of the DoD Component shall notify Congress, in writing, of the determination of critical cost growth and the increase with respect to the program or subprogram concerned. The notification shall be not later than 45 days after the end of the quarter, in the case of a quarterly report; or not later than 45 days after the date of the report, in the case of an out-of-cycle report based on critical change occurring between quarters. In either case, notification shall include the date that the Head of the DoD Component made the determination. In addition, the Component Head shall submit an SAR for either the fiscal year quarter ending on or after the determination date, or for the fiscal year quarter that immediately precedes the fiscal year quarter ending on or after the determination date. This SAR shall contain the additional critical cost growth-related information.

The USD(AT&L), after consultation with the JROC, shall determine the root cause or causes of the critical cost growth in accordance with applicable statutory requirements and DoD policies, procedures, and guidance based upon the root cause analysis conducted by the senior official for PARCA; and in consultation with the DCAPE, shall carry out an assessment of: a. The projected cost of completing the program if current requirements are not modified. b. The projected cost of completing the program based on reasonable modification of such requirements. c. The rough order of magnitude of the costs of any reasonable alternative system or capability. d. The need to reduce funding for other programs due to the growth in cost of the program.

After conducting the reassessment, the USD(AT&L) shall terminate the program unless the USD(AT&L) submits a written certification to Congress before the end of the 60-day period beginning on the day the SAR containing the unit cost information is required to be submitted to Congress. The certification must state: a. The continuation of the program is essential to the national security. b. There are no alternatives to the program that will provide acceptable capability to meet the joint military requirement (as defined in section l8l(g)((1) of Title 10, U.S.C) at less cost. c. The new estimates of the PAVC or APUC have been determined by the DCAPE, to be reasonable. d. The program is a higher priority than programs whose funding must be reduced to accommodate the growth in cost of the program. e. The management structure for the program is adequate to manage and control PAUC or APUC.

The written certification shall be accompanied by a report presenting the root cause analysis and assessment and basis for each determination made in accordance with the five certification criteria listed previously If the USD(AT&L) elects NOT to terminate a MDAP that has experienced critical cost growth, the Secretary of Defense shall: a. Restructure the program in a manner that addresses the root cause or causes of the critical cost growth, and ensures that the program has an appropriate management structure as set forth in the written certification; b. Rescind the most recent milestone approval for the program or designated subprograms and withdraw any associated certification(s) pursuant to section 2366a or 2366b. c. Require a new milestone approval for the program or designated subprograms before taking any contract action to enter a new contract, exercise an option under an existing contract, or otherwise extend the scope of an existing contract under the program, except to the extent determined necessary by the MDA, on a non-delegable basis, to ensure that the program can be restructured as intended by the Secretary of Defense without unnecessarily wasting resources. d. Include in the report a description of all funding changes made as a result of the growth in cost of the program, including reductions made in funding for other programs to accommodate such cost growth. (The report specified here is the first SAR for the program submitted after the President submits a budget in the calendar year following the year in which the program was restructured.)

Additionally, for each MDAP that has exceeded the critical cost thresholds, but has not been terminated, the senior official for PARCA shall conduct semi-annual reviews until 1 year after the date a new milestone approval is received. The senior official for PARCA, shall report the results of the semi-annual reviews to the USD(AT&L) and summarize the results in the Director's next annual report. If a MDAP is terminated after experiencing a critical cost breach, the USD(AT&L) shall submit to Congress a written report with the following information: a. An explanation of the reasons for terminating the program. b. The alternatives considered to address any problems in the program. c. The course the Department of Defense plans to pursue to meet any continuing joint military requirements otherwise intended to be met by the program.

Revised MDAP Definition A MDAP is a Department of Defense acquisition program that is not a highly sensitive classified program and: a. that is designated by the USD (AT&L) as an MDAP; or b. that is estimated to require an eventual total expenditure for research, development, test, and evaluation, including all planned increments*, of more than $365M (based on fiscal year 2000 constant dollars) or an eventual total expenditure for procurement, including all planned increments*, of more than $2.19B (based on fiscal year 2000 constant dollars). *Change to definition highlighted in blue italics Policy Impact: The revised definition may result in a change in MDA

Director for Acquisition

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Director for Acquisition"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Director for Acquisition

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Director for Acquisition"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback