1. Defense Systems Management College Defense Acquisition University Fort Belvoir, Virginia 16 Mar 2016 Requirements Executive Overview Workshop Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) Process

2. Tab 5 – PPBE PPBE Overview –PB 17 (Open Source Info) and BBA of 2015 –PPBE Summary Info –“Will Cost” vs “Should Cost” Building Blocks –FYDP, MFP, Program Elements PPBE Process and Schedule Membership of SLRG Resource Allocation Process 2 PPBE Outline

3. $490 $470 $510 $610 $590 $570 $550 $530 FY10 FY11FY12FY13 FY 10-11-12 Actuals FY 2015 PB Current Caps FY14FY15FY16FY17FY18FY19FY20FY21 FY 2013 PB/DSG FY 2017 PB FY 2016 PB Original BCA Caps PB 17 vs Current Caps and Prior Budgets (Dollars in Billions) 5

4. 6 Secretary Carter’s Priorities for This Budget Given the current level of budget resources ($800B in Budget Control Act cuts), we can’t reduce all risk. Instead, the Department must: –Prioritize conventional deterrence against our most advanced adversaries –Focus more on the shape than the size of the force o Seek the best balance between force structure (size), modernization (capability) and readiness o Emphasize lethality and capability of the force rather than size o Emphasize posture rather than presence –Emphasize innovation o Attracting, retaining, and managing talent (Force of the Future) o Update war plans and operational concepts o Pursue “offset” technologies o Institutional efficiency and reform “Today’s security environment is dramatically different … and it requires new ways of thinking and new ways of acting” Secretary Carter, February 2, 2016

5. FY 2017 Base Funding Army $122.9 Navy $155.4 Air Force $151.1 Defense Wide $94.5 FY 2017 Request:$523.9 billion By Appropriation TitleBy Military Department RDT&E, $71.4 Military Construction and Family Housing, $7.4 Procurement, $102.5 Military Personnel, $135.2 O&M, $205.8 26

6. FY 2017 OCO Funding Army $25.0 Navy $9.5 Air Force 15.8 Defense Wide $8.5 FY 2017 Request:$58.8 billion By Appropriation TitleBy Military Department RDT&E, $.3 Military Construction and Family Housing, $7.4 Military Personnel, $3.5 Procurement, $9.5 O&M, $45.0 27

7. FY 2017 Total Base and OCO Funding Army $148.0 Navy $164.8 Air Force $166.9 Defense Wide $102.9 FY 2017 Request:$582.7 billion By Appropriation TitleBy Military Department RDT&E, $71.7 Military Construction and Family Housing, $7.6 Procurement, $112.0 Military Personnel, $138.5 O&M, $250.9 28

8. Tab 5 – PPBE FY 16 (Base)Revised SecurityRevised Non-Security –Current Law (BCA 2011) $523B$493B –Revised Cap (BBA 2015) $548B $518B –Delta +$25B+$25B FY 17 (Base) –Current Law (BCA 2011) $536B$504B –Revised Cap (BBA 2015) $551B $519B –Delta +$15B+$15B Total Federal Govt Discretionary Base increase $80B (FY 16 $50B; FY 17 $30B) Defense –FY 16 Base -$12B (PB 16 $534B - $522B BBA 2015) –FY 16 OCO +$7B (PB 16 $52B - $59B BBA 2015) –FY 16 Net -$5B –FY 17 Base -$21B (PB 16 $547B - $526B BBA 2015) –FY 17 OCO +$2B (PB 16 $57B - $59B BBA 2015) –FY 17 Net -$19B 8 Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015

9. Tab 5 – PPBE Debt ceiling suspended until March 2017 Revenue sources: –Tightening tax rules for business relationships –Selling off crude oil reserve –Auctioning off government controlled wireless spectrums Spending adjustments –Make changes to Medicare and Social Security 9 Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 Cont.

10. How we hit the lower FY 2017 topline (Dollars in Billions) -$25 -$20 -$15 -$10 -$5-$5 $0 $5 $10 FY 2017 $+5.0B $-21.8B Net Cut to Base Budget Gross BBA cut OCO Relief $-16.8B New Efficiencies, $-0.4B Inflation Savings, $-2.4B Net Program changes, $-11.2B Fuel Savings, $-2.8B Comparison to FY 2016 PB Plan for FY 2017 7

11. Cuts to hit the lower FY 2017 Topline We will procure fewer weapons systems than planned: –9 AH-64 Apache helicopters (Army) –24 UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters (Army) –5 F-35 A Joint Strike Fighters –2 V-22 aircraft (Navy) –3 C-130J aircraft (Air Force) –4 LCAC Service Life Extension Programs (Navy) –77 Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (Marine Corps) Aircraft procurement accounts reduced $4.4 billion Shipbuilding reduced $1.75 billion Other procurement accounts reduced $2.6 billion Reduce plans for new military construction projects by $1.1 billion Comparison to FY 2016 PB Plan for FY 2017 8

12. 9 FY 2017 Budget Supports Planned force structure levels Service readiness recovery plans A safe, secure and reliable nuclear force at New START levels Force of the Future initiatives Modernization: –DDG modernization and SSN upgrades –Surface ship advanced munitions and sensor technologies –Investment in space capabilities –Hypersonic research and development –Cyber tools for Combatant Commanders –Army aviation modernization plan –Marine Corps vehicle modernization plan Key reform proposals (e.g., TRICARE)

13. 10 FY 2017 Force Structure Force structure assessed sufficient to execute the strategy Major elements include: –14 SSBNs, 450 ICBMs –96 Operational Bombers (154 total) –287-ship Navy with 11 Carriers in FY 2017 (Building to a 308-ship Navy) –54+1 Tactical fighter squadrons –990k Army Total End Strength(460k Active) (30 Active BCTs in FY 2017) –221k Marine Corps Total End Strength(182k Active) FY 2017 Force Structure Sufficient to Execute Strategy

14. Tab 5 – PPBE Planning (OSD Policy) –Assess capabilities / review threat –Develop guidance Programming (OSD CAPE) –Turn guidance into achievable, affordable packages –Five-year program (Future Years Defense Program) Budgeting (OSD Comptroller) –Test for efficient funds execution –Scrub budget year –Prepare defensible budget Execution Review (concurrent with program/budget review) –Develop performance metrics –Assess actual output against planned performance –Adjust resources to achieve desired performance goals 14 PPBE Phases

15. Tab 5 – PPBE AIR FORCE: Program Element Monitor ( PEM ) –Works for Air Force SAE (SAF/AQ) –Each Air Force program element is assigned a PEM –Interfaces with Using Commands, Material Command, Air Staff, Air Secretariat, OSD, and sometimes Congress –A PEM may be responsible for more than one program element NAVY: Requirements Officer ( RO ) –Works for resource sponsor on OPNAV staff (e.g., Navy Aviation resource sponsor is N98) –Interfaces with Using Commands, Systems/Developing Commands, OPNAV Staff, Navy Secretariat (especially ASN/RDA, Mr. Stackley), and OSD ARMY: Department of Army Systems Coordinator (DASC) –Works for Army SAE (ASA/ALT) –Interfaces with Using Commands, Developing Commands, Army Staff, Army Secretariat, OSD, and Congress Key PPBE Action Officers 15

16. Tab 5 – PPBE Will Cost Used for programming and budgeting Used for acquisition program baselines (APBs) Used for all reporting requirements external to DoD Should Cost Scrutinize every element of govt and contractor costs 3 ways to develop should cost estimates: Bottoms –Up estimate Determine specific discrete and measurable items Use competitive contracting and contract negotiations to identify should cost savings (old FAR definition) 16 “Will Cost” vs “Should Cost” USD (AT&L) and USD(C) 22 Apr 11 Memo

17. Tab 5 – PPBE Computer Database Maintained by OSD CAPE Contains Approved Force S tructure and Resources for all Defense Programs Expected to be updated 3 Times this PPBE Cycle: –Program Objectives Memorandum (POM) – Jul –Budget Estimate Submission (BES) Sep –President’s Budget (PB) - Feb Reflects PY, CY, BY, + 4 Out-Years 3 additional years for force structure only Component PPBE databases Navy: PBIS Air Force : ABIDES Army: PROBE 17 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) 18 19 20 21171615

18. Tab 5 – PPBE DOD COMPONENTS Strategic Forces General Purpose Forces Command, Control, Comm, Intell & Space Mobility Forces Guard & Reserve Forces Research and Development Central Supply & Maintenance Training, Medical, & Other Personnel Activities Administration and Associated Activities Support of Other Nations Special Operations Forces (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Procurement Military Construction Military Personnel Ops & Maintenance Other N A V Y D E F A G E N C I E S O T H E R DOD APPROPRIATIONS A I R F O R C E A R M Y RDT&E MAJOR FORCE PROGRAMS 18 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP)

19. Tab 5 – PPBE PROGRAM ELEMENT (PE): Smallest aggregation of resources normally controlled by OSD - PE NUMBER: Used to track and identify resources; seven digit number followed by an alphabetic suffix PROGRAM 2 ( GENERAL PURPOSE FORCES ) 0203752A - Aircraft Engine CIP 0204136N - F/A-18 Squadrons 0207163F - AMRAAM PROGRAM 3 ( C3, INTEL & Space) 0303158A - Joint Command and Control Program (JC2) 0307207N - Aerial Common Sensor (ACS) 0305164F - NAVSTAR GPS (User Equipment) A - ARMY N - NAVY M - MARINE F - AF D - OSD C - MDA E - DARPA J - JCS S - DLA BB - SOCOM DBD - DFAS A - ARMY N - NAVY M - MARINE F - AF D - OSD C - MDA E - DARPA J - JCS S - DLA BB - SOCOM DBD - DFAS Ref: DoD 7045.7 - H 19 Program Elements

20. Tab 5 – PPBE CIA – Central Intelligence Agency COCOM – Combatant Commander CPR – Chairman’s Program Recommendation DIA – Defense Intelligence Agency DPG – Defense Planning Guidance JCS – Joint Chiefs of Staff NDS – National Defense Strategy NMS – National Military Strategy NSS – National Security Strategy OSD – Office of the Secretary of Defense QDR – Quadrennial Defense Review SCMR – Strategic Choices and Management Review USD(P) – Undersecretary of Defense (Policy) APR/MAY PPBE – Planning Phase Lead by USD (P) President National Security Council CIA/DIA/JCS/OSD (JCS, COCOMs, SERVICES) NMS DPG NSS Planning Phase focus: Threat vs. Capabilities Update strategy Guidance for programming & budgeting NDS OSD Level JCS Level QDR FEB/MAR CPR Every 4 Years Guidance for POM/BES submission and OSD Integrated Program/Budget Review YEAR 1 YEAR 2 Elapsed Time: 15-16 Months 20

21. Tab 5 – PPBE PPBE – Program/Budget Submission/Review Components/ Defense Agencies BES PB MBI Adv Questions/ OSD/OMB Budget Hearings Yr 2 JUL SEP Year 3 JAN/FEB OCT Issue Resolution SECDEF/DEPSECDEF SLRG & DMAG POM OSD/ CAPE CPA DEC NOV JCS USD(C) & OMB BES – Budget Estimate Submission CAPE – Cost Assessment & Prgm Evaluation COCOM – Combatant Commander CPA – Chairman’s Program Assessment DMAG – Deputy’s Management Action Group FYDP – Future Years Defense Program MBI – Major Budget Issues OMB – Office of Management and Budget PB – President’s Budget POM – Program Objectives Memorandum RMD – Resource Management Decision SLRG – Senior Leader Review Group FYDP Update FYDP Update 3-Star Group Program Review focus: Compliance with DPG Issue Teams Budget Review focus: - Pricing - Phasing - Funding policies - Budget execution RMDs Services / PEO / PM Answer / Reclama DoD “Large Group” 21

22. Tab 5 – PPBE Mar 15 Fiscal Guidance Issued 6 -10 Jul 15 Component POM Briefs to 3-Stars 13 Jul 15 Component POM Submissions Due (Line item/PE level of detail) 5 Aug 15* Issue Nominations Due 17 Aug 15 Issue Nomination Disposition 17 Aug – 2 Nov 15 Program Review 8 Sep 15 BES due to OSD 11 Sep 15 Budget Justification Material due to OSD 11 Sep – 23 Nov 15 Budget Review 2 Nov 15 Programmatic RMDs 23 Nov 15 Budget RMDs 18 Dec 15 Budget Lock 1 Feb 16 President’s Budget Released Source: Joint CAPE & USD(C) memo dated 23 Mar 2015; *modified by 14 May 2015 joint memo 22 FY 17–21 Program/Budget Review Schedule

23. Tab 5 – PPBE FY 15 DJJFMAMJASONJJFMAMJASONDJJFMAMJASOND FY14 Cycle Execution FY 14 and prior FY15 Cycle Program/Budgeting Execution FY 16 Cycle FY17 Cycle Planning CY14CY15CY16 EnactmentExecution FY 15 and prior Enactment FY 17 Planning 2nd Yr 2nd Enactment FY18 Cycle 3rd Yr FY 16 and prior FY 17-21 DPG Exec FY17 & prior Planning Program/Budgeting PB – President’s Budget FY 16-20 DPG 23 Resource Allocation Process Overlap FY 18-22 DPG FY 17-21 POM FY 17 BES FY 16-20 POM FY 16 BES PB DPG – Defense Planning Guidance FY 18-22 POM FY 18 BES BES – Budget Estimate SubmissionPOM – Program Objectives Memorandum

24. Tab 5 – PPBE 24 Backups

25. Tab 5 – PPBE 25

26. ($B) $680 $665 $650 $635 $620 $605 $590 $575 $560 $545 $530 $515 $500 $485 $470 FY10FY11FY12FY13 FY 2012 PB FY 2017 PB FY14FY15FY16 PB13/QDR Original BCA Caps FY17FY18 FY 2014 PB Sequester-Level FY19FY20 SCMR FY21 FY 10-11-12 Actuals PB15/QDR PB 2014 SCMR PB1 7 DoD Budget Plans vs. BCA Caps Including BBA15 Original BCA Caps PB15/QDR/PB 16 26 C02-16-101_V9

27. Tab 5 – PPBE 27

28. Tab 5 – PPBE 28

29. Tab 5 – PPBE 29

30. Tab 5 – PPBE 30

31. Tab 5 – PPBE Service Shares (PB 16) Navy/MC 30% Air Force 29% Army 24% Modernization Accounts (Procurement and RDT&E) Procurement $108B (PB16) vs $90B (PB15) vs $107B (PB10) For the fight 10 years from now RDT&E $70B (PB16) vs $63B (PB15) vs $79B (PB10) For the fight 20 years from now (Acq programs in development) For the fight 30 years from now (Science and Technology efforts) $12B floor 31 FY 16 PB (cont.)

32. Tab 5 – PPBE Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Defense Acquisition System Three Major DoD Management Systems QDRQDR 32

33. Tab 5 – PPBE Secretary of Defense Deputy Secretary of Defense Secretary or Under Secretary of the Army Secretary or Under Secretary of the Navy Secretary or Under Secretary of Air Force Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Under Secretary of Defense (AT&L)* Under Secretary of Defense (Policy)* Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) /Chief Financial Officer* Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence)* Under Secretary of Defense (P&R)* Commandant or Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps Director of Administration and Management Chief or Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Chief or Vice Chief of Naval Operations Chief of Staff or Vice Chief of the Air Force General Counsel ASD (Legislative Affairs) ASD (Networks & Information Integration/Chief Information Officer ASD for Public Affairs Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Director, Joint Staff Deputy Chief Management Officer Chief, National Guard Bureau * Or Principal Deputy 33 Senior Leader Review Group AKA “The Large Group”

34. Tab 5 – PPBE 34

35. Tab 5 – PPBE 35

36. Tab 5 – PPBE 36

37. Tab 5 – PPBE 37 Better Buying Power 3.0 DRAFT Achieving Dominant Capabilities through Technical Excellence and Innovation Achieve Affordable Programs Continue to set and enforce affordability caps Achieve Dominant Capabilities While Controlling Lifecycle Costs Strengthen and expand “should cost” based cost management Build stronger partnerships between the acquisition, requirements, and intelligence communities Anticipate and plan for responsive and emerging threats Institutionalize stronger DoD level Long Range R&D Planning Incentivize Productivity in Industry and Government Align profitability more tightly with Department goals Employ appropriate contract types, but increase the use of incentive type contracts Expand the superior supplier incentive program across DoD Increase effective use of Performance-Based Logistics Remove barriers to commercial technology utilization Improve the return on investment in DoD laboratories Increase the productivity of IRAD and CR&D Incentivize Innovation in Industry and Government Increase the use of prototyping and experimentation Emphasize technology insertion and refresh in program planning Use Modular Open Systems Architecture to stimulate innovation Increase the return on Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Provide draft technical requirements to industry early and involve industry in funded concept definition to support requirements definition Provide clear “best value” definitions so industry can propose and DoD can choose wisely Eliminate Unproductive Processes and Bureaucracy Emphasize Acquisition Executive, Program Executive Officer and Program Manager responsibility, authority, and accountability Reduce cycle times while ensuring sound investments Streamline documentation requirements and staff reviews Promote Effective Competition Create and maintain competitive environments Improve technology search and outreach in global markets Improve Tradecraft in Acquisition of Services Increase small business participation, including more effective use of market research Strengthen contract management outside the normal acquisition chain Improve requirements definition Improve the effectiveness and productivity of contracted engineering and technical services Improve the Professionalism of the Total Acquisition Workforce Establish higher standards for key leadership positions Establish stronger professional qualification requirements for all acquisition specialties Strengthen organic engineering capabilities Ensure the DOD leadership for development programs is technically qualified to manage R&D activities Improve our leaders’ ability to understand and mitigate technical risk Increase DoD support for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education Continue Strengthening Our Culture of: Cost Consciousness, Professionalism, and Technical Excellence Created 27 Oct 14: Source: adapted from USD(AT&L) charts: http://bbp.dau.mil/docs/BBP_3.0_Presentation_Frank_Kendall_19_Sept_14.pdfhttp://bbp.dau.mil/docs/BBP_3.0_Presentation_Frank_Kendall_19_Sept_14.pdf

38. Tab 5 – PPBE 38 Affordability vs CRIs vs Should Cost Affordability Cost Reduction Initiatives Should Cost Should Cost applies to the Program of Record Should Cost should become the focus after MS B

39. Tab 5 – PPBE Contract Costs (recurring versus non-recurring) –Direct Labor Materials Other Direct Charges (ODC) –Indirect Overhead G&A Cost of Money Other Govt Costs –Govt testing –GFE –Program Office Support –Support Contractors –SE/TA Support –Other 39 Typical Cost Elements of a Program (Typical Largest Cost Drivers in Program Acquisition)

40. Tab 5 – PPBE BBP Guidance RoadmapBBP 2.0 Focus AreasBBP 3.0 Focus Areas Target Affordability and Control Cost Growth Achieve Affordable Programs Control Costs Throughout the Product Lifecycle Achieve Dominant Capabilities While Controlling Lifecycle Costs Incentivize Productivity & Innovation in Industry Incentivize Productivity and Innovation in Industry and Government Incentivize Productivity in Industry and Government Incentivize Innovation in Industry and Government Reduce Non-Productive Processes and Bureaucracy Eliminate Unproductive Processes and Bureaucracy Promote Real CompetitionPromote Effective Competition Improve Tradecraft in Services Acquisition Improve Tradecraft in Acquisition of Services Improve the Professionalism of the Total Acquisition Workforce 40 BBP Comparison [Aligned to 3.0 Draft]

41. Tab 5 – PPBE 41

42. Tab 5 – PPBE Chapter 3.2.1. -Affordability in the DoD Decision Support System –JCIDS – Balances cost vs performance in establishing KPPs –Milestone A – 10 U.S.C. 2366a – Congressional certification (for MDAPs) MDA certifies to Congress that a cost estimate has been submitted –After consultation with JROC –With Concurrence from D,CAPE PM must notify MDA between MS A and MS B, if –1. Projected cost of program exceeds the cost estimate by 25% OR –2. The time to reach IOC exceeds the scheduled duration by 25% The DAB considers affordability in the context of the capability portfolio and from a unit cost standpoint –Portfolio: Done by lead service in the context of all other weapons systems in the portfolio or mission area –Unit cost: Nominally the average unit acquisition cost* and average annual O&S cost per unit (* could be PAUC or APUC) Affordability targets are recorded in the MS A ADM 42 Affordability Defense Acquisition Guide (DAG), Oct 2012 (1/4)

43. Tab 5 – PPBE Milestone B – 10 U.S.C. 2366b – Congressional certification –Based on a business case analysis, MDA certifies to Congress: »The program is affordable »Trade-offs between C/S/P have been made »D,CAPE concurs with reasonable cost and schedule estimates »Funding is available in the FYDP 43 Affordability DAG (2/4)

44. Tab 5 – PPBE 3.2.2 Affordability Assessments –Projected annual funding – 4-step process Address acq and O&S funding, force structure, and manpower requirements FYDP +/- 12 years –Unit cost approach Compare unit cost of current program to unit cost of legacy system Use base year dollars 44 Affordability DAG (3/4)

45. Tab 5 – PPBE 3.2.3 Full Funding –At MS B, the most likely cost dollars and manpower needed to carry out the acquisition strategy are in the FYDP –For MDAPs, the MDA must certify this in the 2366b certification and D,CAPE must concur –MDAs should assess this for all major decision points for all acq programs NOTE: DODI (Interim) 5000.02, November 25, 2013 states that the DoD component will demonstrate that the program will be fully funded within the FYDP at MS A 45 Affordability DAG (4/4)

46. Tab 5 – PPBE DPPG (was GDF and JPG; now DPG for FY 13-17) One Budget Year (was two on the “on years”) –Makes this an annual budget cycle vs a biennial budget Focus on a 5-Year Period –Changed FY12-17 period to FY 12-16 DOD Conducting Front End Assessments –Eight issues with SecDef oversight via the “Large Group” –All other issues led by DepSecDef via the DAWG (now DMAG) NOTE: FY 13-17 PPBE Cycle had six issues 46 4 Major Changes in the FY 12-16 PPBE Cycle DepSecDef memo, dated 9 Apr 10

47. Tab 5 – PPBE 47 Defense Appropriations “Colors of Money” RDT&E PROC MILPERS O&M MILCON Military Personnel (MILPERS) Active & Reserve Forces Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Active & Reserve Forces (civilian Salaries, supplies, spares, fuels, travel, etc…) Environmental Restoration Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, & Civic Aid Procurement Aircraft Missiles Weapons Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles Ammunition Other Procurement Shipbuilding & Conversion Marine Corps Defense wide procurement National Guard & Reserves Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) Basic Research Applied Research Advanced Technology Development Advanced Component Development & Prototypes System Development & Demonstration RDT&E Management Support Operational Systems Development Military Construction (MILCON) Facilities Family Housing Base Realignment & Closure (BRAC) Other Defense Health Program Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Activities Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund Rapid Acquisition Fund Office of the Inspector General

48. Tab 5 – PPBE 48 Defense Topline Budget

49. Tab 5 – PPBE Life Cycle Cost ICE Fiscal Environment Cost Analysis Estimate Annual Funding Incremental Funding MFP PE BES Funding Policies Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution President’s Budget Commitment Reprogramming Budget Authority Obligation Expenditure Outlay Budget Execution Congressional Enactment Force Structure Modernization Operational Capability Readiness Sustainability POE CCA SAC SASC SBC HAC HASC HBC Operational Concept AoA Capabilities- Based Assessment Feedback CAIV Full Funding (Exceptions) FYDP DPG POM RMD Acquisition Program Baseline Budget Resolution Authorization & Appropriation Laws Capability Docs 49 FM Scope: From Requirement to Capability

50. Tab 5 – PPBE 3 Apr 14Fiscal Guidance Issued 2-12 Sep 14Component POM Briefs to 3-Star/DMAG 2 Sep 14Component POM Submissions Due (Databases Lock) 15 Sep 14Budget Justification Material Due to OSD/OMB (POM) 18 Sep 14Issue Nominations Due 29 Sep 14Issue Nomination Disposition 3 Oct 14 Refresh of BCA Cap (FY 16 Submission Due) Oct - Nov 14Program/Budget Review and Issue Team Analysis 19 Dec 14Budget Lock 2 Feb 15President’s Budget Released NOTE: This chart reflects the official OSD planned dates for these events Source: Joint CAPE & USD(C) memo dated 22 May 2014 50 FY 16–20 Program/Budget Review Schedule