Defense Acquisition System

Defense Acquisition System
Milestone B Through the Operations & Support (O&S) Phase Defense Acquisition System

Defense Acquisition System – 2015 DoDI 5000.02, 7 Jan 2015
Materiel Solution Analysis (MSA) Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction (TMRR) Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) Operations & Support (O&S) Production & Deployment (P&D) Materiel Development Decision (MDD) B C A CDD Validation RFP Release FRP Decision ICD draft CPD IOC FOC 5 Phases 3 Milestone Decisions – A, B, C 4 Other Decision Points: Materiel Development Decision (MDD), “Mandatory” Entry Capability Development Document (CDD) Validation Decision Development RFP Release Decision Full-Rate Production (FRP) Decision Acquisition programs use these models as a starting point in structuring a program to acquire a specific product. The structure of the program and the procedures used should be tailored as much as possible to the characteristics of the product being acquired, and to the totality of circumstances associated with the program including operational urgency and risk factors. Program Managers and Milestone Decision Authorities (MDAs) tailor program strategies and oversight, including program information, acquisition phase content, the timing and scope of decision reviews and decision levels, based on the specifics of the product being acquired, including complexity, risk factors, and required timelines to satisfy validated capability requirements. When there is a strong threat-based or operationally driven need to field a capability solution in the shortest time, MDAs are authorized to implement streamlined procedures designed to accelerate acquisition system responsiveness.

Milestone B Approves entry into the Engineering, Manufacturing and Development (EMD) Phase.

Milestone B Approval to Enter EMD
MDA Approves: Program Initiation, entry into Engineering & Manufacturing Development, with affordability caps AS, ADM and Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) quantities (final decision), includes advance procurement Event-based criteria for initiating production or making deployment decisions Program Determination (10 USC 2366b) Required Documentation: Updates to Acquisition Strategy, TEMP, SEP, PPP, LCSP Updated Cost Estimate CDD/Problem Statement; OMS/MP Full Funding Certification Memo Program Initiation (not “new start” - a financial term. Effort was a new start in PPBE when funding for MSA and TMRR phases were sought.) Acquisition Program Baseline (APB). A document prepared by the PM that reflects the threshold and objective values for the minimum number of cost, schedule, and performance attributes that describe the program over its life cycle. Discussed in more detail later in this lesson. Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Quantities: MDA makes an initial determination on LRIP quantities at the Development RFP Release decision point, and a final determination at Milestone B. A LRIP quantity for an ACAT I program that exceeds 10% of the total production quantity in the AS must be reported to Congress, with rationale, in the first SAR after quantity determination. Long Lead Production Items. Those components of a system or piece of equipment for which the times to design and fabricate are the longest, and therefore, to which an early commitment of funds may be desirable to ensure availability to complete the system by the earliest possible date. Exit Criteria. Program-specific accomplishments that must be satisfactorily demonstrated before a program can transition to the next acquisition phase. Documented in the ADM (discussed later). Program Determinations and Certifications (10 USC 2366b). A memorandum required by public law and signed at Milestone B by the Milestone Decision Authority for ACAT I programs. (see back-up charts) At MS B must again demonstrate fully funded in FYDP years—part of Milestone B certifications required by law for MDAPs. Requires a Validated Capability Development Document (CDD) [or IRB-approved Problem Statement]

DODI 5000.02 -- 7 Jan 15 Product-Tailored Acquisition Strategy Models
The Acquisition Strategy must demonstrate the preferred tailored acquisition approach Models may include: Model 1: Hardware Intensive Program Model 2: Defense-Unique Software Intensive Program Model 3: Incrementally Fielded Software Intensive Program Model 4: Accelerated Acquisition Program Model 5: Hybrid Program A (Hardware Dominant) Model 6: Hybrid Program B (Software Dominant) There are four (4) model acquisition program structures, and two examples of how to create a hybrid program structure by adapting or adding/deleting from the four basic models. These models capture the essence of the generic decision points and milestones but show how the overall program can be tailored as needed to match the realities of a given program technology strategy and business strategy. The old DODI (Dec 2008) already allowed, even expected tailoring and incremental capability delivery (Evolutionary Acquisition). However, this revised 2015 edition is more emphatic about each Milestone Decision Authority driving PMs to develop a tailored acquisition strategy and documentation approach in a thoughtful way to meet the needs of each program, within statutory limitations.

Model 1: Hardware Intensive Program
Capability Development Document (CDD) Validation Development Request for Proposals (RFP) Release Decision Full-Rate Production (FRP) Decision Initial Operational Capability (IOC) Full Operational Capability (FOC) Materiel Development Decision A B C Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) OT&E Sustainment Disposal Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Engineering & Manufacturing Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support The “classic” approach: requirements drive one final capability, complex, usually defense unique, hardware program that will be fully deployed Examples: Trucks Note: Program deploys with full capability described in the CDD

Model 2: Defense Unique Software Intensive Program
B A C Build 1.1 Build 1.2 Build 1.3 Build 1.4 Integration Build 0.1 Risk Reduction Build 2.1* Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Production & Deployment Engineering & Manufacturing Development Sustainment Disposal Materiel Development Decision Development RFP Release Decision CDD Validation IOC Full Deployment (FD) Full Deployment Decision (FDD) Build 1.5 Operations & Support Limited OT&E Complex, usually defense unique, software program that will not be fully deployed until several software builds have been completed Examples: command and control systems and significant upgrades to the combat systems found on major weapons systems such as surface combatants and tactical aircraft Note: Several software builds are typically necessary to achieve a deployable capability

Model 3: Incrementally Fielded Software Intensive Program
B A Materiel Development Decision Development RFP Release CDD Validation IOC Limited Deployment Decisions Materiel Solution Analysis Risk Reduction Development & Deployment Sustainment Build 0 Build OT&E Build 1.1 Build 1.2 . . . Full Deployment Decision (FDD) Full (FD) Operations & Support Build 1.n Operations & Support Increment 2 Development RFP Release Decision Limited Deployment Decisions IOC FD Development & Deployment Sustainment B FDD OT&E Build 2.1 Build 2.2 Build 2.n . . . Risk Reduction Full capability occurs in multiple increments as new capability is developed and delivered Examples: Business systems, upgrades to command and control systems or weapon systems Note: Caution can be structured so the program is overwhelmed with frequent milestones/ deployment decision points Increment N Development RFP Release Decision Limited Deployment Decisions FD Development & Deployment B OT&E Build n.1 Build n.2 IOC Operations & Support Build n.n . . . Sustainment Disposal Risk Reduction FDD Sometimes people try to equate to “Agile software development” which is: Evolving vision, Evolving requirements, Multiple “Sprints” and “Releases,” Feedback loop is essential Less about “increments” or “builds” and more about “sprints” of work which create a product (packets of software). Helps teams respond to unpredictability through incremental, iterative work cadences, known as sprints. Agile methodologies are an alternative to waterfall, or traditional sequential development. What is Scrum? The most popular way of introducing Agility due to its simplicity and flexibility. Because of this popularity, many organizations claim to be “doing Scrum” but aren’t doing anything close to Scrum’s actual definition. Scrum emphasizes empirical feedback, team self management, and striving to build properly tested product increments within short iterations. Agile development methodology provides opportunities to assess the direction of a project throughout the development lifecycle. Achieved through regular cadences of work, known as sprints or iterations, at the end of which teams must present a potentially shippable product increment. Focusing on the repetition of abbreviated work cycles as well as the functional product they yield, agile methodology is described as “iterative” and “incremental.” In waterfall, development teams only have one chance to get each aspect of a project right. In an agile paradigm, every aspect of development — requirements, design, etc. — is continually revisited throughout the lifecycle. When a team stops and re-evaluates the direction of a project every two weeks, there’s always time to steer it in another direction.

Model 4: Accelerated Acquisition Program
A/B C Materiel Solution Analysis Sustainment Disposal Materiel Development Decision Preliminary Design Review IOC FOC Concurrent Technology Maturation, Risk Reduction, and Development Concurrent Production and Deployment OT&E Operations & Support Applies when schedule considerations dominate over cost and technical risk considerations. Compresses or eliminates phases of the process and accepts potential inefficiencies Examples: Quick reaction programs, MRAP or bunker buster bomb Note: Used when technological surprise by a potential adversary necessitates a higher risk acquisition program. Mature technology supports rapid acquisition considerations DoDI , Rapid Fulfillment of Combatant Commander Urgent Operational Needs Establishes the Warfighter Senior Integration Group (SIG) as a standing DoD-wide forum and establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides direction to facilitate the rapid delivery of capabilities in response to UONs, consistent with all applicable laws and governing regulations. Reference: DoDI , Enclosure 13, DoDD , and DoDI (IT systems)

Model 5: Hybrid Program A (Hardware Dominant)
C Build 1.1 Build 1.2 Build 1.3 Build 1.4 Integration Build 0.1 Risk Reduction Build 2.1 Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Production & Deployment Engineering & Manufacturing Development Sustainment Disposal Materiel Development Decision Development RFP Release CDD Validation IOC FOC FRP Build 1.5 Operations & Support LRIP OT&E Build 3.1 Build 3.2* Combines hardware development as the basic structure with software intensive development occurring simultaneously Examples: F-22 Note: Design, fabrication, and testing of physical prototypes may determine overall schedule, decision points, and milestones, but software development will often dictate the organization, pace of test and program execution

Model 6: Hybrid Program B (Software Dominant)
Development RFP Release CDD Validation B A C Build 1.1.1 Build 1.1.2 Build 1.0.1 Integration Build 1.1.3 Build 1.2 Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Production and Deployment Engineering & Manufacturing Development Sustainment Materiel Development Decision IOC FD FDD Build 1.3.1 Build 1.3.2* Limited Deployment LD) Operations & Support OT&E Operations & Support Increment 2 Development RFP Release Decision FDD IOC FD B OT&E Build 2.1.1 Build 2.1.2 Build 2.3.1 Sustainment Disposal C LD Build 2.3.2 Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Engineering & Manufacturing Development Production and Deployment Build 2.1.3 Build 2.2 Integration Includes a mix of incrementally fielded software products or releases that include intermediate software builds Examples: GPS Control Segment Note: Configuration control and recurring training may drive effectiveness

The Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase answers:
Does the CDD or Problem Statement accurately reflect the capability gap? Does the solution design fill the gap? Can the materiel solution be produced? BOTTOM LINE: Does the design solution address/solve the capability gap?

Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase
Purpose: Develop, build and test a product to verify all operational and derived requirements are met Support production and deployment decisions Major Events: Design Reviews (only CDR is required; PDR also if PDR prior to Milestone B was waived) Developmental Test & Evaluation (DT&E) / Operational Assessments (OAs) Independent Logistics Assessments (ILAs) Capability Production Document (CPD) Validation Production and Deployment RFP release and source selection Guided by: Acquisition Strategy, MS B ADM and APB, validated CDD/Problem Statement, and other planning documents (PPP, SEP, LCSP, TEMP) Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E). Discussed more later. Independent Logistic Assessment (ILA). Discussed more later Operational Assessments (OAs). Discussed more later Critical Design Review (CDR). The CDR provides evidence that the system, down to the lowest system element level, has a reasonable expectation of satisfying the requirements of the system performance specification as derived from the CDD within current cost and schedule constraints. CDR is discussed in more detail later in this lesson. Test Readiness Review (TRR). conducted to determine if the system under review is ready to proceed into formal testing by deciding whether the test procedures are complete and verify their compliance with test plans and descriptions. Normally conducted before each major test configuration item including hardware and software and provides management with the assurance that a system has undergone a thorough test process and is ready for turnover to the next test phase. System Verification Review (SVR). a product/process assessment to ensure the system under review can proceed into LRIP and FRP within cost, schedule, risk, and other system constraints during the EMD Phase. It assesses the system functionality and determines if it meets the functional requirements in the CDD and draft CPD documented in the functional baseline. Establishes and verifies final product performance and provides inputs to the CPD. The SVR is often conducted concurrently with the PRR and FCA Production Readiness Review (PRR). Assesses a program to determine if the design is ready for production. It assesses if the prime contractor and major subcontractors have accomplished adequate production planning without incurring unacceptable risks that will breach thresholds of schedule, performance, cost, or other established criteria.

EMD Phase Major Activities
PM completes hardware/software detailed design of an integrated system, RM supports PM demonstrates design through appropriate development test & evaluation and assessments, RM supports these activities PM aligns technology, manufacturing and sustainment readiness to support production and deployment PM develops system product support attributes, RM supports PM completes Critical Design Review(s) RM validated CPD to support Production and Deployment activities PM completes draft RFP review to support P&D PM conducts program tracking through acquisition reporting

EMD Phase Complete Hardware/Software Design
Purpose: retires risk; builds prototypes or first articles to verify compliance with capability requirements; and prepares for production and deployment Outcome: A stable design that meets validated capability requirements, verification of the ability to achieve KPPs, KSAs and APAs Design is demonstrated by Developmental Testing and Evaluation (DT&E) and Assessments (OAs/ILAs) Manufacturing capability/processes are available, effectively demonstrated and under control Answers: Is there an actual design that meets the desired requirements? Concurrency between EMD and production: Concurrency can reduce lead time to field a system, but also can increase risk of design changes after production has started. An acceptable level of concurrency risk can be determined based on testing of EMD prototypes – that the design is stable and there will not be significant changes following Milestone C. An essential consideration in the design includes the program protection attributes: Documented in the Program Protection Plan Summary of any potential plans for or existing foreign cooperative development or foreign sales of the system Applicable TSFD processes that will provide guidance for this system Whether previous generations of the system have been sold to foreign partners How export requirements will be addressed if foreign customers is identified Whether program is, or is a viable candidate to be selected to be an OUSD(AT&L) Defense Exportability Features (DEF) pilot program, and the results of any DEF studies if already conducted Note: EMD may continue past initial production or fielding decisions until all activities are completed and all requirements tested and verified. Known as “concurrency”

EMD Phase Development Test & Evaluation
Developmental Test & Evaluation (DT&E): Uses EMD representative assets Confirms product’s compliance with the contract through first article, qualification, reliability, supportability, mission oriented testing, etc. Verifies designs ability to provide effective combat capability by engaging testing and mission oriented metrics Initiate interoperability testing to support later validation of the Net- Ready KPP in concert with Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC) Validation, Verification and Accreditation of models and simulations Provides evidence for the completion of the CDR Supports entering Low-Rate Initial Production or Limited Deployment Developmental Testing Any engineering-type test designed to mature a system’s design and measure its technical progress Assist Program Manager in system development At OSD, responsibility of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Developmental Test and Evaluation) Mission Oriented Metrics: Typically, most system requirements are mostly technical in nature While important, technically expressed requirements do not adequately capture actual mission of the systems KPPs should: Provide a measure of mission accomplishment Lend themselves to good test design Capture reasons for procuring a system Suggested metrics for KPPs should: Should be quantitative and mission oriented Lend themselves to efficient test design Encapsulate the reason for procuring the system Accurately represent the desired operational performance of the system

EMD Phase Assessments Operational Assessments (OAs):
Based on CONOPs/OMS/MP/Use Cases Conducted before initial production units are available Incorporates substantial operational realism (mission oriented testing) At least one OA is required to support Milestone C Assesses Critical Operational Issues (COIs) May be combined with training events or exercises Supports completion of the Critical Design Review Supports entering Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) or Limited Deployment (LD) Conducted by the Service OTAs; test plan approved by the Director of Operational Testing (DOT&E) for OSD T&E Oversight programs Conducted by the Component operational test organization. May take the form of independent evaluation of developmental test results or of separate dedicated test events such as Limited User Tests. OTAs: Operational Tet Agency Operational Testing Consider Operational effectiveness as the “overall degree of mission success of a properly trained and manned unit equipped with a system when employed in the operationally realistic environment planned for its use.” Determines operational Effectiveness, Suitability, and Survivability Responsibility of Director, Operational Test and Evaluation Live Fire Test and Evaluation Determine Lethality and Survivability for “Covered” Systems Under Realistic Combat Conditions Against Actual Threats (Title 10 USC § 2366) ACAT I or II programs that include features designed to provide protection to the crew Conventional munitions or missile program; ACAT I or II, or > 1M rounds A modification to a covered system that is likely to affect significantly the survivability or lethality of such a system Critical Operational Issues (COI): are the operational effectiveness and operational suitability issues (not parameters, objectives, or thresholds) that must be examined to evaluate/assess the system’s capability to perform its mission. Not all operational issues are critical. COIs must be relevant to the required capabilities for a system to be operationally effective and suitable and represent a significant risk if not satisfactorily resolved. COIs must be examined and related to Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) and Measures of Suitability (MOS), and are included in the Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP).

EMD Phase Assessments (Cont.)
Independent Logistics Assessments (ILAs): CAE chartered Conducted by experts from outside the program office Focus on the weapon system-level product support performance in satisfying warfighter needs and meeting sustainment metrics Focuses on the twelve integrated product support elements Specifically assess O&S costs to: Identify and address factors resulting cost growth Adapt strategies to reduce such costs Supports entering LRIP or LD Assess the adequacy of the product support strategy, and identify features likely to drive future operating and support costs, changes to system design that could reduce costs, and effective strategies for managing such costs. Include the twelve IPS Elements

Requirements Manager’s Role to Optimize Test & Evaluation
Participate in T&E WIPT at Pentagon level and T&E IPT at PM level Ensure KPPs, KSAs and APAs are measurable and testable Ensure CONOPS/OMS/MP or Use Cases are current and realistic Review COIs for the TEMP Monitor DT&E/OA and interoperability test activities; obtain test reports – review CDD/CPD against test results

EMD Phase Technology, Manufacturing & Sustainment Maturity
Purpose: Support development of new technology for solution development and ensure processes are in place to manufacture and sustain it Outcome: Engage the Requirements, Acquisition and S&T communities into a common awareness of the solution Reduce risk and increase opportunities in successfully delivering a capability Bridge the gap between research and delivered capability The product support strategy is determined sufficiently mature to move toward deployment Technology and Manufacturing Readiness Assessments support CPD development Answers: Is the technical, manufacturing and sustainment maturity at a level ready to move into production and deployment? “Critical technologies” are those that may pose major technological risk during development, particularly during the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase

Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA)
Begins in MSA Phase: Technology risk is assessed against the ability to deliver the desired capability Documented in the AS and SEP By End of TMRR Phase, technology maturity is demonstrated sufficiently to verify development risk is at an acceptable Level During EMD Phase, maturity of technology is assessed to ensure it meets stated requirements and it can be manufactured Prior to a Production Decision, technology maturity risks must be acceptable, including any new technology insertion considerations TRA results support the Capability Production Document (CDD/CPD) Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) serve as a common definition for evaluating technology maturity Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) is a systematic, metrics-based process that assesses the maturity of, and the risk associated with, critical technologies to be used in MDAPs. It is conducted by the PM with the assistance of an independent team of subject matter experts (SMEs). Focuses on the program’s “critical” technologies (i.e., those that may pose major technological risk during development, particularly during the EMD phase of acquisition). Required prior to Milestone B to determine if critical technologies are at least TRL 6. Services may require TRAs at other points in the acquisition process. TRA results for ACAT I programs must be submitted to the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Research and Engineering) (ASD R&E). Key players in the TRA process are as follows: The PM, the Component S&T Executive, and the CAE are the principal stakeholders for the Component conducting the TRA. The PM funds, schedules, and conducts the TRA. The PM identifies critical technologies for consideration during the TRA. The ASD (R&E) has responsibility for reviewing and evaluating the TRA for the OSD for ACAT I programs to support statutory MS B Certification. Component policy applies for ACAT II and below. TRAs are not required for MAIS programs, and are not required for MS A, C or FRPDR. However, CAEs are responsible to ensure the appropriate level of technology maturity for production. TRA Results are Included in the CDD/CPD

Manufacturing Readiness Assessment (MRA)
Begins in MSA Phase, manufacturing readiness and risk are assessed and documented in the SEP By End of TMRR Phase, manufacturing processes is demonstrated to the extent needed to verify risk is at an acceptable Level During EMD Phase, maturity of critical manufacturing processes will be assessed to ensure they are affordable and executable Prior to a Production Decision, manufacturing risks must be acceptable, supplier qualifications completed, and manufacturing processes are or will be under statistical process control MRA results support the Capability Production Document (CDD/CPD) Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs) serve as a common definition for evaluating manufacturing maturity Manufacturing Readiness is the ability to harness the manufacturing, production, Quality Assurance, and industrial functions to achieve an operational capability that satisfies mission needs; in the quantity and quality needed by the military to carry out its missions.

Independent Logistics Assessment (ILA)
Begins in MSA Phase, sustainment readiness and risk are assessed, supportability objectives and KPP/KSA requirements defined By End of TMRR Phase, maintenance concepts and sustainment strategy complete; LSCP approved During EMD Phase, support features embedded in design, support capabilities demonstrated, and SCM approach validated During P&D Phase, product support package demonstrated in operational environment, performance measures in place ILA results support the Capability Production Document (CDD/CPD) Sustainment Maturity Levels (SMLs) serve as a common definition for evaluating sustainment maturity (new concept) Sustainment Maturity Levels (SMLs) where introduced in the 2016 PSM Guide. TRLs and MRLs have been around for 20 to 30 years Sustainment Readiness Levels, PSM Guidebook, April 2016

CDR is mandatory for MDAPs (ACAT I).
EMD Phase Conduct CDR CDR is mandatory for MDAPs (ACAT I). Purpose: Provide evidence the system can satisfy performance specifications as derived from the CDD, within cost and schedule constraints Outcome: Establishes the initial “Product Baseline” – the detailed design for production, fielding/deployment, and operations and support A system engineered design solution meets performance and product support attributes within cost and schedule constraints Typically a series of sub-system reviews leading to a final system-level review CDRs are conducted on each candidate design The post-CDR assessment is conducted and provided to the MDA at MS C Answers: Does the design fill the stated capability gap? Product Baseline: Documentation describing all of the necessary functional and physical characteristics of the Configuration Item (CI); the selected functional and physical characteristics designated for production acceptance testing; and tests necessary for deployment/installation, operation, support, training, and disposal of the CI. The initial product baseline is usually established and put under configuration control at each CI’s Critical Design Review (CDR), culminating in an initial product baseline at the system-level Critical Design Review (CDR). The system product baseline is finalized and validated at the Physical Configuration Audit (PCA).

EMD Phase System Engineering “Linkages”
CONOPS CDD or Problem Statement OMS/MP or Use Cases DODAF OV-1/SV-1 Evidence Contract PPBE SEP TEMP LCSP PPP RFP Acquisition Strategy CDR Dev T&E Results Op Assessments Producible Performance Certification Supportable System Specification Interface Control Documents Product Specifications Technical Measures Example: A new ship class is being developed its mission: to defend the battle group from surface to surface missiles. The concept of operations: defense in depth, this new ship will defend the battlegroup against all Surface to Surface missiles as the first line of defense and then every ship will have the self defense capability to destroy any leakers. A Measure of Effectiveness can be established in this case: it’s called Probability of Kill with a value of 90%. So the self defense system must have a probability of kill of 90% if the probability of Survival is to be 99% for a single missile attack. Fast Forward thru a SRR, SFR, and PDR. The SE Process analyzes all of the operational requirements and derives TPM’s. Examples in this case would be Detect a 1 sq meter target at 20 Miles. Track by 18 NM, Challenge with IFF by 16 NM Engage By 15 NM for an intercept by 7 NM Kill Eval by 5 NM to enable re-engage with SD by 4 NM. Each of these TPMs would have a derived probability that need to go in the CDD and lower level specifications. Additional requirements such as the search radar must have a height above the waterline of 100 feet to detect a 1Sq Meter Target at 20 NM. The SE process develops the technical requirements and then develops a system design to satisfy the requirements with in the constraints of cost, schedule and manufacturing capability. A design that must be testable and prove to the user and OTA that the system is operationally effective and operationally suitable. Type of Contract. Must be consistent with program risk. Conditionally determined at the Development RFP Release Decision, and confirmed at Milestone B. The type can dictate how RMs interact with contractors A Fixed Price contract provides for a firm price to the government or, in appropriate cases, an adjustable price. A Cost Reimbursement provides for payment to the contractor of allowable costs incurred in the performance of the contract, to the extent prescribed in the contract. Fixed price contracts for EMD of an ACAT I are required (Public Law ) unless the MDA makes a written determination that it is not practicable to reduce program risk to a level that permits the use of a Fixed Price contract.

Engage on cost and performance trades with the PM and SE community
Requirements Manager’s Role to Optimize System Engineering Engage SE during the development of performance attributes for the CDD, CPD, Problem Statement, CONOPS, OMS/MP, and Use Cases Lead Requirements IPT and ensure active SE participation (Contractor Reps After Contract Award) Engage on cost and performance trades with the PM and SE community Attend technical reviews to explain operational requirements Note: Word of caution, contract type matters

EMD Phase Product Support “Linkages”
Foundation laid in the Intellectual Property Strategy Key to the configuration management approach Drives the Product Support Strategy One Size Does Not Fit All…

EMD Phase Product Support Strategies
Engineering Repairs Spares Transactional Based Traditional Strategy Outcome Based Availability Reliability Mission Effectiveness …at an affordable cost PBL Strategy Product Support Manager Traditional Strategy DoD is required to: Forecast Requirements Specify Buy Quantities Pay for each on a Unit Price basis Assume all risk for: right parts, right repairs, right time and right quantities Generally multiple contracts for shorter durations Provider sells more to make more PBL Strategy Specify Performance Outcomes Provider motivated to: Improve Reliability Improve Repair Processes Because…. They are now required to: Make Buy Decisions Generally one contract for longer duration Potential to make more despite fewer transactions

EMD Phase Product Support Policy/Statute
Core: Logistics capability required to perform maintenance and support of mission-essential equipment (Title 10, Section 2464) 50/50: Restricts use of non-federal government workers performing depot level maintenance and repair to 50% of allocated funding* (Title 10, Section 2466) Competition: Mandates public/private competition or merit- based selection for existing depot level work valued at > $3M (Title 10, Section 2469) CITE: authorizes/encourages organic repair depots partnering with Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence (CITE), enables depot activities to become formal subcontractors (Title 10, Section 2474) Public Law – Source of repair analysis 10 USC 2474 – Public-Private Partnerships Core - DoD must maintain core logistics capability to perform maintenance and support of mission-essential equipment (Title 10, Section 2464). 50/50 - Not more than 50 percent of the funds available to a military DoD agency in a fiscal year for depot-level maintenance and repair workload may be used to contract for performance of this workload by nonfederal government personnel (Title 10, Section 2466). Competition - Existing depot-level maintenance or repair workload valued at $3 million or more must be neither contracted out nor moved to another depot-level activity without using public and private competition procedures or merit-based selection procedures (Title 10, Section 2469). CITE - Center of Industrial and Technical Excellence (CITE) Service Secretaries designate each depot activity and arsenal as a Center of Industrial and Technical Excellence (CITE) in their core competencies Authorizes and encourages Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) with CITE. CITE-enabled public-private partnerships (PPP) allow Employees of Center, private industry, and others to perform work related to core competencies Private industry and others to use facilities or equipment of the Center that are not fully utilized Enables depot activities to serve as subcontractors to commercial Product Support Integrators (PSI) Work performed at a CITE by a contractor as part of a PPP is not counted towards the 10 U.S.C % limitation * Reported at the Service level, not program

Requirements Manager’s Role to Optimize Product Support
Engage PSM to help craft expectations for Product Support Arrangements Understand the impact of the intellectual property strategy to the configuration items and support strategy Ensure CDD & CPD contents include: Sustainment KPP, supporting KSAs and APAs Energy efficiency KPP (if appropriate) Description of key logistics criteria: reliability, maintainability, transportability, supportability to reduce logistics footprint Cost of sustaining system in affordability section Develop RAM-C Report with PM for the SEP, summary attached to CDD/CPD Ensure feedback from fielded increments focuses product support actions

Acquisition Reporting
Purpose: Provides DoD and Congressional leadership insight into progress made IAW MDAP and MAIS program direction Outcome: MDA signed ADM documenting decisions and any specific direction expected of the program manager MDA signed APB establishing the program cost, schedule and performance contract (includes KPPs, KSAs and APAs) A Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) providing a comprehensive summary of a MDAP program; MAIS Annual Report (MAR) for MAIS programs Based on exceeding set program limits, Congressional breach reporting and certification Answers: Is the program on track to successfully deliver the desired capability? SAR: includes the status of the total program cost, schedule, and performance, as well as program unit cost and unit cost breach information. It also includes a full life-cycle cost analysis of the program and all its increments. The Defense Acquisition Management Information Retrieval (DAMIR) application is the repository for acquisition documentation. The annual SAR is mandatory for all ACAT I programs, until they are 90% delivered or expended. The PM will submit quarterly exception SARs for the quarters ending March 31, June 30, and September 30, Congress must receive them not later than 45 days after the quarter ends. Quarterly SAR are report on an exception basis as follows: The current estimate exceeds the Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) objective or the Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) objective of the currently approved APB in base-year dollars by 15 percent or more; The current estimate includes a 6-month or greater delay, for any schedule parameter, that occurred since the current estimate reported in the previous SAR; MS B or MS C approval occurs within the reportable quarter. Quarterly exception SARs will report the current estimate of the program for cost, schedule, and performance.

Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM)
Documents the MDA decisions at each Milestone or Decision Points Identifies specific exit criteria required for a Milestone or Decision Point: Test accomplishments, technical achievements, and risk reduction Identifies specific guidance required for a Milestone or Decision Point: Long lead procurement, LRIP qualities, etc. Affordability and FYDP funding requirements, contract incentive expectations, etc. Specific technical event-based criteria for initiating production or fielding are addressed: Authorizes long lead production quantities Authorizes limited or full deployment expectations for select units Validates funding profile Documents the decisions made by the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) during a Milestone Decision Review The formal justification that allows a program to proceed into the next acquisition phase. Lists the tasks that have to be completed during an acquisition phase and the responsible agent for those tasks. Exit Criteria are documented in the ADM. Exit Criteria. Program-specific accomplishments that must be satisfactorily demonstrated before a program can transition to the next acquisition phase. Normally selected to track progress in important technical, schedule, or management risk areas. Serve as gates that, when successfully passed or exited, demonstrate that the program is on track to achieve its final program goals. Some level of demonstrated performance outcome (e.g., level of engine thrust), the accomplishment of some process at some level of efficiency (e.g., manufacturing yield), or successful accomplishment of some event (e.g., first flight). Program specific (e.g., attain 1stflight prior to MS C; to demonstrate producibility and/or yields prior to MS C). Recommend Requirements Managers read this document

Acquisition Program Baseline (APB)
Established at Milestone B The cost, schedule, performance “contract” between PM, PEO and MDA PM is free to manage program within APB constraints Includes stated KPPs, KSAs and APAs Deviations (breaches) of APB thresholds, immediately reported to the MDA Default (but adjustable) threshold values for an APB are: Schedule: Objective schedule value (date of event) + 6 months = APB threshold date Cost: Objective cost value (cost estimate) + 10% = APB cost threshold Performance: Performance (KPP/other) threshold value = APB performance threshold For MDAPs both “Original” and “Current” APBs are maintained The APB is required by 10 USC 2435 for ACAT I programs and by DoDI for all ACATs. Prepared by the PM in coordination with the user/sponsor, and approved by the PEO and the MDA. It documents program goals for approval at program initiation. Once requirements and the product definition are firm (prior to Milestone B), affordability caps are established and documented in the APB, (essentially treated as KPPs). The difference between threshold and objective values is called “trade space”. The PM is responsible for managing the trade space within cost, schedule, and performance. Performance objective values represent the desired operational goal associated with a performance attribute beyond which any gain in utility does not warrant additional expenditure. An objective value may be the same as the threshold when an operationally significant increment above the threshold is not useful. Performance thresholds represent the minimum acceptable operational. A performance threshold represents either a minimum or maximum acceptable value, while for schedule and cost, thresholds would normally represent maximum allowable values. The failure to attain program thresholds, places the overall affordability of the program and/or the capability provided by the system into question. Both “Original” and “Current” APBs are maintained: Original APB: the first APB approved at Milestone B Current APB: the original APB until revised as a result of a milestone review, or recovery from a critical breach The content of an APB includes: Executive Summary, Program Overview, Program Cost, Program Schedule, KPPs (Threshold and Objectives), KSA (Threshold and Objectives), MDA approval for entry into the EMD Phase, Technical Baseline, and Configuration Baseline Recommend Requirements Managers read this document

Most Common Breaches MDAP (10 USC 2433) MAIS (10 USC 2445a)
“Nunn-McCurdy” Based on “cost” Service Secretary or “Component Head” reports for both “significant” and “critical” breaches* Also submits an out of cycle SAR AT&L certifies only for “critical breaches” based on five criteria MAIS (10 USC 2445a) “Critical Change” Based on “cost, schedule, or performance” Service Secretary or “Component Head” reports for both “a Significant Change” and “a Critical Change”* Also submits and out of cycle MAR AT&L certifies only for “Critical Change” based on four criteria Assure the learners are provided a “Breach Card” * “Significant” and “critical” have different meanings for MDAP and MAIS programs

Breach Certification Criteria
“Nunn-McCurdy” Certification Criteria The continuation of the program is essential to the national security There are no alternatives to the program which will provide acceptable capability to meet the joint military requirement at less cost The new estimates for the PAUC or APUC have been determined by the Director, CAPE to be reasonable (For MAIS: cost, schedule, and performance concurred by Director, CAPE) The program is a higher priority than programs whose funding must be reduced to accommodate the growth in the cost of the program The management structure for the program is adequate to manage and control PAUC or APUC “Critical Change” Certification Criteria The automated information system or information technology to be acquired is essential to the national security or to the efficient management of the DoD There is no alternative to the system or information technology investment which will provide equal or greater capability at less cost The new estimates for the costs, schedule, and performance parameters with respect to the program or system or information technology investment, as applicable, have been determined, with concurrence of the Director, CAPE to be reasonable The management structure for the program is adequate to manage and control program costs Assure the learners are provided a “Breach Card” “Critical Change” involvement by the RM depends on the source of the requirements for the automated information system, information technology, business systems, etc. Nunn-McCurdy: the RM supports Critical Change: the RM may support

Requirements Managers Role in the EMD Phase
Participate in Program Management Office (PMO) activities: Attend Milestone B prepared to explain/justify warfighter’s requirements Help Program Manager (PM) prepare for MS C Attend CDR prepared to explain/justify warfighter OMS/MP or Use Cases Update RAM-C Report (with PM) Observe/review testing (Developmental, Operational, Live Fire, Interoperability) Ensure all CDD performance attributes are “testable” Review and update performance attributes based on results of testing, paying attention to evolving insight on affordability Help develop/update Critical Operational Issues (COI) for TEMP Finalize CPD, Problem Statement, CONOPS and OMS/MP (or Use Cases) prior to Milestone C Big role for requirements manager in EMD. Generally, bullets refer to the requirements managers out in the commands who work directly with the PM, not the requirements managers at Pentagon HQ level. NOTE: RAM-C report attached to SEP at Milestones B and C.

Approves entry into the Production and Deployment Phase.
Milestone C Approves entry into the Production and Deployment Phase.

Milestone C Approval to Enter Production & Deployment
MDA Decisions: Updated AS, ADM [and APB if KPPs changed] Entry into LRIP [as applicable] or Production [for systems that do not require LRIP], or Limited Deployment [for MAIS programs or software intensive Systems with no Production Components] Required Documentation: Updates to Acquisition Strategy, TEMP, SEP, PPP, LCSP Updated Cost Estimate CPD or updated Problem Statement; OMS/MP Full Funding Certification Memo Backup chart shows all the program documentation required at Milestone C. Authorizes entry into Production & Deployment (note: LRIP is production). Exit criteria for LRIP may be related to some area of technology risk during EMD that needs engineering attention during LRIP to ensure operational performance is demonstrated at threshold values during IOT&E. ICD and/or CDD may be waived in cases where potential programs are best served by proceeding directly to MS C, such as for GOTS/COTS solutions, transitioning UONs/JUONs, successful JCTDs, etc. The Gatekeeper is the approval authority for ICD and CDD waiver requests. Requires approved Capability Production Document (CPD) or updated Problem Statement

Milestone C Review Program reviewed for entrance into the Production and Deployment Phase (or Limited Deployment for software intensive systems) PM provides: Updated Acquisition Strategy Production rates; including an industrial base assessment Should Cost Targets Required updated program documents: SEP, TEMP, PPP, LCSP, etc., refer to DoDI , Enclosure 1, Table 2 RM provides: A validated CPD, or equivalent requirements document Confirm the validated threat environments Approval depends on: Specific criteria defined at Milestone B (exit criteria for EMD) Updated and approved Acquisition Strategy Performance in DT&E and Operational Assessments Mature software capability No significant manufacturing risks Validated Capability Production Document (CPD) Demonstrated interoperability Demonstrated operational supportability Costs within affordability caps Full Funding in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) Properly phased production ramp-up and/or fielding support

Milestone C Review Lead Component provides:
Affordability updates Director, CAPE (for MDAP/MAIS)* provides: Updated Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) MDA provides: Signed ADM * Component equivalent for non-major programs

The Production and Deployment (P&D) Phase answers:
Does the CPD or Problem Statement accurately reflect the capability requirement? Are the tactics, techniques and procedures staying current with the delivery plans? Does it appear the capability development can meet the need date? Is the product support strategy ready for implementation? Does the program still appear affordable? BOTTOM LINE: Is the system sufficient or is further development needed?

Production and Deployment (P&D) Phase
Purpose: To produce and deliver requirements- compliant products to receiving military organizations Major Events Production and Test Readiness Reviews IOT&E/LFT&E FRP/FD decision Production RFP Release Guided by: Acquisition Strategy, MS C ADM, sponsor-approved CPD/Problem Statement and other planning documents (PPP, SEP, LCSP, TEMP) PCA. Physical Configuration Audit - examines the actual configuration of an item being produced and is conducted around the time of the Full-Rate Production Decision. It verifies that the related design documentation matches the Configuration Item (CI) as specified in the contract and confirms that the manufacturing processes, quality control system, measurement and test equipment, and training are adequately planned, tracked, and controlled. OTRR. Operational Test Readiness Review - assess if a system should proceed into Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E). The review addresses and verifies system reliability, maintainability, and supportability performance and determines if the hazards and Environmental, Safety, Occupational and Health (ESOH) residual risks are manageable within the planned testing operations. PRR. Production Readiness Review - assesses a program to determine if the design is ready for production. It assesses if the prime contractor and major subcontractors have accomplished adequate production planning without incurring unacceptable risks that will breach thresholds of schedule, performance, cost, or other established criteria.

P&D Phase Major Activities
PM executes Low-rate Initial Production and Limited Deployment RM supports Operational Test and Evaluation DOT&E completes Beyond LRIP Report* PM ensures Limited Deployment (LD) for software intensive systems PM establishes the Product Support Capability PM executes Full-rate Production and Full Deployment; RM supports PM conducts product support draft RFP review C FRP/ FD Production and Deployment PCA OTRR CPD PRR Sustainment RFP Release Production RFP Release Generic requirements to enter and leave (exit) each phase are in DoDI Note the activities, and importance of JCIDS document (CPD) to guide this phase. [Business systems used a Problem Statement, which matures over the course of this analysis phase.] CPD/Problem Statement is needed to assist in determining the technical requirements for the production and sustainment Phase contracts. * DoDI calls it “DOT&E Report on IOT&E”

P&D Phase Low-Rate Initial Production
Purpose: Establishes the initial production baseline for the system Outcome: Provides test articles for Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) Provides an efficient ramp-up to Full Rate Production Maintains continuity in production pending completion of IOT&E The system is demonstrated as ready for production Answers: What is the LRIP quantity and configuration? Test & Evaluation During LRIP Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E): Typical users or units will operate and maintain the system under conditions simulating combat stress and peacetime conditions Interoperability Test and Certification: Information Technology and National Security Systems undergo joint interoperability testing and evaluation for certification by JITC prior to fielding Live Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT&E): Assesses lethality of missiles and munitions, and vulnerability of the system and crew to threat weapons Unless waived by the MDA, critical deficiencies identified in testing will be resolved prior to proceeding beyond LRIP or limited deployment. Remedial action will be verified in follow-on test and evaluation (FOT&E).

P&D Phase Operational Test & Evaluation
Purpose: Ensure that a properly trained and equipped unit can successful accomplish the assigned mission with the designed system Outcome: Initial Operational Test & Evaluation (IOT&E) Completion of the DOT&E Report on IOT&E (Beyond LRIP Report) Systems demonstrates it is operationally effective, suitable and survivable Follow-on Test & Evaluation (FOT&E) Based previously identified deficiencies, confirm the final configuration meets the desired capability A plan is established to test system modification through out the life cycle USC title 10 requires DOT&E to submit a “Beyond LRIP Report” prior to a full rate production decision -- DoDI calls it DOT&E Report on IOT&E. Operational Testing Consider Operational effectiveness as the “overall degree of mission success of a properly trained and manned unit equipped with a system when employed in the operationally realistic environment planned for its use.” Determines Operational Effectiveness, Operational Suitability, and Operational Survivability Responsibility of Director, Operational Test and Evaluation Live Fire Test and Evaluation Determine Lethality and Survivability for “Covered” Systems Under Realistic Combat Conditions Against Actual Threats (Title 10 USC § 2366) ACAT I or II programs that include features designed to provide protection to the crew Conventional munitions or missile program; ACAT I or II, or > 1M rounds A modification to a covered system that is likely to affect significantly the survivability or lethality of such a system Correct Design Deficiencies and Assess Battle Damage Repair Capabilities and Issues Before Full Rate Production Per NDAA 2007, All Force Protection Equipment Must Conduct Survivability Testing

P&D Phase Operational Test & Evaluation (Cont.)
Live Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT&E) Determine Lethality and Survivability for “Covered” Systems Under Realistic Combat Conditions Against Actual Threats (Title 10 USC § 2366) Identifies design deficiencies and assess battle damage repair capabilities and issues before Full-Rate Production All force protection equipment must conduct survivability testing (per NDAA 2007) Answers: Is the system when used in fielded conditions suitable and effective? USC title 10 requires DOT&E to submit a “Beyond LRIP Report” prior to a full rate production decision -- DoDI calls it DOT&E Report on IOT&E. Operational Testing Consider Operational effectiveness as the “overall degree of mission success of a properly trained and manned unit equipped with a system when employed in the operationally realistic environment planned for its use.” Determines Operational Effectiveness, Operational Suitability, and Operational Survivability Responsibility of Director, Operational Test and Evaluation Live Fire Test and Evaluation Determine Lethality and Survivability for “Covered” Systems Under Realistic Combat Conditions Against Actual Threats (Title 10 USC § 2366) ACAT I or II programs that include features designed to provide protection to the crew Conventional munitions or missile program; ACAT I or II, or > 1M rounds A modification to a covered system that is likely to affect significantly the survivability or lethality of such a system Correct Design Deficiencies and Assess Battle Damage Repair Capabilities and Issues Before Full Rate Production Per NDAA 2007, All Force Protection Equipment Must Conduct Survivability Testing

P&D Phase FRP/FD Decision
PM provides: Updated Acquisition Strategy Updated program documents: SEP, TEMP, PPP*, LCSP, etc., refer to DoDI , Enclosure 1, Table 2 RM provides: A validated CPD or Problem Statement Updated CONOPS and OMS/MP/Use Cases DOT&E provides: LFT&E and Beyond LRIP Reports Exit criteria approved at this review may apply to a requirement to demonstrate, during Follow-on T&E (FOT&E), a “fix” of technical problems observed during IOT&E on LRIP systems. For software-only programs, the equivalent decision here is Full Deployment Decision – since no hardware must be produced. * Also contains updated Threat Assessment

P&D Phase FRP/FD Decision
JITC provides: Interoperability certification Lead Component provides: Affordability analysis and goals A Component Cost Estimate Evidence of a fully funded program in the FYDP Independent Logistics Assessment MDA approves: Updated AS, ADM and APB Full-rate production and/or Full Deployment Provisions for evaluation of post-deployment performance 10 USC 2366b Determination

Requirements Manager’s Role in the P&D Phase
Be Involved in Test & Evaluation Activities: Ensure CPD performance attributes are testable Observe system performance during IOT&E, full-up system level LFT&E, and system level interoperability testing Review all performance attributes based on test results Participate in PMO activities: Update RAM-C Report (with PM) using data from test results Participate in program office Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) and technical reviews Assist PM with prep for Full-Rate Production or Full Deployment Decision Review Attend Full Rate Production/Full Deployment Decision Review prepared to explain/justify requirements.

The Operations & Support (O&S) Phase answers:
Are the performance and supportability requirements in the CDD/CPD being met? Is the next description of capability required? Are the modifications/upgrades to enhance performance and/or reduce operating costs working? BOTTOM LINE: Is the system providing the desired capability at a sustainable cost?

Operations & Support (O&S) Phase
Purpose: To execute the product support strategy Satisfy materiel readiness and operational support performance requirements Sustain the system over its life cycle (to include disposal) Operations and Support ISR PIR Dev RFP Release Major Events: Begins when the first system is fielded Modifications and technology insertion MDA approved Life Cycle Sustainment Plan Guided by: Acquisition Strategy, MS C ADM and APB, sponsor-approved CPD/Problem Statement and other planning documents (PPP, SEP, LCSP, TEMP) ISR: In Service Review - an assessment of a system to determine if it’s operationally employed with well-understood and Managed Risks. It assesses the current status, operational health and corrective actions to satisfy user operational needs based on user feedback and performance metrics. The reviews should be conducted at defined intervals to identify needed revisions and corrections and to allow for timely improvements in the strategies to meet performance requirements. Should provide the following: An overall System Hazard Risk Assessment, An Operational Readiness Assessment in terms of system problems (hardware, software, and production discrepancies), and Status of current system problem (discrepancy) report inflow, resolution rate, trends, and updated metrics. The metrics may be used to prioritize budget requirements. PIR: Post-implementation Review - verifies the MOEs of the ICD or the benefits of a business plan. Normally the FRP/FD review and decision completes this action. A process that aggregates information needed to successfully evaluate the degree to which a capability has been achieved. A PIR answers the question, “Did the Service/Agency get what it needed, per the ICD / Business Plan, and if not, what should be done? A PIR is required for all acquisition program increments at the Full-Rate Decision Review (FRDR). The Sponsor is responsible for planning the PIR, gathering data, analyzing the data, and assessing the results. The PM is responsible for maintaining an integrated program schedule that includes the PIR on behalf of the Sponsor. The PM is also responsible for supporting the Sponsor with respect to execution and reporting of the PIR

O&S Phase Major Activities
PM continues with Full-rate Production and Deployment PM implements and adjusts the Product Support Strategy based on evolving operating, threat and budget environment PM along with the RM collects feedback and evaluates operations and support activities PM implements modifications, including technology insertion activities PM evaluates program resources and ensures intellectual property deliverables and associated license rights, tools, equipment, and facilities are acquired PM fully establishes organic or industry depot maintenance capability in accordance with statute and the LCSP PM, with RM, implements Disposal planning and execution Operations and Support ISR PIR Dev RFP Release Generic requirements to enter and leave (exit) each phase are in DoDI Note the activities, and importance of JCIDS document (CPD) to guide this phase. [Business systems used a Problem Statement, which matures over the course of this analysis phase.] Note: all actions must be in accordance with all legal and regulatory requirements relating to safety (including explosives safety, security, and the environment)

O&S Phase Product Support
Purpose: Assure the system operates when and how it is required Outcome: Apply cost reduction techniques through close coordination with the warfighting sponsor (i.e., user), resource sponsors and other stakeholders Measure, assess, and report system readiness and implement corrective actions for trends that diverge from required performance outcomes in the APB and LCSP Provide information necessary to update requirements documents Operational/support problems identified and feedback provided for next program increment or next sustainment release Product improvement/Service Life Extension Programs planned and executed Answers: Does the system meet the warfighter’s performance requirements?

O&S Phase Disposal Purpose: Provides a path for demilitarization and removal from service Outcome: System is removed from the DoD inventory when it is no longer required At the end of its useful life, the system is demilitarized and disposed

Requirements Manager’s Role in the O&S Phase
Track the threat (mission and cybersecurity); update the CPD Monitor emerging technology Sponsor Life Cycle Cost reduction initiatives Obtain information on operations and support of fielded system to: Review performance and supportability requirements in the CDD/CPD for next increment of capability (if applicable) Provide input on modifications/upgrades to enhance performance and/or reduce operating costs RMs should maintain contact with the warfighter and with the PM during operations and support – this is the most important phase for the warfighter. RMs must keep in mind that modifications and upgrades are usually not cheap and require program and budget lead time and funding justification. This is not solely a PM responsibility, it is a shared responsibility. RMs should also be aware that selected modifications/upgrades may be treated as new ACAT programs depending on dollar value and the desires of the MDA.

Materiel Acquisition Process Additional References
Great Help for locating just about anyone in DoD (formerly the “White Pages”) (CAC login required, choose version) Links to more common OSD sites: (connects you to all OSD sites) (actually takes you to the CAPE web site) Good general information site:

Materiel Acquisition Process Additional References
Defense Acquisition Portal Better Buying Power (BBP) Gateway ACQuipedia Acquisition Community Connection Program Managers e-Tool Kit 2014 Acquisition Process Chart or%20enhancements%2017%20Dec%20final%20(3).pdf DOD Acquisition Net

Questions?

Back-Up

EMD Phase Exit Level Knowledge Points
The design is stable The design meets validated capability requirements demonstrated by DT&E/OA Manufacturing processes effectively demonstrated and under control Software sustainment processes are in place and functioning Industrial production capabilities are reasonably available The system has met or exceeds EMD Phase exit criteria

EMD Phase Product Support Linkages
Completed Independent Logistics Assessment Completed Core Logistics Determination Completed Core Logistics and Sustaining Workloads Estimate Completed Product Support Business Case Analysis Intellectual Property Strategy understood and aligned with Product Support Strategy Core Logistics Determination: Due at Milestone A. Required at Milestone C if there was no Milestone B. Everything is documented in the LCSP. Not required for MAIS programs

P&D Phase Exit Level Knowledge Points
CPD validated or updated Problem Statement met Met any other exit criteria in MS C ADM The results of IOT&E, initial manufacturing, and initial deployment, justify proceeding to FRP/FD Demonstrated control of the manufacturing process Long term sustainment and support systems in place Any new validated threat environments that might affect operational effectiveness are assessed C FRP/ FD Production and Deployment PCA OTRR CPD PRR Sustainment RFP Release Production RFP Release

O&S Phase Exit Level Knowledge Points
Met any exit criteria in MS C ADM Disposal decision approved Operations and Support ISR PIR Dev RFP Release

Milestone B Information Requirements All programs except where noted (see Table 2, DoDI 5000.02)
2366b Certification Memorandum (MDAP only) Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) Acquisition Program Baseline Affordability Analysis  Bandwidth Requirements Review  Capability Development Document (CDD) Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) Compliance Contract Type Determination (MDAP only) Core Logistics Determination/Core Logistics Sustaining Workloads Estimate (MDAP only)  Cost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD) (MDAP & MAIS only) Cybersecurity Strategy  DoD Component Cost Estimate (CCE) (MDAP & MAIS only) DoD Component Cost Position (CCP) (MDAP & MAIS only) Economic Analysis (MAIS only)  Exit Criteria Frequency Allocation Application Full Funding Certification Memorandum (MDAP & MAIS only) Independent Cost Estimate (MDAP & MAIS only) Independent Logistics Assessment (ILA) (MDAP only) Item Unique Identification Implementation Plan Life-Cycle Mission Data Plan  Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP)  LRIP Quantities (MDAP, ACAT II & III only) Program Certification to the Defense Business Systems (DBS) Management Committee (DBS only) Program Protection Plan (PPP)  Programmatic Environmental Safety & Occupational Health Evaluation (PESHE) and NEPA/E.O Compliance  Replaced System Sustainment Plan (MDAP only) Should-Cost Target Spectrum Supportability Risk Assessment Systems Engineering Plan (SEP)  Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) (MDAP only)  Test & Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP)  Waveform Assessment Application Updated and re-submitted only if changes have occurred since approved at the Development RFP Release Decision. Statutory Requirements in blue italics DBS: Defense Business Systems MAIS: Major Automated Information System MDAP: Major Defense Acquisition Program

Milestone C Information Requirements All programs except where noted (see Table 2, DoDI 5000.02)
2366b Certification Memorandum (MDAP only) (only if Milestone C is program initiation) Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) Acquisition Program Baseline  Acquisition Strategy (see text of DoDI for additional requirements)  Benefit Analysis & Determination (only if no MS B) Contract Type Determination (MDAP only) General Equipment Valuation Industrial Base Capabilities Considerations Intellectual Property Strategy Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer Program Technologies Termination Liability Estimate (MDAP only) Affordability Analysis  Analysis of Alternatives (updated only if required)  Bandwidth Requirements Review  Capability Production Document (CPD) - validated Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) Compliance CONOPS/Operational Mode Summary/Mission Profile (CONOPS/OMS/MP)  Core Logistics Determination/Core Logistics Sustaining Workloads Estimate (MDAP only)  Cost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD) (MDAP & MAIS only)  Cybersecurity Strategy  DoD Component Cost Estimate (CCE) DoD Component Cost Position (CCP) (MDAP & MAIS only) Exit Criteria Frequency Allocation Application Full Funding Certification Memorandum (MDAP & MAIS only) Independent Logistics Assessment (ILA) (MDAP only) Independent Cost Estimate (MDAP & MAIS only) Information Support Plan (ISP)  Item Unique Identification Implementation Plan  Life-Cycle Mission Data Plan  Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP)  Preservation and Storage of Unique Tooling Plan (MDAP only) Problem Statement (DBS only)  Program Protection Plan (PPP)  Programmatic Environmental Safety & Occupational Health Evaluation and NEPA/E.O Compliance  Request for Proposal (RFP) Should-Cost Target Spectrum Supportability Risk Assessment System Threat Assessment Report (STAR)  Systems Engineering Plan (SEP)  Technology Readiness Assessment (MDAP only) (only if Milestone C is program initiation) Test & Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP)  Waveform Assessment Application  MAIS: Major Automated Information System MDAP: Major Defense Acquisition Program Statutory Requirements in blue italics DBS: Defense Business Systems Updated Information

Full-Rate Production/Full Deployment Information Requirements All programs except where noted (see Table 2, DoDI ) Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) Acquisition Program Baseline  Acquisition Strategy (see text of DoDI for additional requirements) Benefit Analysis & Determination (only if no MS B)  Contract Type Determination (MDAP only) General Equipment Valuation  Industrial Base Capabilities Considerations  Intellectual Property Strategy  Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer Program Technologies  Termination Liability Estimate (MDAP only) Affordability Analysis  Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) Compliance Cost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD) (MDAP & MAIS only)  DoD Component Cost Estimate (CCE) Cybersecurity Strategy  DoD Component Cost Position (CCP) (MDAP & MAIS only) DOT&E Report on Initial Operational Test & Evaluation (IOT&E) (DOT&E Oversight List programs only) DoD Component Live Fire Test & Evaluation Report (DOT&E Oversight List programs only) Economic Analysis (MAIS only) Full Funding Certification Memorandum (MDAP & MAIS only) Independent Cost Estimate (MDAP & MAIS only) Independent Logistics Assessment (ILA) (MDAP only) Information Technology (IT) and National Security System (NSS) Interoperability Certification Life-Cycle Mission Data Plan  Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP)  Live-Fire Test & Evaluation Report (DOT&E Oversight programs only) Operational Test Agency Report of OT&E Results Program Certification to the Defense Business Systems (DBS) Management Committee (DBS only) Problem Statement (DBS only)  Program Protection Plan (PPP)  Programmatic Environmental Safety & Occupational Health Evaluation and NEPA/E.O Compliance  Request for Proposal (RFP) Should-Cost Target System Threat Assessment Report (STAR)  Test & Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP)  MAIS: Major Automated Information System MDAP: Major Defense Acquisition Program Statutory Requirements in blue italics DBS: Defense Business Systems Updated Information

JROC Title 10 Responsibilities
Composition The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who is the chairman of the Council; An Army officer in the grade of general; A Navy officer in the grade of admiral; An Air Force officer in the grade of general; A Marine Corps officer in the grade of general; When directed by the chairman, the commander or deputy commander of any CCMD when matters related to the area of responsibility or functions of that command will be considered by the Council Advisors The following officials of the Department of Defense shall serve as advisors to the Council on matters within their authority and expertise; USD(AT&L) USD(C) USD(P) Director, CAPE Director, OT&E Such other civilian Officials of the Department of Defense as are designated by the Secretary of Defense. The Council shall seek and consider input from the commanders of the combatant commands in carrying out its mission Definition of Joint Military Requirement The term “joint military requirement” means a capability necessary to fulfill a gap in a core mission area of the Department of Defense. The term “core mission area” means a core mission of the Department of Defense identified under the most recent quadrennial roles and missions review. The core mission areas identified in the 2009 QRMR are: Homeland Defense and Civil Support (HD/CS); Deterrence Operations; Major Combat Operations (MCOs); Irregular Warfare; Military Support to Stabilization Security; Transition, and Reconstruction Operations; and Military Contribution to Cooperative Security Availability of Oversight Information to Congressional Defense Committees The Secretary of Defense shall ensue that, in the case of a recommendation by the Chairman to the Secretary that is approved by the Secretary, oversight information with respect to such recommendation that is produced as a result of the activities of the JROC is made available in a timely fashion to the congressional defense committees. The term “oversight information” means information and materials comprising analysis and justification that are prepared to support a recommendation that is made to, and approved by, the Secretary of Defense Address other matters assigned to it by the President or Secretary of Defense Assist acquisition officials in identifying alternatives to any acquisition program that meet joint military requirements for the purposes of section 2366a(b), section 2366b(a), and section 2433(e)(2) Conduct periodic reviews of joint military requirements within a core mission area of the Department of Defense, in any such review of a core mission area, the officer or official assigned to lead the review shall have a deputy from a different military department Identifying, assessing, and approving joint military requirements (including existing systems and equipment) to meet the national military strategy Identifying the core mission area associated with each requirement Establishing and assigning priority levels for joint military requirements Assist the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in: Reviewing the estimated level of resources required in the fulfillment of each joint military requirement and in ensuring that the total cost of such resources is consistent with the level of priority assigned in the fulfillment of each joint military requirement Ensuring that appropriate trade-offs are made among life-cycle cost, schedule, and performance objectives, and procurement quantity objectives in the establishment and approval of joint military requirements In consultation with advisors to the JROC Establishing an objective for the overall period of time within which an initial operational capability should be delivered to meet each joint military requirement In consultation with the CCMDs and the USD(AT&L) JROC Mission/Responsibilities 10 USC 181 – Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC)

USD(AT&L) Title 10 Responsibilities
10 USC 133 – The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) Precedence With regard to all matters for which he has responsibility by law or by direction of the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics takes precedence in the Department of Defense after the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense. With regard to all matters other than matters for which he has responsibility by law or by direction of the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary takes precedence in the Department of Defense after the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Secretaries of the military departments. Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics shall perform such duties and exercise such powers relating to acquisition as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, including— supervising Department of Defense acquisition; establishing policies for acquisition (including procurement of goods and services, research and development, developmental testing, and contract administration) for all elements of the Department of Defense; establishing policies for logistics, maintenance, and sustainment support for all elements of the Department of Defense; establishing policies of the Department of Defense for maintenance of the defense industrial base of the United States; and the authority to direct the Secretaries of the military departments and the heads of all other elements of the Department of Defense with regard to matters for which the Under Secretary has responsibility. The Under Secretary— is the senior procurement executive for the Department of Defense for the purposes of section 1702(c) of title 41; is the Defense Acquisition Executive for purposes of regulations and procedures of the Department providing for a Defense Acquisition Executive; and to the extent directed by the Secretary, exercises overall supervision of all personnel (civilian and military) in the Office of the Secretary of Defense with regard to matters for which the Under Secretary has responsibility, unless otherwise provided by law. The Under Secretary shall prescribe policies to ensure that audit and oversight of contractor activities are coordinated and carried out in a manner to prevent duplication by different elements of the Department. Such policies shall provide for coordination of the annual plans developed by each such element for the conduct of audit and oversight functions within each contracting activity. Duties The Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) – Chapter 10, Defense Acquisition Guidebook Mission & Composition The DAB is the Departments senior-level review forum for critical acquisition decisions concerning Acquisition Category (ACAT) ID and IAM programs. The DAB is composed of: Chair: USD(AT&L) Members: Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Secretaries of the Military Departments Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel & Readiness) Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence) DoD Chief Information Officer Director, Operational Test & Evaluation Deputy Chief Management Officer (for Defense Business Systems only) Director, Acquisition Resources & Analysis (DAB Executive Secretary) Preparation Timeline (in business days) 45 days prior: Final documents submitted to OSD 40 days prior: DAB Planning Meeting (DPM) 30 days prior: Final document check to support the Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT) Review 20 Days prior: OIPT conducted 10 days prior: OIPT report submitted to USD(AT&L) 5 days prior: DAB Readiness Meeting (DRM) conducted 3 Days prior: Read-ahead submitted DAB DAB Planning & Readiness Meetings (DPM & DRM) DPM: short informal meeting conducted by the Assistant Secretary of Defense ( Acquisition) . Provides an opportunity to ensure that the OIPT Lead and the Component Acquisition Executive staff are prepared to adequately cover any concerns that the USDAT&L may have at the DAB review. DRM: informal meeting conducted by the Principal Deputy (USD(AT&L) or the USD(AT&L) to review the OIPT results to understand any remaining open issues that the DAB would have to consider and to review the proposed DAB presentation, including materials/data necessary to resolve any issues that would be presented to the DAB to support the decision. The DRM is not intended to be a decision meeting; however, in some cases, it may lead to a recommendation or decision to conduct a "paper DAB" review.

Technology and Manufacturing Readiness Levels
Technology Readiness Level (TRL). A method of estimating technology maturity during the acquisition process. The lower the level of the technology at the time it is included in a product development program, the higher the risk that it will cause problems in subsequent product development Can serve as a helpful knowledge-based standard and shorthand for evaluating technology maturity, but they must be supplemented with expert professional judgment. TRLs are determined by a Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA). Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL). Reflect an assessment of manufacturing readiness is a structured evaluation of a technology, component, manufacturing process, weapon system or subsystem. It is performed to define current level of manufacturing maturity, identify maturity shortfalls and associated costs and risks, and provide the basis for manufacturing maturation and risk management. MRL determination is considered a best practice method for the PM to determine manufacturing readiness and risks. Technology Readiness Assessments (TRAs) are not required by DoD for any ACAT at MS C. However, PMs and their chain of command retain complete responsibility for assessing, managing, and mitigating acquisition program technology risk. MDAs for non-ACAT I programs should consider requiring TRAs for those programs when technological risk is present. (DoD TRA Guide, Apr 2011)

Technology and Sustainment Readiness
Materiel Solution Analysis Engineering and Manufacturing Development PRODUCTION & DEPLOYMENT OPERATIONS & SUPPORT Decision FRP/FD Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction A B C IOC FOC Analytical/ Experimental Critical Function/ Characteristic Proof of Concept Component And/or Breadboard Validation In a Laboratory Environment System Prototype Demonstrated In an Operational Actual Completed Qualified Through Test and Demonstration “Mission Proven” Successful Operations Supportability features embedded in design. Supportability and Subsystem MTA complete Sustainment performance measured against operational needs. Product support improved through CPI. PSP demonstrated in operational environment. Product Support capabilities demonstrated and SCM approach validated. Cost Model Updated To System Level Unit Cost Reduction Efforts Underway Engineering Cost Model Validated FRP Unit Cost Goals Met LRIP Cost Goals Met Learning Curve Technology Readiness Levels Defense Acquisition Guidebook Para Sustainment Maturity PSM Guidebook April 2016 KPP/KSAs defined technology required for system or supply chain identified. Manufacturing Cost Drivers Identified Supportability options identified, concept Identified, supportability requirements defined and documented TRLs 1-3 SML 4 SML 7 SML 8 SML 9 SML 11-12 SMLs 1-3 TRL 4 TRL 7 TRL 8 TRL 9 Relevant Constructed System/ Subsystem Model or In a Relevant Maintenance concepts and sustainment strategy complete. LSCP approved Detailed Cost Analysis Complete Supportability design features required to achieve KPP/KSAs incorporated in design requirements SML 5 SML 6 TRL 5 TRL 6 SML10 Initial PSP fielded at operational sites, performance measured against availability, reliability, and cost metrics. MTA: SCM: Supply Chain Managment PSP: Product Support Package CPI: Continual Process Improvement 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] 70

Defense Acquisition System

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Defense Acquisition System"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Defense Acquisition System

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Defense Acquisition System"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback