Configuration Steering Board [Program Title] This template is consolidated for all lifecycle phases. Refer to notes pages for phase-specific instructions/tailoring. Briefing should focus on the current lifecycle phase of the program. Unless otherwise stated, all charts are required. If you have questions in preparing your briefing please contact your local Acquisition Center of Excellence (ACE) for guidance. Wright Patterson AFB DSN:  785-6005/COMM: 937-255-6005 Hanscom AFB DSN:  845-1659/COMM: 781-225-1659 Eglin AFB DSN: 875-3363/COMM: 850-883-3363 Warner Robbins DSN 472-3735/COMM: 478-222-3735 Hill AFB DSN: 777-7999/COMM: 801-777-7999 or-777-5538 Tinker AFB DSN: 884-1252/COMM: 405-734-1252 Los Angeles AFB DSN: 633-1534/COMM. 310 653-1534 SAF/AQXE DSN: 260-0407/COMM. 571-256-0407 (If you have recommendations to improve the CSB template) Updated Apr 2018. Please see notes pages for further explanation/guidance. Rank, Name Office Symbol

Why We Are Here Today Information to include: Requirement changes that affect cost / schedule Recommendations on requirement changes to improve cost / schedule Please do not make statements to the effect “We are here because we are required…etc”. DODI 5000.02 states “review requirements changes that may be necessary to achieve affordability constraints on production and sustainment costs” One “why are we here” chart explaining reason for CSB (i.e. Event Driven CSB for a requirements/configuration issue or for Annual Review) Per DoD 5000.02: The CSB will meet at least annually, and more frequently as capability requirements or content trades are needed, to review all requirements changes and any significant technical configuration changes for ACAT I and IA programs in development, production, and sustainment that have the potential to result in cost and schedule impacts to the program. The CSB will review potential capability requirements changes and propose to the requirements validation authority those changes that may be necessary to achieve affordability constraints on production and sustainment costs or that will result in a more cost-effective product. Changes that increase cost will not be approved unless funds are identified and schedule impacts are addressed. Program requirements will fall under the cognizance of the CSB upon receipt of a validated CDD or other validated requirements document, and before the Development RFP Release Decision Point. 2 2

Identify How New / Reduced Requirements Affect Schedule FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 MDD IOC FDDR MAIS List AFRB Milestones FOC RIT ICD Requirements Review/Management Board Requirements Annual X-Plan Design & Integration System/Architecture Studies Highlight critical path Test & Evaluation OUE OT&E Ensure that the critical path is highlighted Identify critical events between milestones Identify ADM requirements as necessary Tailor schedule as necessary to identify cost, and/or schedule issues Tailor schedule as necessary to reveal phases and/or increments of efforts If event driven CSB, show integrated master schedule, highlighting issues For pre-MDAP/MAIS programs, project a planned schedule Must communicate schedule changes (include original date and the slipped date) Acquisition Procurement Operations & Support Strategic & focused on Milestones and critical events between Milestones; must communicate schedule changes

Identify how new or reduced requrements affect funding Mandatory Identify how new or reduced requrements affect funding Notes: +Enter values in the unshaded (white) annual and to-complete cells only. The rest of the data is calculated automatically. The spreadsheet cells will round to the nearest hundred thousand dollars ($0.1M). +Delete any appropriation sections that have no budgeted or required costs. +Programs must use footnotes to state source of "Required" estimate, O&S service life projection, O&S time horizon (first year of O&S – last year of O&S) & cost categories, and any RDT&E-funded quantities (if any). See Figure 1. +Program offices are to use the latest version of the program funding template. Regularly check the Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L) Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) online calendar website (https://ebiz.acq.osd.mil/DABCalendar/) for the most current Integrated Product Team (IPT) Program Funding template. The template is updated as Programming, Planning, Budgeting, and Execution System (PPBES) events occur. Definitions: Primary Line Items: In the header of each section, list the primary budget line item(s) that fund the program currently and in the FYDP. For RDT&E, MILCON, and O&M, include appropriation (consistent with DAMIR reporting), budget activity and program element. For procurement, include appropriation, budget activity and line item. Some programs have smaller amounts of funding in secondary line items that need not be listed. Footnotes may be used for clarification/amplification. Prior: President’s Budget (PB) position submitted prior to the Current budget position. Although the President only submits the FYDP to Congress, the cells for the next fiscal year and “To-Complete” should be populated for the investment appropriations using the values reported in the Selected Acquisition Report or latest DAES associated with that PB (if available). Current: Latest approved Service POM/BES budget position or approved PB. +During a normal PPBES cycle (PB submitted in the first Tuesday of February each year), use POM position from August through January; Use PB position from February through July. +When the DoD Appropriation is enacted, programs should update that cell of all the "Current” PB funding and quantity rows to reflect the actual appropriated amounts. Required: Latest estimate of funds required to successfully execute program, i.e., support the Warfighter and not simply match available budget Total Obligation Authorities (TOAs). Typically, this would reflect the Will Cost estimate, Service Cost Position (SCP), or PEO-supported Program Office Estimate (POE) that has not yet been validated by a Service Cost Agency or the CAPE. Note: total required quantity is the acquisition objective recognized by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) or similar body and would be reflected in the program's Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) or similar document but may not be reflected in the budget due to affordability or funding issues. System O&M: In this section, list the O&M-funded costs from initial system deployment through end of system operations. Include all costs of operating, maintaining, and supporting a fielded system. Specifically, this consists of the costs (organic and contractor) of equipment, supplies, software, and services associated with operating, modifying, maintaining, supplying, training, and supporting a system in the DoD inventory. Do not include acquisition-related O&M, and non-O&M O&S costs such as military personnel, and investment-funded system improvements. Also, do not include disposal costs, which represent a separate phase of the program life cycle. Please address questions on the O&M requirements to the OSD(AT&L)/L&MR point of contact listed below. Total Required Acquisition (BYXX$M): +Current Estimate of Total RDT&E, procurement, MILCON and acquisition-related O&M in base-year dollars as reported in the program's latest approved POM budget position, approved PB, or quarterly DAES submission, whichever is most current. +The percentage displayed is the portion of the Acquisition cost out of the sum of Acquisition and O&S costs. +Revise “BYXX$M” to reflect the 2-digit program Base Year (e.g., BY16$M). Use the Base Year specified in the current Acquisition Program Baseline (APB). For unbaselined programs (or if seeking a new or revised APB), use the budget year (e.g., BY18$M for PB18). Total Required O&S (BYXX$M): +Current Estimate of Total Operating and Support costs in base-year dollars as reported in the program’s quarterly DAES (if applicable). See Figure 2. +A footnote should identify the projected service life. +Disposal costs should not be included in this value. +The percentage displayed is the portion of the O&S cost out of the sum of Acquisition and O&S costs. This value should not include disposal dollars. +Revise “BYXX$M” to reflect the 2-digit program Base Year (e.g., BY16$M, IAW the instructions above for Total Required Acquisition). Curr Est (APUC): Program Manager’s current estimate of Average Procurement Unit Cost, in base-year dollars (total procurement divided by procurement-funded quantities). The APUC should match the values reported in the program's latest approved POM/BES budget position, approved PB, or quarterly DAES submission, whichever is most current. Curr Est (PAUC): Program Manager’s current estimate of Program Acquisition Unit Cost, in base-year dollars (total RDT&E, procurement, MILCON and acquisition-related O&M divided by total quantity). The PAUC should match the values reported in the program's latest approved POM/BES budget position, approved PB, or quarterly DAES submission, whichever is most current. Δ Current: This is the program’s APUC or PAUC current estimate (as defined above) divided by the program’s current APB Unit Cost Reporting (UCR) baseline, as applicable. Figure 3 illustrates where this information resides in the program’s DAMIR DAES. Δ Original: This is the program’s APUC or PAUC current estimate (as defined above) divided by the program’s original APB UCR baseline, as applicable. See Figure 3. Points of Contact: Army Programs: Allen Johnson, OSD(AT&L)/ARA allen.m.johnson44.ctr@mail.mil 703-697-5384 Navy Programs: CDR Joseph Mitzen, OSD(AT&L)/ARA joseph.b.mitzen.mil@mail.mil 703-697-8020 Air Force Programs: Matthias Maier, OSD(AT&L)/ARA matthias.r.maier.ctr@mail.mil 703-614-4030 Agency & Department-wide Programs: Mr. Russ Vogel, OSD(AT&L)/ARA russell.a.vogel.civ@mail.mil 703-697-1786 O&S Section: Ms. Molly Mertz, OSD(AT&L)/L&MR mary.m.mertz.civ@mail.mil 703-614-6137

Identify How Requirements Changes Affect Affordability Affordability Cap (BY13$B) Current Estimate (BY13$B) APUC 2.0 1.9 O&S* 10.0 9.0 *Indicate whether O&S is for entire weapon system or the ACAT I program in question Affordability Challenge Mitigation Requirement A is more difficult, more costly to achieve than expected at APB Reduce threshold to X -- maintain current affordability cap User-Requested addition of Requirement B Increase affordability cap -- critical capability adds distinct value, more expensive to wait for future increment Please find and use updated guidance and POCs to assist in building the Affordability chart at https://www.my.af.mil/gcss-af/USAF/ep/browse.do?programId=t0ECF2BB845754CE6014598CD38BD0375&channelPageId=s6925EC13430A0FB5E044080020E329A9 What is Affordability? The ability to allocate resources out of a future total budget projection to individual activities Determined by Component leadership given priorities, values, and total resource limitations against all competing fiscal demands on the Component Goals and caps: Goals: Inform capability requirements and major design tradeoffs (pre MS-B) Caps: Equivalent to KPP (established at MS-B) Based on the Component’s affordability analysis and recommendations, the MDA sets and enforces affordability constraints as follows: At MDD: tentative affordability cost goals (e.g., total funding, annual funding profiles, unit procurement and/or sustainment costs, as appropriate) to help scope the AoA and provide targets around which to consider alternatives; At Milestone A: affordability goals for unit procurement and sustainment costs; and At Development RFP Release Decision Point, Milestone B, and Beyond: binding affordability caps for unit procurement and O&S costs. Caps/Goals are documented in the ADMs for these decision points. At Milestone B, the affordability caps are documented in the program’s APB. Any programs that skip earlier reviews, or have baselines set before Milestone B, receive caps/goals commensurate with their position in the acquisition cycle and their level of maturity. Per DoDI 5000.02: “When approved affordability constraints cannot be met—even with aggressive cost control and reduction approaches—then technical requirements, schedule, and required quantities must be revisited; this will be accomplished with support from the Component’s Configuration Steering Board, and with any requirements reductions proposed to the validation authority. If constraints still cannot be met, and the Component cannot afford to raise the program’s affordability cap(s) by lowering constraints elsewhere and obtaining MDA approval, then the program will be cancelled.”

Potential New Requirements; New and Evolving Threat Analysis New / Evolved Threat Requirements Challenge Mitigation New adversary capability X Requirement C may not be sufficient for future missions Engage AFROC process; New capability will start new ACAT enhancement program if >$100M New adversary capability Y Intel Mission Data Requirements will not account for new threat Work with AF/A2 to ensure all IMD req’ts can be met within existing budget New adversary capability Z Connectivity with program A will create a Cyber Vulnerability Remove requirement to connect to program A Evaluate the new and emerging threat predictions. Identify any new requirements, requirements re-prioritizations and/or requirements trade-offs that are driven by threat projections, Intelligence Mission Data (IMD) requirements, and cyber vulnerability/resiliency. Provide the proposed mitigations for each new/evolved threat.

Requirements Changes (+/-) since last CSB New / Refined Requirement Threshold / Objective Rationale for New Req. Current Est. Cost/Sched Impact Approved / Authority Weight 7500 lbs / 6600 lbs AMC/A3/5 identified new weight requirement updated to allow transport in … 7650 lbs $$ Increase: AMC providing funding No Schedule impact PENDING / CSB Resolution 7 cm / 5 cm New threat identified by xxxx and being worked through AFROC that … 6.8 cm Threat to MS-C Schedule – need requirement finalized by XXX to maintain schedule Example 3 4.0 Reallocation N/A YES / CCB 15JAN14 Do not limit to KPPs/KSAs or changes to Draft CDD/CDD/CPD. Also, include updates or refinement to requirements identified by the User or other organizations. If there are significant cost/schedule impacts (>$100M/6mos), the CSB must approve per DoDI 5000.02. Purpose of this slide is to identify requirements changes that will impact cost and schedule even if they don’t change KPPs or KSAs. Also, purpose is to address proposed updates or refinements to requirements identified by the User or other organizations.

Configuration Update Not Required for Pre-MS B programs. ECP Previous 12 Months ECP Performance Impact Schedule Impact Cost Impact Interfaces Affected Approved / Authority Disconnected Waypoints Incorporates more operationally relevant method of handling non-sequenced points during route planning None. Change incorporated in subsequent, planned release $200M Total across FYDP User Interface only PENDING / CSB Mission Data Load Handler Allows for proper handling of mission data loads for multiple aircraft OFPs from single workstation $569K – all FY08 funds APPROVED / CCB Identify all ECPs affecting form, fit, or function from past 12 months and all anticipated during the next 12 months. Identify all ECPs affecting form, fit or function from past 12 months and all anticipated during the next 12 months. If there are significant cost or schedule impacts (>$100M/6mos), the CSB must approve the configuration change, per DoDI 5000.02. This chart is not required for Pre-Milestone B programs, as the configuration has not been fully defined. Next 12 Months ECP Performance Impact Schedule Impact Cost Impact Interfaces Affected Approved / Authority None N/A

Potential De-scoping Options User Capability Assessment and Perf Impact Impact to remaining program Investment to date Savings Defer Mode S Low-to-med impact in FY08-13 timeframe: Risks denial to European airspace No impact $12M spent of an estimated $36M effort $24M Total: $3M FY08 $8M FY09 $10M FY10 $3M FY11 Reduce sensor resolutions by 50% Med impact in FY10-11 and High impact in FY12-21: Inability to … Changes critical path to xxxx; reduces schedule risk by four months $3M spent in risk reduction; total effort estimated at $87M $84M Total: $2M FY08 $7M FY09 $15M FY10 $23M FY11 $28M FY12 $9M FY13 Etc. * What would program descope to address a FUNDING CUT Input is required per DODI 5000.02: Propose a set of descoping options with supporting rationale addressing operational implications to the Configuration Steering Board that reduce program cost or moderate requirements Good rule of thumb: Treat this as a budget drill Discuss establishing thresholds of possible budget removal (i.e. what must be descoped if 10%, 20%, 30% of budget were removed) Identify whether descoping options have been reviewed and/or approved by users in any venue prior to CSB Include bumper sticker on slide stating whether the de-scoping options are recommended or not. In consultation with the MAJCOM, provide three or four achievable requirements de-scoping options based on User inputs. For each of these options, capture impacts to program’s ability to execute and overall savings to PEO and/or Air Force TOA.

Recommendations Recommend way ahead for SAE Discuss requirement issues. Examples might be: Request to reduce Requirements for Cost Request to reduce Requirements for Schedule Technical transition issues to meet requirement affecting cost and schedule New unfunded requirements/refinements Be clear about what help you request and from whom Besides meeting the legal requirements (Section 814 of Public Law 110-417, “Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009,” “Configuration Steering Boards for Cost Control Under Major Defense Acquisition Programs”) for a CSB, wants to increase the value of the meeting to address important program issues. The PM/PEO are encouraged to identify issues that provide the most concern. It is an open opportunity to identify: "what worries me most”. What "keeps me up at night"? These may include oversight issues, funding instability, congressional interest, or other issues such as slow transition of technology. This is an opportunity for the PM/PEO to notify the SAE of potential issues either not addressed previously, or reiterate some of those addressed earlier. Identifying these issues is the first step; but have a plan to address them. Also, identify how the SAE might help. An example might be asking the SAE to break a logjam disagreement with the OSD staff. Another might be a problem getting coordination through another Air Force Directorate (GC, TE, IL etc). In some cases where the discussion is appropriate for an Air Force only meeting, a separate session can be set up to follow the CSB meeting with OSD and the Joint Staff excused from the meeting.