Systems Engineering Summit March 4, 2009 Sharon Vannucci

New Acquisition Policy and Its Impact on Programs from a Systems Engineering Perspective
Systems Engineering Summit March 4, 2009 Sharon Vannucci Assistant Deputy Director for SE Policy and Guidance Systems and Software Engineering Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology)

Topics DoDI 5000.02: 2003 vs. 2008 New Policy Directed by Congress
New or Revised Regulatory Policy Impact on Programs and Systems Engineering – A Discussion This presentation is in two parts: -Part one covers the first five bullets. -Part two covers the last bullet, and can be used as a separate presentation. For this reason, there is some duplication in material between parts one and two. To prepare for this presentation: Read and be completely familiar with the 8 Dec 2008 DoDI Read Defense Acquisition Guidebook chapters: 2, Acquisition Strategy 4, Systems Engineering, Part 4.3, Systems Engineering Activities in the System Life Cycle 5, Life Cycle Logistics, Part , Life Cycle Sustainment Plan . Backup (for hardcore policy wonks!): Statutory and Regulatory Information Milestone Requirements New/Revised Enclosures to DoDI

Subtle, But Substantial Changes
Comparison of 2003 vs. 2008: Subtle, But Substantial Changes User Needs and Technology Opportunities Defense Acquisition Management Framework Program Initiation A B C IOC FOC Concept Refinement Technology Development System Development & Demonstration Production & Deployment Operations & Support Design Readiness Review FRP Decision Review Concept Decision Focus of major changes Defense Acquisition Management System User Needs Technology Opportunities & Resources The major differences between the 2003 and 2008 versions of the DoDI are: -The Materiel Development Decision (MDD) replaces the Concept Decision (CD). A MDD is required regardless of where the program intends to enter the acquisition process. NOTE: The arrows from User Needs/Technology Opportunities now point to the MDD at the extreme left: THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY PROGRAM MUST ENTER AT THE MATERIEL SOLUTION ANALYSIS PHASE. This is illustrated better on chart 5. -The Materiel Solution Analysis Phase (MSA) replaces the Concept Refinement (CR) Phase. MSA is not “refinement” of the preferred solution(s) identified in the ICD. The JCIDS process no longer includes an Analysis of Materiel and Non-Materiel Alternatives. Non-materiel solutions will be handled IAW JCIDS; however, all analysis of alternative materiel solutions will be accomplished by the AoA during MSA. The MDA will approve the materiel solution at Milestone A. -Technology Development: This phase now includes a mandatory requirement for competitive prototyping of the system or key-system elements. A Preliminary Design Review (PDR) may be conducted for the candidate designs, and a PDR report will be provided to the MDA with recommended requirements trades. (The final CDD should contain trade-offs determined during the TD phase). -Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) replaces System Development and Demonstration (SDD). There is more emphasis on systems engineering and technical reviews. The two major efforts have been renamed. The PM must provide a PDR report, and must provide a Critical Design Review (CDR) report to the MDA (more on this later). A Post-CDR Assessment replaces the Design Readiness Review. The MDA will determine if the results of the CDR warrant continuing EMD to Milestone C. SE is much more robust throughout all phases, with mandatory technical reviews. Program Initiation A B C IOC FOC Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Development Engineering & Manufacturing Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support Materiel Development Decision Post PDR Assessment FRP Decision Review Post-CDR Assessment PDR PDR or 3

Sources of Change Policy flowing from numerous new/revised sections of
Public Law since 2003 (some with multiple requirements) Approved policy appearing in over 25 policy memos and DoD responses to the GAO, IG, and Congress Reference to ten updated or newly issued DoD publications Consideration of over 700 Defense Acquisition Policy Working Group (DAPWG) comments -Content of has grown from 37 to 80 pages. About 116%. -Although there are new policies that originated at OSD, the majority are a result of a very active Congress from 2004 thru 2008. -This includes six National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAA) for FY’s 2004 through 2009.

In the beginning . . . JCIDS Acquisition Process
Technology Opportunities & Resources User Needs A A B C Operations & Support Strategic Guidance Joint Concepts Capabilities - Based Assessment ICD Materiel Solution Analysis Engineering & Manuf Development CDD CPD Production & Deployment O&S Technology Development MDD FCB Incremental Development OSD/JCS COCOM For some, this chart better illustrates that programs may enter the process at points further to the right than the MSA phase. The change from 2003 is that now an MDD is required to determine what the appropriate entry point will be. This chart also shows the JCIDS process at the front end. The policy for JCIDS is under revision, with a revised CJCSI G due out soon. CJCSM C will be cancelled and replaced with a “manual” posted on the J8 website on the SIPRNET. Non-SIPRNET access is not known at this time. JCIDS Acquisition Process “Following the Materiel Development Decision (MDD), the MDA may authorize entry into the acquisition management system at any point consistent with phase-specific entrance criteria and statutory requirements.”

Changes to Decision Points
User Needs Technology Opportunities & Resources A C B IOC FOC Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Development Engineering and Manufacturing Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support ICD CDD CPD Materiel Development Decision Post-PDR Assessment Post-CDR Assessment FRP Decision Review AoA PDR PDR CDR Pre-Systems Acquisition or Systems Acquisition Sustainment MDD: the formal entry into the acquisition process; mandatory for all programs. -At the MDD, the Joint Staff presents JROC recommendations; the Component presents the ICD with a preliminary CONOPS, description of capability needed, operational risks, and basis for why a non-materiel solution(s) will not fill the need (or completely fill the need). --The MDA approves the guidance for conduct of the AoA (for ACAT I programs, OSD/PA&E provides); determines the phase of entry into the process; and designates the lead Component. --The lead Component prepares the AoA study plan after approval of the study guidance at the MDD. Post PDR Assessment: Required only if PDR comes after Milestone B. More on PDRs later. Post CDR Assessment: -MDA conducts based on a post-CDR report from the PM. -Post CDR Report provides assessment of design maturity, a summary of the issues and actions PM intends to take to resolve the issues, assessment of risk of meeting exit criteria for EMDD phase, potential issues that could result in an APB breach. -MDA reviews the PM’s report and decides if program is ready/not ready to proceed in EMD and issue an ADM. Old (2003) New (2008) Change from 2003 Concept Decision (CD) Materiel Development Decision (MDD) MDD required prior to entering the acquisition lifecycle at any point Post-PDR Assessment MDA’s assessment of PM’s PDR Report (if PDR is after MS B) N/A Design Readiness Review (DRR) Post-CDR Assessment MDA’s assessment of PM’s Post-CDR Report

Changes to Phases A C B IOC FOC Pre-Systems Acquisition
User Needs Technology Opportunities & Resources A C B IOC FOC Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Development Engineering and Manufacturing Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support ICD CDD CPD Materiel Development Decision Post PDR Assessment Post CDR Assessment FRP Decision Review AoA PDR PDR CDR Pre-Systems Acquisition or Systems Acquisition Sustainment Materiel Solution Analysis (MSA). Major change: AoA no longer “refines” materiel solution(s) identified in the ICD. ICD will no longer contain prioritized materiel solutions. Technology Development. Major change: The TDS and associated funding must provide for two or more competing teams producing prototypes of the system and/or key system elements prior to, or through, Milestone B. PDR conducted for candidate designs and PDR report provided to MDA at Milestone B. Guided by the ICD, draft CDD, the TDS and systems engineering planning. (Note, does not mention draft CDD; however, revised 3170 will make this clear). Engineering & Manufacturing Development. Major changes: Establishment of the product baseline for all configuration items prior to P-CDR Assessment. Requires that selected production-representative article be demonstrated in their intended environment and that manufacturing processes have been effectively demonstrated prior to MS C. Names and some activities of two major efforts changed: covered later. Old (2003) New (2008) Change from 2003 More robust AoA (result of changes to JCIDS) Concept Refinement (CR) Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Development (TD) Competitive prototyping Systems Development & Demonstration (SDD) Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) More robust system engineering

Mandated Milestone A for MDAPs
Mandates Milestone A approval prior to technology development for a major weapon system Requires MDA Certification prior to Milestone A for MDAPs Changed Milestone B Certification Requirements Mandates reporting and notification of program cost changes

Preliminary Design Review Engineering & Manufacturing
B C Technology Development Engineering & Manufacturing Development CDD CPD Post PDR Assessment Post CDR Assessment PDR PDR CDR or PDR Before MS B: “When consistent with technology development phase objectives, associated prototyping activity, and the MDA approved TDS, the PM shall plan a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) before Milestone B.” PDR planning is reflected in the TDS and conducted for the candidate design(s) to establish the allocated baseline (hardware, software, human/support systems) and underlying architectures and to define a high-confidence design. All system elements (hardware and software) must be at a level of maturity commensurate with the PDR entrance and exit criteria. A successful PDR informs requirements trades; improves cost estimation; and identifies remaining design, integration, and manufacturing risks. The PDR is conducted at the system level and includes user representatives and associated certification authorities (not defined). The PDR Report is provided to the MDA at Milestone B and includes recommended requirements trades based upon an assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk. PDR After MS B: “If a PDR has not been conducted prior to Milestone B, the PM shall plan for a PDR as soon as feasible after program initiation.” PDR planning is reflected in the Acquisition Strategy and conducted consistent with the policies for the TD phase PDR (above). Following PDR, the PM submits a PDR report and the MDA conducts a formal Post-PDR Assessment. The PDR report reflects any requirements trades based upon the PM’s assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk. The MDA will consider the results of the PDR and the PM’s assessment, and determine whether remedial action is necessary to achieve APB objectives. The results of the MDA's Post-PDR Assessment are documented in an ADM. PDR Before Milestone B PDR After Milestone B Planned in Technology Development Strategy (TDS) PDR Report provided to MDA at MS B Includes recommended requirements trades Planned in Acquisition Strategy (AS) PDR Report provided to MDA before the Post-PDR Assessment Reflects requirements trades At Post-PDR Assessment, MDA considers PDR Report; determines action(s) required to achieve APB objectives, and issues ADM

Engineering and Manufacturing Development
B C Integrated System Design System Capability and Manufacturing Process Demonstration CDD CPD Post PDR Assessment Post-CDR Assessment PDR PDR CDR or Integrated System Design. This effort is intended to define system and system-of-systems functionality and interfaces, complete hardware and software detailed design, and reduce system-level risk. Integrated System Design includes the establishment of the product baseline for all configuration items. System Capability and Manufacturing Process Demonstration. This effort is intended to demonstrate the ability of the system to operate in a useful way consistent with the approved KPPs and that system production can be supported by demonstrated manufacturing processes. Program enters SCMPD upon completion of the Post-CDR Assessment and establishment of an initial product baseline. Effort ends when the system meets approved requirements and is demonstrated in its intended environment using the selected production-representative article; manufacturing processes have been effectively demonstrated; industrial capabilities are reasonably available; and the system meets or exceeds exit criteria and Milestone C entrance requirements. Successful developmental test and evaluation (DT&E) to assess technical progress against critical technical parameters, early operational assessments, and, where proven capabilities exist, the use of modeling and simulation to demonstrate system/system-of-systems integration are critical during this effort. Test and evaluation (T&E) assesses improvements to mission capability and operational support based on user needs and shall be reported in terms of operational significance to the user. Old (2003) New (2008) Change from 2003 At CDR, PM assumes control of the initial product baseline for all Class 1 Configuration Items. System Design Integrated System Design System Demonstration System Capability and Manufacturing Process Demonstration Manufacturing processes effectively demonstrated; production-representative article(s) demonstrated in intended environment; T&E assesses improvements to mission capability and operational support based on user needs.

New Policy Directed by Congress
Military Equipment Valuation (accounting for military equipment) MDA Certification at Milestones A & B Cost type contract for EMD Phase requires written determination by MDA Lead Systems Integrator Restrictions Replaced System Sustainment Plan Configuration Steering Boards (CSBs) -Military Equipment Valuation (accounting for military equipment): Acq strategy at MS C must provide that all equipment requiring capitalization is serially identified and valued at full cost. Full cost must be entered in the Item Unique Identification (IUID) registry. All systems are tracked throughout life cycle via IUID. -MDA certification at MS A & B. MDAPs only. MFR signed by MDA. --MS A cert: fulfills an approved ICD; executed by entity with relevant core competency; cost est. submitted; and if duplicating other capability the duplication is necessary. --MS B cert: affordable, reasonable cost and schedule est. submitted, funding avail, market research conducted, AoA done, JROC on board, technology mature, high likelihood of msn accomplishment, and complies with all statutory and regulatory requirements. MS B cert memo must be provided to the congressional defense committees. -Contracting for EMD: MDAPs only: type contract based on risk; if cost type MDA must sign written determination that risk does not permit fixed price contract. -Lead Sys Integrator (major systems): if used, MDA must ensure contractor does not/will not have a direct financial interest in the system. -Replaced System Sustainment Plan (sustainment plan for the existing system): MDAPs only: Required if existing sys remains necessary during fielding of replacement system; includes budget for sustainment of existing system; includes analysis of ability of existing system to meet mission requirements against threat. -Configuration Steering Boards: CAEs must establish to review all requirements and significant technical configuration changes that have potential to impact cost and schd of ACAT I and IA. Generally, changes will be rejected and deferred to future increments. Required by DoDI for ACAT I and IA; required by public law (FY09 NDAA, section 814) for MDAPs). Senior executive members must include reps from OUSD(AT&L), Joint Staff, service Chief of Staff, MILDEP to the SAE, PEO, and others as appropriate.

Continued… New MAIS Reporting Requirements “Time-Certain” IT Business Systems Development Defense Business Systems Oversight MDA assessment of compliance with chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear survivability (CBRN) requirements at Milestones B and C Data Management Strategy MAIS Reporting: Statutory requirements for reporting to Congress, of: 1. Cancellation or significant (not defined) reduction in scope. 2. Significant program change (schedule slip of more than 6 mos but less than 1 yr); increase in estimated development or life cycle cost of at least 15% but less than 25%; significant adverse change (not defined) in expected performance. 3. Critical program changes (failure to meet IOC w/in 5-years after funds were first obligated for the program (probably defined as MS A/TD phase); delay of 1 year or more in any program schedule; 25% increase in estimated development or life cycle cost; change in performance that undermines ability to perform functions anticipated. 4. Report to Congress of cost, sch, and performance information (annually w/in 45 days of Presidents Budget). 5. PMs report of variances in cost, sch, or KPPs (any variance from the first report to Congress) Time Certain IT Business System Development: MDA cannot approve MS A unless system can achieve IOC within 5 years. Defense Business Systems Oversight: new encl 11 provides the Investment Review Board certification and Defense Business Sys Mgmt Committee approval process. (covered in more detail later) MDA assessment of compliance with CBRN requirements: See DoDI , 17 Sep Applies to “mission-critical” CBRN systems regardless of ACAT. Mission-critical is determined by the sponsor developing the JCIDS documents (ICD/CDD/CPD). Encl 5 to DoDI has a tool that can be used by the sponsor to decide if CBRN mission-critical designation is required. Also requires nuclear survivability KPP for CBRN mission-critical systems covered by DoDD S Data Management Strategy: acquisition strategy element; assessment of data required to design, manufacture, and sustain system, and addresses merits of priced contract option for future delivery of technical data and intellectual property rights not acquired on initial contract.

Continued… Detailed Acquisition of Services Policy Independent management reviews (Peer Reviews) for supplies and services contracts Interim Beyond-LRIP Report DOT&E’s Role in Testing Force Protection Equipment / Non-Lethal Weapons Nunn-McCurdy breach / APB Revision Procedure Cost of energy in AoA and resource estimate -Acquisition of Services: expanded policy includes dollar threshold for oversight and review of services. IT of more than $500M, all services of more than $1B, and others as designated by USD(AT&L)/ASD(NII) must go to USD(AT&L)/ASD(NII) for review and approval (could be a briefing or a written notification) prior to proceeding with the solicitation. Peer Reviews. Director, DPAP, will organize review teams for pre-award and post-award Peer Reviews for service contracts with estimated value of $1 billion or more. Teams include senior contracting leaders from across DoD and members of the Office of General Counsel who are civilian employees or military personnel from outside of department or agency whose procurement is the subject of the Peer Review. Component Decision Authorities establish procedures for Peer Reviews for contracts valued at less than $1 billion. -Interim Beyond LRIP Report: DOT&E submits to congress if decision is made to proceed to operational use or procurement funds are made available before FRP decision. Final report still due prior to formal FRP decision. -Force protection equipment (to include non-lethal weapons) must be separate category on OSD T&E Oversight List, and DOT&E must expedite the testing process. -New Table 6 describes revised statutory requirements for the APB “original” or first APB, and “current” or a revision of original APB. Provides detailed guidance for APB revision and Nunn-McCurdy significant and critical cost threshold breaches as they relate to the original and current APBs. After a critical breach (PAUC or APUC increase of 25% over current APB; 50% PAUC or APUC increase over original APB) and certification to Congress a new original APB is formed. Only the current APB may be revised based on significant breach (15% over current APB; 30% over original APB) -Cost of Energy: --Resource estimates: Fully burdened cost of delivered energy must be used in trade-off analysis for all tactical systems with end items that create a demand for energy --AoA: must assess alternative ways to improve the energy efficiency of DoD tactical systems consistent with mission and cost effectiveness.

New or Revised Regulatory Policy
Contract Incentives Strategy Program Support Reviews (PSRs) Integrated Developmental and Operational Test and Evaluation Restricted use of performance requirements that do not support KPPs Comparison with current mission capabilities during OT&E Assessment of Operational Test Readiness (AOTR) Detailed Systems Engineering Policy RAM Strategy SE policy: New encl 12 institutionalizes SE policy memos over last 3 years or so: requires SEP; lead SE on PEO staff; event driven tech reviews; config mgmt, etc.. Program Support Reviews: Cross functional review to inform MDA and PM on cost, sch, perf risks and recommendations for mitigation. For ACAT ID and IAM planned by OSD/AT&L Dir SE and Software Engineering to support OIPT reviews. Integrated T&E: Close coordination of DT and OT and integration of test activities with requirements definition and systems design and development. Must maintain IOT&E independence per statutory requirements. Performance requirements that do not support KPPs “shall be limited and considered a part of the engineering trade space during development.” OT&E must clearly distinguish between performance values that do not meet threshold values in the CDD/CPD and those that should be improved to provide enhanced capability in future upgrades. Comparison with current mission capabilities: OT&E includes this evaluation to determine “measurable improvements” have been made. PM can recommend alternative eval approach if this is too costly. Further, evaluations “shall make a clear distinction” between deficiencies related to approved requirements and those that are recommendations for improvement not related to approved requirements. AOTR: Office of DUSD(A&T) will conduct independent assessment of readiness for OT of all ACAT ID and special interest programs. Contract Incentives Strategy. Acquisition Strategy must describe how PM plans to employ contract incentives to achieve cost, schedule, and performance outcomes. During TD and subsequent phases PM must give small business maximum opportunities and where feasible leverage programs which employ people with disabilities) Life Cycle Sustainment Plan: Describes how the sustainment strategy is being implemented. See DAG Chapt. 5 for content.

New or Revised Regulatory Policy
Continued… Contracting for Operational Support Services Approval of Technology Development Strategy prior to release of final RFP for TD Phase Configuration Management policy Approval of Acquisition Strategy prior to release of final RFP for EMD or any succeeding phase Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) Review and assessment of new or modified communications waveforms Evolutionary Acquisition Revised Contracting for Operational Support Services. PMs must coordinate with the Component manpower authority in advance of contracting for operational support services to ensure that tasks and duties that are designated as inherently governmental or exempt are not contracted. Determination of the workforce mix in accordance with DoD Instruction , Reference (bl). Approval of TDS prior to release of final RFP for TD phase. PM cannot commit to any particular contracting strategy until TDS is approved. Approval of Acq Strategy prior to release of final RFP for EMD or any succeeding phase. Due to need for information obtained from contractor(s) proposals for EMD prior to MS B review, probably need to get acquisition strategy approval lead time from MS B to allow for release of draft and final RFPs and proposal evaluation. RAM strategy that includes a reliability growth program is required and must be documented in SEP and LCSP. Assessed during tech reviews, during T&E, and during PSRs. Review and Assessment of New or Modified Communications Waveforms. At MS B, PM must submit application to ASD(NII)/DoD CIO for review and assessment of new or modified communications waveforms. If waveform is added or modified after MS B, application must be reviewed at MS C (DoDI ) Evolutionary Acquisition description revised (next chart).

Evolutionary Acquisition
From two processes To one process Incremental Development: End-state is known; requirements met over time in several increments Spiral Development: End-state is not known; requirements for increments dependent upon technology maturation and user feedback Capability is delivered in increments, recognizing up front need for future capability improvements. Each increment: depends on mature technology is a militarily useful and supportable operational capability Successive Technology Development Phases may be needed to mature technology for multiple increments. -EA now just one process as shown. No “spirals”. Term spiral development no longer used as an EA strategy term. “Spirals” are out. “Spiral Development” is an engineering term that will continue to be used for software development. However, using it as a “strategy” term caused problems “Increments” are in. -Each increment is a militarily-useful and supportable operational capability that can be developed, produced, deployed, and sustained. -Each increment will have its own set of threshold and objective values set by the user. -Block upgrades, pre-planned product improvement, and similar efforts that provide a significant increase in operational capability and meet an acquisition category threshold specified in this document shall be managed as separate increments. . No spirals!

Policy Enabling Systems Engineering Technical Reviews
Preliminary Design Review (PDR) – Required Before MS B: PDR Report to the MDA for MS B After MS B: PDR Report to the MDA Post-PDR Assessment and ADM Critical Design Review (CDR) – Required Post-CDR Report to the MDA Post-CDR Assessment and ADM

Preliminary Design Review
When consistent with Technology Development Phase objectives, associated prototyping activity, and the MDA approved TDS, the PM shall plan a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) before Milestone B. PDR planning shall be reflected in the TDS and shall be conducted for the candidate design(s) to establish the allocated baseline (hardware, software, human/support systems) and underlying architectures to define a high-confidence design. All system elements (hardware and software) shall be at a level of maturity commensurate with the PDR entrance and exit criteria. A successful PDR will inform requirements trades; improve cost estimation; and identify remaining design, integration, and manufacturing risks. The PDR shall be conducted at the system level and include user representatives and associated certification authorities. The PDR Report shall be provided to the MDA at Milestone B and include recommended requirements trades based upon an assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk. OR 18

Preliminary Design Review
Post-PDR Assessment. If a PDR has not been conducted prior to Milestone B, the PM shall plan for a PDR as soon as feasible after program initiation. PDR planning shall be reflected in the Acquisition Strategy and conducted consistent with the policies specified in paragraph 5.d.(6). Following PDR, the PM shall plan and the MDA shall conduct a formal Post-PDR Assessment. The PDR report shall be provided to the MDA prior to the assessment and reflect any requirements trades based upon the PM’s assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk. The MDA will consider the results of the PDR and the PM’s assessment, and determine whether remedial action is necessary to achieve APB objectives. The results of the MDA's Post-PDR Assessment shall be documented in an ADM.

DAG* PDR Report Guidance
Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Report. The PDR Report shall be provided as a memorandum to the MDA. 1. When consistent with Technology Development Phase objectives, associated prototyping activity, and the MDA-approved TDS, the PM shall plan a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) before Milestone B. PDR planning shall be reflected in the TDS with details in the SEP and shall be conducted consistent with the policies specified in paragraph 5.d.(6). Additionally, the Report should address: a. A comprehensive list of the systems engineering products that make up the allocated baseline (to include the preliminary design specifications for all configuration items) and that were subject to review; b. A list of the participants in the review including the PDR chair, applicable technical authorities, independent subject matter experts, and other key stakeholders; c. A summary of the Action Items from the review and their closure status/plan; d. A risk assessment using the PDR risk assessment checklist ( or similar to determine readiness to commit to full detail design; and e. A recommendation from the PDR as to the approval of the program's system allocated baseline to support detail design. Note: Blue text is guidance, black is policy. * Defense Acquisition Guidebook

DAG PDR Report Guidance Continued…
The PDR Report shall be provided to the MDA at Milestone B and include recommended requirements trades based upon an assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk. 2. If a PDR has not been conducted prior to Milestone B, the PM shall plan for a PDR as soon as feasible after program initiation. PDR planning shall be reflected in the Acquisition Strategy and conducted consistent with the policies specified in paragraph 5.d.(6). 3. For programs whose MDA is the USD(AT&L), the PDR Report should be a memorandum to the USD(AT&L) through the Director, Systems and Software Engineering and the OIPT lead. Note: Blue text is guidance, black is policy.

DAG Post-PDR-A Guidance
Post-Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Assessment. When the system-level PDR is conducted after Milestone B, the PM shall plan and the MDA shall conduct a formal Post-PDR Assessment. The MDA shall conduct a formal program assessment and consider the results of the PDR and the PM’s assessment in the PDR Report, and determine whether remedial action is necessary to achieve APB objectives. The results of the MDA's Post-PDR Assessment shall be documented in an ADM. The Post-PDR assessment shall reflect any requirements trades based upon the PM’s assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk. Note: Blue text is guidance, black is policy.

Post-CDR Report The PM shall provide a Post-CDR Report to the MDA that provides an overall assessment of design maturity and a summary of the system-level CDR results which shall include, but not be limited to: a. The names, organizations, and areas of expertise of independent subject matter expert participants and CDR chair; b. A description of the product baseline for the system and the percentage of build-to packages completed for this baseline; c. A summary of the issues and actions identified at the review together with their closure plans; d. An assessment of risk by the participants against the exit criteria for the EMD Phase; and e. Identification of those issues/risks that could result in a breach to the program baseline or substantively impact cost, schedule, or performance. The MDA shall review the Post-CDR Report and the PM's resolution/ mitigation plans and determine whether additional action is necessary to satisfy EMD Phase exit criteria and to achieve the program outcomes specified in the APB. The results of the MDA's Post-CDR Assessment shall be documented in an ADM. Successful completion of the Post-CDR Assessment ends Integrated System Design and continues the EMD Phase into System Capability and Manufacturing Process Demonstration.

Post-CDR Assessment Post-CDR Assessment. The MDA shall conduct a formal program assessment following system-level CDR. The system-level CDR provides an opportunity to assess design maturity as evidenced by measures such as: successful completion of subsystem CDRs; the percentage of hardware and software product build-to specifications and drawings completed and under configuration management; planned corrective actions to hardware/software deficiencies; adequate developmental testing; an assessment of environment, safety and occupational health risks; a completed failure modes and effects analysis; the identification of key system characteristics;, manufacturing feasibility, and the maturity of critical manufacturing processes; and an estimate of system reliability based on demonstrated reliability rates.

DAG Post-CDR-A Guidance
Post-Critical Design Review (CDR) Assessment. The MDA shall conduct a formal program assessment following system-level CDR. 1. The PM shall provide a Post-CDR Report as a memorandum to the MDA that provides an overall assessment of design maturity and a summary of the system-level CDR results which shall include, but not be limited to: a. The names, organizations, and areas of expertise of independent subject matter expert participants and CDR chair; b. A description of the product baseline for the system and the percentage of build-to packages completed for this baseline; c. A summary of the issues and actions identified at the review together with their closure plans; d. An assessment of risk by the participants against the exit criteria for the EMD Phase; and e. Identification of those issues/risks that could result in a breach to the program baseline or substantively impact cost, schedule, or performance. The CDR risk assessment checklist is designed as a technical review preparation tool, and should be used as the primary guide for assessing risk during the review. This checklist is available on the SE COP ( Note: Blue text is guidance, black is policy.

DAG Post-CDR-A Guidance Continued…
2. For programs whose MDA is the USD(AT&L), the Post-CDR Report should be a memorandum to the USD(AT&L) through the Director, Systems and Software Engineering and the OIPT lead. 3. The MDA shall review the Post-CDR Report and the PM’s resolution/ mitigation plans and determine whether additional action is necessary to satisfy EMD Phase exit criteria and to achieve the program outcomes specified in the APB. The results of the MDA’s Post-CDR Assessment shall be documented in an ADM. Note: Blue text is guidance, black is policy.

Codifies OSD SE Role in Program Oversight
Program Support Reviews (PSRs). PSRs are a means to inform an MDA and Program Office of the status of technical planning and management processes by identifying cost, schedule, and performance risk and recommendations to mitigate those risks. PSRs shall be conducted by cross-functional and cross-organizational teams appropriate to the program and situation. PSRs for ACAT ID and IAM programs shall be planned by the Director, Systems and Software Engineering (SSE) to support OIPT program reviews, at other times as directed by the USD(AT&L), and in response to requests from PMs. Enclosure 6: The DUSD(A&T) shall conduct an independent Assessment of Operational Test Readiness (AOTR) for all ACAT ID and special interest programs designated by the USD(AT&L). Each AOTR shall consider the risks associated with the system’s ability to meet operational suitability and effectiveness goals. This assessment shall be based on capabilities demonstrated in DT&E and OAs and criteria described in the TEMP. Where feasible, the AOTR shall be performed in conjunction with the program's review and reporting activities as described in subparagraph 4.a.(1) of this Enclosure. The AOTR report shall be provided to the USD(AT&L), DOT&E, and CAE. The CAE shall consider the results of the AOTR prior to making a determination of materiel system readiness for IOT&E. 27

▀ New Enclosures to DoDI 5000.02 1. References 2. Procedures
3. ACAT and MDA 4. Statutory and Regulatory Information and Milestone Requirements Table 5. EVM Implementation Policy Table 6. APB Policy Table 7. Unique Decision Forums 5. IT Considerations 6. Integrated T&E 7. Resource Estimation 8. Human Systems Integration 9. Acquisition of Services 10. Program Management 11. Management of Defense Business Systems 12. Systems Engineering Tables Updated, More User Friendly -New Enclosure 2, Procedures, contains 95% of material that was in PART 3 of the previous document (formatting change directed by Dir, Management). -New Table 5, EVM Implementation Policy, provides requirements for compliance with earned value management guidelines depending on type/value of contract. -New Table 6, APB Policy is focused on the descriptions of the “original” baseline (first baseline approved at MS B), and “current” baseline (reflects current program as revised from original). --Defines “significant” and “critical” Nunn-McCurdy breaches: Applies only to MDAPs Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) or Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC). Nunn-McCurdy breaches are based on both original and current baseline data. --APB RDT&E cost, Performance, and Schedule requirements and deviation criteria are not discussed in ; see DAG chapter 2. -New Table 7, Unique Decision Forums: --Defense Space Acquisition Board (DSAB). USD(AT&L) chairs the DSAB unless delegated to Under SECAF by USD(AT&L). see National Security Space Acquisition Policy (available in AKSS) --Joint Intelligence Acquisition Board (JIAB). USD(AT&L) co-chairs JIAB for National Intel Programs (NIP) funded programs executed within DoD. See Intel Community Dir. (ICD) 105, 15 August 06, and Intel Community Policy Guidance (ICPG) 105.1, 12 Jul 07. Both are available at --Missile Defense Executive Board (MDEB). USD(AT&L Chairs the MDEB. See USD(AT&L) memo, “Ballistic Missile Defense Program Implementation Guidance” -Revisions to enclosures and new enclosures are discussed on the next series of charts. ▀ New

New Systems Engineering Enclosure
Codifies three previous SE policy memoranda Codifies a number of SE-related policies and statutes since 2003: Environmental Safety and Occupational Health Corrosion Prevention and Control Modular Open Systems Approach Data Management and Technical Data Rights Item Unique Identification Spectrum Supportability Introduces new policy on Configuration Management

Other Important Statutory and Regulatory
Policy Changes

Other Major Policy Changes Continued…
Acquisition of Services Replaces, and adds structure and discipline to, former policy Implements Independent Management Reviews, required by Sec. 808 of the ’08 NDAA, as “Peer Reviews” Defines Senior Officials and Management Thresholds Requires: Performance-Based Requirements; identifiable and measurable cost, schedule, and performance outcomes; a strategic, enterprise-wide approach for both planning and execution; and formal executive review before contract initiation Assessment of Operational Test Readiness Complements the DoD Component’s Operational Test Readiness Process Considers the risks associated with the system’s ability to meet operational suitability and effectiveness goals Based on capabilities demonstrated in DT&E and OA and TEMP criteria Report provided to the USD(AT&L), DOT&E, and CAE AIS Reporting FY ’09 NDAA §811 Establishes “pre-MAIS” reporting requirements No longer need to “Certify” CCA compliance to Congress FY ’07 NDAA §816 SAR-like and DAES-like reporting §816 (Nunn-McCurdy-like) Assessment and Certification §811 Time-Certain IT Business System development FY ’06 NDAA §806, MAIS Cancellation/Reduction in Scope: Notify Congress before any MDA cancels or significantly reduces the scope of a MAIS program that has been fielded or has received Milestone C approval APB Policy Clarifies when and on what basis the APB will be updated Provides statutory basis for Nunn-McCurdy reporting

Changes to the Technology Development Strategy Statutory requirement for Test Plan in TD Phase is now accomplished in T&E Strategy (TES) Now requires a summary of the CAIG-approved Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) Plan(s) for the Technology Development phase Data Rights PMs assess the long-term technical data needs of their systems The assessment reflected in a Data Management Strategy (included in the Acquisition Strategy) Addresses the merits of including a priced contract option for the future delivery of technical data Considers the contractor’s responsibility to verify any assertion of restricted use and release of data Enhanced Focus on Manufacturing Readiness Fully-Burdened Cost of Energy The Analysis of Alternatives considers — Alternative ways to improve the energy efficiency of DoD tactical systems with end items that create a demand for energy The fully burdened cost of delivered energy shall be used in trade-off analyses conducted for all DoD tactical systems with end items that create a demand for energy Incentives PM required to describe how incentives will be used to achieve required cost, schedule, and performance outcomes Captured in Acquisition Strategy Institutionalizes current incentive fee policy Institutionalizes Program Management Agreements (PMAs)

Lead Systems Integrator MDA ensures that the LSI does not have, nor is expected to acquire, a financial interest in development or construction PM stresses appropriate checks and balances; insists the government performs inherently governmental functions Milestone Requirements FY’07/’08/’09 NDAAs Mandate Milestone A approval prior to technology development for an MDAP Require MDA Certification prior to Milestone A for MDAPs with Technology Development Phase efforts Mandate reporting and notification of program cost changes Changed Milestone B Certification Requirements FY’06 NDAA Requires MDA Certification prior to Milestone B for MDAPs MDA Determination of Contract Type Consistent with level of program risk: fixed price or cost contract Cost-type only upon written determination that (1) the program is so complex and technically challenging that it would not be practicable to reduce program risk to a level that would permit the use of a fixed-price contract; and, (2) the complexity and technical challenge of the program is not the result of a failure to meet the requirements of the MDA Milestone B Certification Modified “Enclosure 3” Tables Now Enclosure 4 Clarifies Applicability by program type and ACAT New Challenges Addresses Waveform, Electromagnetic Spectrum, and Life-Cycle Signature Management Requires early consideration of Data Assets, Critical Program Information, and the workforce mix

New Enclosure 11, Management of Defense Business Systems Describes the Defense Business Systems Management Committee (DBSMC) Certification Approval Process DBSMC Certification Approval required for all defense business systems funded over $1,000,000 Investment Review Boards (IRB) assess programs and advise the DBSMC Enclosure details the business process supporting IRB and DBSMC activity New Enclosure 12, Systems Engineering Requires the Systems Engineering Plan and Technical Reviews Also covers— Corrosion Control Configuration Management Pre-Award “Peer Reviews” Recognizes Unique Decision Forums for Space, Missile Defense, and Joint Intelligence Performance-Based Life-Cycle Product Support (PBL) Document performance and sustainment requirements in performance agreements specifying objective outcomes, measures, resource commitments, and stakeholder responsibilities Program Support Reviews On-site review of program information before each milestone and release of the RFP Assesses technical planning and management processes Assists in identifying and mitigating cost/schedule/performance risk Informs decision making Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) Requires a strategy that includes a reliability growth program RAM integrated with Systems Engineering processes; assessed during technical reviews, T&E, and Program Support Reviews (PSRs)

Replaced-System Sustainment Plan DoD Component plan to sustain the system being replaced if the capability provided by the existing system remains necessary and relevant during fielding of and transition to the new system The plan must provide for the budgeting to sustain the existing system until the new system assumes the majority of mission responsibility Requests for Proposal Technology Development Strategy or Acquisition Strategy must be approved before release Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Directs consideration of SBIR technologies Updated EVM Policy Cost/Incentive Contracts: At PM’s discretion, based on cost-benefit analysis Firm Fixed-Price Contracts: Limited. Requires MDA approval based on a business case analysis Workforce Considerations Manpower mix Inherently governmental PM tenure PM / PEO shall be experienced and certified

Implications for Systems Engineering

Increased Focus on Early Acquisition
MS A MS B MS C JCIDS Process Joint Concepts CBA ICD Materiel Solution Analysis Engineering and Manufacturing Development Technology Development CDD CPD Production and Deployment O&S Strategic Guidance MDD PDR or PDR CDR Full Rate Production Decision Review Materiel Development Decision (MDD) PDR and a PDR report to the MDA if pre-MS B or PDR and Post-PDR report and assessment if post-MS B Competing prototypes before MS B What are the implications of these changes for programs? How can systems engineering enable the program during this early phase?

New Opportunities for Systems Engineering – Starting Programs Right
What’s relevant:  Mandatory Materiel Development Decision  Mandatory Milestone A for all “major weapon systems”  Mandatory PDR* and CDR* with reports to the MDA* MS A MS B MS C Engineering and Manufacturing Development Strategic Guidance Joint Concepts CBA ICD Materiel Solution Analysis CDD CPD Production and Deployment O&S Technology Development MDD JCIDS Process OR Full Rate Production Decision Review PDR PDR CDR Pre-MDD “SE Touch Points” Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) Analysis of Alternatives study plan Pre-Milestone A “SE Touch Points” Systems Engineering Plan Technology Development Strategy Test and Evaluation Strategy Analysis of Alternatives * PDR – Preliminary Design Review * CDR – Critical Design Review * MDA - Milestone Decision Authority

New Opportunities for Independent Reviews
What’s relevant:  Mandatory Milestone A for all “major weapon systems”  MS B after system-level PDR* and a PDR Report to the MDA  EMDD with Post-CDR* Report and MDA Assessment  PSR and AOTR in policy MS A MS B MS C Materiel Solution Analysis Engineering and Manufacturing Development and Demonstration Strategic Guidance Joint Concepts CBA ICD CDD CPD Production and Deployment O&S Technology Development MDD Full Rate Production Decision Review Potential Independent Technical Reviews - PSRs and AOTRs OTRR Program Support Reviews (PSRs) All ACAT ID and IAM To inform the MDA on technical planning and management processes thru risk identification and mitigation recommendations To support OIPT program reviews and others as requested by the MDA Non-advocate reviews requested by the PM Assessments of Operational Test Readiness (AOTRs) All ACAT ID and special interest programs To inform the MDA, DOTE, & CAE of risk of a system failing to meet operational suitability and effectiveness goals To support CAE determination of materiel readiness for IOT&E * PDR – Preliminary Design Review * CDR – Critical Design Review * OTRR – Operational Test Readiness Review

New Challenges for Programs
PM skill-sets after MDD and prior to MS A Increased importance of the Technology Development Strategy (TDS) at MS A PM skill-set and PM organization for TD phase Funding implications (shifting resources from EMD to TD) Possible contracting strategies – constraints, competitive prototyping, data rights, etc. Early engagement with industry Tailoring the process to specific domains and/or complexity Others?

New Challenges for SEPs
Explicit technical planning for the Technology Development phase at Milestone A including: Technology maturation Competitive prototyping Manufacturing maturity Critical Program Information in design Item Unique Identification (IUID) Mandatory system-level PDR with rationale for its placement before or after Milestone B PDR Report to the MDA either side of MS B Post-PDR Assessment by the MDA with ADM if after MS B Mandatory system-level CDR Post-CDR Report to and Assessment by the MDA followed by an ADM IUID Implementation Plan as SEP Annex at Milestones B and C

Why is this hard? Programs have very little experience with current pre-Milestone B SE activities – makes it difficult to know what to ‘adjust’ given changes. The current DAG guidance is voluminous – online resource with over 500 printed pages of information without hotlinks. PMOs have limited understanding about interdependencies within the this Guidance. For SE to be an effective enabler, Systems Engineers need to understand the activities, products, and their integration with the program, particularly in the unfamiliar realm of pre-Milestone B.

Review of Policy Changes Engineering and Manufacturing Development
Mandatory Materiel Development Decision (MDD) Mandatory competing prototypes before MS B Mandatory PDR and a report to the MDA (“the sliding PDR”) [PDR Report to MDA if before MS B; formal PDR Assessment by MDA if after MS B] Configuration Steering Boards at Component level to review all requirements changes MS A MS B MS C Joint Concepts CBA ICD Materiel Solution Analysis CDD Engineering and Manufacturing Development CPD Production and Deployment O&S Strategic Guidance Technology Development MDD JCIDS Process or Full Rate Production Decision Review PDR PDR CDR Renewed emphasis on manufacturing during system development: Re-titles SDD phase to EMD with two sub phases: Integrated System Design and System Capability and Manufacturing Process Demonstration Establishes consideration of manufacturing maturity at key decision points Mandatory system-level CDR with an initial product baseline and followed by a Post-CDR Report to the MDA Post-CDR Assessment by the MDA between EMD sub phases

In Conclusion . . . MDD MS A MS B Agreement to pursue a material solution BusinessDecisions Selection of a proposed materiel solution Materiel Solution Analysis Program Initiation EngineeringSupport Uncertainty Proposed Materiel Solution Technology Maturation and Prototyping PDR P-PDR Assessment System Level Specs P-CDR Assessment Final slide- So why am I here welcoming you? We have recognized the important of early SE to provide the technical basis for our acquisitions and PDR has traditionally been a technical review and within the SE lane. However, SE is only effective when it supports the work in other areas and is informed by those areas With the changes PDR has taken a new role and it is critical that SE work in tandem with the other areas for acquisition sucess AoA OR PDR CDR Preliminary Design Completed Design Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Development Make acquisition decisions when you have solid evidence and acceptable risk

SE Planning for Milestone A and Technology Development Phase
Documents / activities / data requiring technical input from the Systems Engineer BEFORE Milestone A: Analysis of Alternatives Technology Development Strategy Critical Program Information Technology maturation plans Competitive Prototyping plans Net-Centric Data Strategy Market Research Data Management Strategy Component Cost Estimate Systems Engineering Plan Test and Evaluation Plan The Systems Engineer’s Challenge: Where to find the data!?

Call Me… Sharon Vannucci sharon.vannucci@osd.mil (703) 695-7853

Backup

Material Solution Analysis
MDD MS A Materiel Solution Analysis Conduct AoA Initial user assessment of capability needs ICD Study Efforts Engineering Analysis of Potential Systems Solution(s) SEP TDS JCIDS Guidance Plan Report TES Technical Planning for TD Material Solution Options Program For TD Office

MSA Starting & Closing Conditions
Starting Conditions Closing Conditions JROC Approved ICD Understanding of capability gaps Successful MDD Agreement by MDA to proceed MDA Approved AoA Guidance Direction for initial scoping of solution Materiel Solution Analysis (MSA) Technology Development Strategy (TDS) Understanding of risks – technology, design, manufacturing, security, etc. Plans for competitive prototyping and initial design (to PDR) Plans for SE and T&E for technology development

MSA – Materiel Development Decision
MDD MS A Materiel Solution Analysis Conduct AoA Initial user assessment of capability needs ICD Study Efforts Engineering Analysis of Potential Systems Solution(s) SEP TDS JCIDS Guidance Plan Report TES Technical Planning for TD Material Solution Options Program For TD Office (and fewer surprises later in the process) Materiel Development Decision New in Provides early visibility to MDA and opportunity for better upfront guidance

MSA – Analysis of Alternatives
MDD MS A Materiel Solution Analysis Conduct AoA Initial user assessment of capability needs ICD Study Efforts Engineering Analysis of Potential Systems Solution(s) SEP TDS JCIDS Guidance Plan Report TES Technical Planning for TD Material Solution Options Program For TD Office No major changes in Increased visibility at MDD Recommends important considerations be addressed at the outset in AoA Guidance Risk is that if driving issues are not addressed in the AoA they will cost more in time and funds when identified later in the process

MSA – Engineering Analysis
MDD MS A Materiel Solution Analysis Conduct AoA Initial user assessment of capability needs ICD Study Efforts Engineering Analysis of Potential Systems Solution(s) SEP TDS JCIDS Guidance Plan Report TES Technical Planning for TD Material Solution Options Program For TD Office Engineering analysis delivers the materiel solution(s) knowledge required for: MDA ‘s approval of materiel solution(s) and cost estimate certification SEP: Solution(s) descriptions , CTEs identification, & technical requirements TES: Solution(s) description that supports TES development TDS: Technical baseline that supports evolutionary acquisition strategy Early engineering analysis by ‘emerging program office’ Based on results of the AoA, translated into option(s) for acquisition Provides technical basis for planning for next steps including the best technical approach for the TD phase Includes assessment of technical risks including technology maturity, design, assurance, integration, manufacturing Provides technical foundation for MS A products and decisions

MSA – Material Solution Options
MDD MS A Materiel Solution Analysis Conduct AoA Initial user assessment of capability needs ICD Study Efforts Engineering Analysis of Potential Systems Solution(s) SEP TDS JCIDS Guidance Plan Report TES Technical Planning for TD Material Solution Options Program For TD Office calls for initial review, but is silent on specifics Recommended solution or solution set Reviewed by stakeholders Provides scoping for planning for next phase

MSA – Planning for TD Phase
MDD MS A Materiel Solution Analysis JCIDS Initial user ICD assessment of capability needs Engineering Analysis of Potential Systems Material Technical Program Office Solution(s) Solution Planning Options for TD Study SEP Efforts TES Program Planning For TD TDS AoA AoA AoA Plan Report Guidance Conduct Planning for Technology Development Costing Contracting CTE CPI Systems Engineering Test & Evaluation AoA Evolutionary vs. single step approach (programmatic and technical) Acquisition increments’ objectives Total R&D program cost, schedule, performance goals TD Phase risk reduction/ technology maturation objectives Competitive prototyping and PDR plans TD Phase-specific cost, schedule, performance goals and exit criteria Contract strategy and RFP preparation Program Office organization, responsibilities, and time-phased workload assessment

MSA –Planning for TD Phase Continued…
MDD MS A Materiel Solution Analysis JCIDS Initial user ICD assessment of capability needs Engineering Analysis of Potential Systems Material Technical Program Office Solution(s) Solution Planning Options for TD Study SEP Efforts TES Program Planning For TD TDS AoA AoA AoA Plan Report Guidance Conduct Planning for Technology Development Costing Contracting CTE CPI Systems Engineering Test & Evaluation AoA Major products Technology Development Strategy (TDS) Plan for the TD phase Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) Plan for engineering for TD activities T&E Strategy Test plans and criteria for TD and long lead time test elements

MSA – PM Questions Increased importance of AoA?
MDD MS A Materiel Solution Analysis Conduct AoA Initial user assessment of capability needs ICD Study Efforts Engineering Analysis of Potential Systems Solution(s) SEP TDS JCIDS Guidance Plan Report TES Technical Planning for TD Material Solution Options Program For TD Office Increased importance of AoA? When is Program Office formation? Role of industry? Coordination with S&T community? Who vets the PMO assessments in the TDS?

Technology Development
Prototyping for design feasibility MS A MS B Technology Development CDD CTE Risk Reduction SRR(s) PDR(s) Updated SEP SRD Draft RFP for Initial System Dev JCIDS Final ISP PDR Report User assessment of capability needs AS TEMP CARD/ICE CCE APB Update RFP** * SFR(s) Sponsor Approved Execute Tech Maturation Preliminary Design*** Technology Readiness Initial TRA Engineering Oversight Engineering Analysis

TD Starting & Closing Conditions
Starting Conditions Closing Conditions Milestone A decision Selected materiel solution(s) Clear direction in ADM including funding matched to TD plan (in approved TDS) Cost, schedule, solution(s) maturity objectives Cost certification Approved Technology Development Strategy (TDS) TD phase acquisition strategy and RFPs Detailed phase implementation plan with resources Approved Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) and T&E Strategy (TES) Technical management and implementation plan Testing objectives and criteria Knowledge-based decision on establishing a program of record including cost, schedule, and performance based on: Approved CDD and systems requirements Demonstrated mature solution(s) technologies Initial end-item design maturity (if PDR before B) EMD phase full funding EMD plan and objectives (AS) based on acceptable level of risk to Sponsor, CAE, and PM Supporting programmatic, technical, and test planning for EMD execution Technology Development (TD)

Technology Maturation Initial End Item Design
TD – Major Thrusts Technology Maturation Initial End Item Design

TD – Technology Maturity
Reviews TDS assessment of technology maturity and its identified Critical Technology Elements CTEs Confirms/ revises CTEs functional and performance baselines; the ”as is” and required Matures CTEs in relevant environments Competitive prototypes or other technology risk reduction activities Uses RFPs/ task orders with industry and government labs/ agencies Implementation based on MS A products TDS identified CTE and provided technology risk reduction plans SEP defined how risk reduction and prototypes will be technically managed and reviewed TES provided T&E criteria for evaluation of technology risk reduction and prototype efforts

TD – Engineering Analysis
Assesses CTE/ prototyping results against required requirements Refines system requirements based on technology maturation results Collaborates with Users to balance CDD requirements with solutions’ technology maturity Develops technical baseline for CARD and program estimate (Certification requirement) Results… Drive the technical aspects of program: Systems Requirement Document, SEP and TEMP Provide the technical foundation for draft Acquisition Strategy, Initial end-item RFP, cost estimates, and APB

TD – Interim Products Interim products provide basis for initial end item design Sponsor-approved CDD Updated TEMP Initial Acquisition Strategy and cost estimates Preliminary APB Preliminary program total ownership costs and plan for evolutionary acquisition increments

TD – Initial End Item Design(s)
Multiple design competitors including prototypes (as required) Technical reviews’ products per SEP (e.g.: requirements tradeoffs, trade studies, design alternatives, and prototyping results) Greater understanding of achievable system performance Risk reduction via HW and SW design maturation (engineering and manufacturing) Engineering oversight and insight via IPTs Interaction with user community and stakeholders to ensure shared understanding of technical feasibility

TD – Products Design results inform final Milestone B products:
Business Case Analysis EMD RFP or post PDR contract(s) execution Technical plans: SEP, TEMP, Information Support Plan (ISP), etc. PDR Report to MDA (new in ) PM Assessment Final CDD reflecting a feasible, affordable increment of development Acquisition Strategy, next increment’s APB & CARD, and full funding requirement

TD – PM Questions Role of industry in TD? Relationship to JCIDS?
PDR before B Impact of time delay between PDR and MS B? Contracting implications for EMD? What requirements are in the RFP for initial designs? Timing and basis for Source Selection?

Statutory Requirements Added For MDAPs & MAIS
Enclosure 4, Table 2-1 Statutory Requirements Added For MDAPs & MAIS When Required Requirement Reference Comment Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) 10 USC 2366a Title 40, Sec III MS A, B, C, & Program Initiation for Ships Updated as necessary at MS B and C Data Management Strategy 10 USC 2320 MS A, B, C, & FRPDR Part of TDS or Acq Strategy Military Equipment Program Valuation PL & Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards, No 6 MS C & FRPDR (or equivalent) Part of Acquisition Strategy Analysis of Alternatives (AoA). Previously a regulatory requirement only for ACAT I/IA. Now a statutory requirement for ACAT I and IA, and a regulatory requirement for all the rest (see upcoming chart on regulatory requirements for all programs). Data Management Strategy: See Chapter 2, DAG when revised. AT&L Policy memo dated 19 July 2007, states that the data management strategy will: -Assess the data required to design, manufacture and sustain the system as well as to support re-competition for production, sustainment or upgrade. -Address the merits of including a priced contract option for the future delivery of technical data and intellectual property rights not acquired upon initial contract award and shall consider the contractor's responsibility to verify any assertion of restricted use and release of data. Military Equipment Valuation: See Chapter 2, DAG when revised. For MS C, the PM prepares a program description as part of the Acquisition Strategy. Throughout Production and Deployment, the PM or the life-cycle manager ensures that all deliverable equipment requiring capitalization is serially identified and valued at full cost; the full cost of each item of equipment is entered in the Item Unique Identification (IUID) registry; all solicitations, proposals, contracts, and/or orders for deliverable equipment are structured for proper segregation of each type of equipment based on its respective financial treatment; procedures are established to track all equipment items throughout their life cycle; and the status of items added, retired from operational use, or transferred from one DoD Component to another DoD Component are updated quarterly throughout their life.

Statutory Requirements Added For MDAPs Only
Enclosure 4, Table 2-1 Statutory Requirements Added For MDAPs Only When Required Requirement Reference Comment MDA Program Certification 10 USC 2366 a & b MS A & B MS C (if program initiation) Requires cost estimate at MS A Nunn-McCurdy Assessment and Certification 10 USC 2433 When Service Secretary reports an increase in cost that equals or exceeds the critical cost threshold Increase of 25% over “current” PAUC or APUC APB values; Increase of 50% over “original” PAUC or APUC APB values MDA Program Certification (see previous chart on Policy Directed by Congress, and back-up charts for details). MDAPs only. Nunn-McCurdy Assessment & Certification. MDAPs only. If current or original APB values for Procurement Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) or Average Unit Procurement Cost (AUPC) are breached as shown, SECDEF: assesses, — (1) any design, engineering, manufacturing, or technology integration issues that contributed significantly to the cost growth of the program; (2) the projected cost of completing the program if current requirements are not modified; (3) the projected cost of completing the program based on reasonable modification of such requirements; and (4) the rough order of magnitude of the costs of any reasonable alternative system or capability. Certification: Submits to Congress, a written certification (with a supporting explanation) stating that— (1) such acquisition program is essential to the national security; (2) there are no alternatives to such acquisition program which will provide equal or greater military capability at less cost; (3) the new estimates of the program acquisition unit cost or procurement unit cost are reasonable; and (4) the management structure for the acquisition program is adequate to manage and control program acquisition unit cost or procurement unit cost. Replaced System Sustainment Plan. MDAPs only: Required if existing sys remains necessary during fielding of replacement system; includes budget for sustainment of existing system; includes analysis of ability of existing system to meet mission requirements against threat. Replaced System Sustainment Plan 10 USC 2437 MS B; Program Initiation for Ships

Statutory Requirements Added For MAIS Only
Enclosure 4, Table 2-1 Statutory Requirements Added For MAIS Only When Required Requirement Reference Comment Assessment and certification of a Critical Change to the Defense Committees 10 USC 2445c NLT 60 days after receiving a MAIS Quarterly Report indicating a Critical Change Failed to achieve IOC w/in 5 years after funds were first obligated; schedule change of 1 yr or more; increase in dev cost or life cycle cost of 25% or more; or a change in expected performance that undermines ability of sys to perform anticipated functions Notification of a Significant Change to the Defense Committees 10 USC 2445c NLT 45 days after receiving MAIS Quarterly Report indicating a Significant Change Schedule change of more than 6 mos, but less than 1 year; increase in development cost or life cycle cost of at least 15% but less than 25%; or significant adverse change in expected performance SAEs shall obtain the ASD(NII)/DoD CIO’s coordination on Significant and Critical Change reports before submitting them to the congressional defense committees when (a) the ASD(NII)/DoD CIO is the MDA for the program, or (b) the MAIS is an ACAT IAC program that is not under the direct authority of the USD(AT&L). SAEs shall obtain the USD(AT&L)'s coordination on Significant and Critical Change reports before submitting them to the congressional defense committees when the MAIS is under the direct authority of the USD(AT&L). DoD CIO Confirmation of CCA Compliance. The 2003 requirement was “certification of compliance with CCA”. Enclosure 5 requires that the DoD CIO “confirm” compliance with Title 40/Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) for both MDAP and MAIS IT systems to include NSS. DoD CIO Confirmation of CCA Compliance Sec 811, PL MS A, B, C, & Full Deployment Decision Review MS C if program initiation or equiv to Full Deployment Decision Review

Statutory Requirements Added For MAIS Only, continued…
Enclosure 4, Table 2-1 Statutory Requirements Added For MAIS Only, continued… When Required Requirement Reference Comment DBSMC Certification for Business Systems Modernization 10 USC 2222 Prior to obligation of funds See Encl. 11, DoDI Notice of MAIS Cancellation or Significant Reduction in Scope Sec 806, PL 60 days prior to MDA decision to cancel or significantly reduce scope of fielded or post-MS C MAIS program MAIS Annual Report to Congress 10 USC 2445b Annually, after first occurrence of any of the following events: MDA designation, MS A or MS B Due 45 days after the President’s Budget is submitted to Congress -Defense Business Systems Management Committee (DBSMC) policy and procedure describes in enclosure 11 to DoDI This requirement is for MAIS business systems; similar requirements apply to other business systems valued at more than $1 million. -Notice of MAIS Cancellation or Significant Reduction in Scope: Cancellation is self-explanatory. “Significant reduction in scope” is not explained in DoDI The language at Sec. 806, PL implies a significant change would be a change that impacts on the ability of the Department to achieve the objectives of the program. MAIS Quarterly Report 10 USC 2445c Quarterly following initial submission of a MAIS Annual Report

Enclosure 4, Table 2-2 Statutory Requirements Added For ACAT II and Below Programs (unless otherwise noted) When Required Requirement Reference Comment Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) – all IT including NSS 40 USC Subtitle III MS A, B, & C Updated as necessary at MS B and C Data Management Strategy (ACAT II only) 10 USC 2320 MS B, C, & FRPDR Part of Acq Strategy LRIP Quantities (ACAT II only) 10 USC 2400 MS B This is a new Table 2-2 developed for the 2008 version of ; however, except for the requirements shown here, the other statutory requirements for ACAT II and below programs, were already covered by various sections of the 2003 version of and are not really new. AoA. See information on first chart for Table 2-1, and next series of charts for Regulatory Requirements for all Programs. Data Management Strategy and Military Equipment Program Valuation. See information on first chart for Table 2-1. LRIP Quantities. Same as for ACAT 1 in previous version of This makes it clear same requirement applies to ACAT II programs: At Milestone B, the MDA determines the Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) quantity for MDAPs and major systems. The LRIP quantity for an MDAP (with rationale for quantities exceeding 10 percent of the total production quantity documented in the Acquisition Strategy) shall be included in the first Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) after its determination. Any increase in quantity after the initial determination shall be approved by the MDA. The LRIP quantity shall not be less than one unit. The Director, Operational Test & Evaluation, following consultation with the PM, shall determine the number of production or production-representative test articles required for live-fire test and evaluation (LFT&E) and initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) of programs on the OSD T&E Oversight List. For a system that is not on the OSD Operational Test & Evaluation (OT&E) Oversight List, the operational test agency (OTA), following consultation with the PM, shall determine the number of test articles required for IOT&E. Military Equipment Program Valuation PL & Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards, No 6 MS C & FRPDR (or equivalent) Part of Acquisition Strategy

Enclosure 4, Table 3 Regulatory Requirements Added/Revised For All Programs (unless otherwise noted) Requirement Reference When Required Comment Acquisition Info Assurance Strategy DoDI MS A, B, C, & FRPDR or FDDR All IT including NSS Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) DoDI MS A, B, & C FDDR for AIS Updated as necessary at MS B and C AoA Study Guidance DoDI MDD Component Cost Estimate DoDI MDAP: MS A & B & FRPDR MAIS: whenever an EA is required Mandatory for MAIS; optional for MDAP Acquisition Information Assurance Strategy. Applies to all acquisitions of automated information systems (AIS), outsourced information technology (IT)-based processes, and platforms or weapon systems with IT interconnections to the Global Information Grid (GIG). Analysis of Alternatives (AoA). Previous version of required “AoA Plan” for all programs; however, it implied AoA was required only for MDAP and MAIS. Most Components extended requirement for AoA to all programs. AoA Study Guidance. Approved at the MDD by the MDA. After approval, the AoA Plan is developed based on the guidance. For ACAT 1/IA programs, the OSD, Dir. PA&E develops the Study Guidance and approves the Study Plan. Component Cost Estimate. Evidently new term for Component Cost Analysis (CCA) Corrosion Prevention Control Plan. Corrosion prevention and mitigation methods include, but are not limited to, the use of effective design practices, material selection, protective finishes, production processes, packaging, storage environments, protection during shipment, and maintenance procedure. See DAG, Chapter 4. Life Cycle Sustainment Plan. Describes how the sustainment strategy is being implemented. See DAG Chapt. 5 for content. Life Cycle Signature Support Plan. To provide standardized signature data that allows applications to accurately identify equipment, activities, individuals, and events. Signature data must meet universal data tagging standards and use machine-understandable information templates to be effective in dynamic operational environments and facilitate sensor-to-shooter connections. Corrosion Prevention Control Plan DoDI MS B & C Part of Acq Strategy for ACAT I only Life Cycle Sustainment Plan DoDI MS B, C, & FRPDR Part of Acq Strategy Life-Cycle Signature Support Plan DoDD MS A, B, & C Updated as necessary for MS C

Enclosure 4, Table 3 Regulatory Requirements Added/Revised For All Programs (unless otherwise noted) When Required Requirement Reference Comment Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Report DoDI MS B after System-level PDR May be after MS B – requires a Post-PDR Assessment & ADM Post-Critical Design Review (CDR) Report DoDI After system- level CDR Post-CDR Assessment & ADM Net-Centric Data Strategy DoDD MS A, B, C, & PI for Ships Summarized in TDA; detailed in the ISP PDR Report. -PDR Before MS B. PDR conducted for each candidate design. PDR Report includes recommended requirements trades based upon an assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk. -PDR After MS B. PM submits a PDR report and the MDA conducts a formal Post-PDR Assessment. The PDR report reflects requirements trades based upon the PM’s assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk. The MDA considers results of the PDR and the PM’s assessment, and determines whether remedial action is necessary to achieve APB objectives. CDR Report. The PM provides a CDR Report to the MDA that provides an overall assessment of design maturity and a summary of the system-level CDR results. The MDA reviews the CDR Report and the PM's resolution/mitigation plans and determines at the Post-CDR Assessment whether additional action is necessary to satisfy EMDD Phase exit criteria and to achieve the program outcomes specified in the APB. Net-Centric Data Strategy. Net-centricity is a robust, globally interconnected network environment (including infrastructure, systems, processes, and people) in which data is shared timely and seamlessly among users, applications, and platforms. Net-centricity enables substantially improved military situational awareness and significantly shortened decision making cycles. Systems Engineering Plan (SEP). Describes the program’s overall technical approach, including key technical risks, processes, resources, metrics, and applicable performance incentives; timing, conduct, and success criteria of technical reviews. IUID Implementation Plan. “DoD unique item identification” means a system of marking items delivered to DoD with unique item identifiers that have machine-readable data elements to distinguish an item from all other like and unlike items. See DoDI Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) DoDI MS A, B, & C IUID Implementation Plan DoDI MS A, B, & C Annex to the SEP at MS B and C

Enclosure 4, Table 3 Regulatory Requirements Added/Revised For All Programs (unless otherwise noted) When Required Requirement Reference Comment Program Deviation Report DoDI Immediately upon a program deviation APB breaches System Threat Assessment Report (STAR) DoDI DoDD DIA Dir DIA Inst MS B & C & Program Initiation for Ships ACAT I and all DOT&E Oversight List Programs Systems Threat Assessment (STA) DoDI DoDD DIA Dir DIA Inst MS B & C ACAT II Program Deviation Report. Refers to reporting acquisition program baseline breaches (deviations from threshold values. See chapter 2, DAG. PM’s Report of DT Results. Identifies strengths and weaknesses in meeting the warfighters’ documented needs based on developmental evaluations STAR and STA. Term “STAR” now used for ACAT I, IA and DOT&E Oversight Programs. STA is used for ACAT II programs. Apparently, same report format. DIA references are not available through public sources. DIA validates STAR for ACAT ID; Component validates for ACAT IC. STA for ACAT II validated by Components. Spectrum Supportability Determination is required for all systems/equipment that use the electromagnetic spectrum in the U.S. and in other host nations. Test and Evaluation Strategy (TES). Describes the overall test approach for integrating developmental, operational, and live-fire test and evaluation and addresses test resource planning. Include a test plan that addresses Technology Development phase activity, including the identification and management of technology risk, and the evaluation of system design concepts against the preliminary mission requirements resulting from the AoA. Spectrum Supportability Determination DoDD MS B & C Test and Evaluation Strategy (TES) DoDI MS A

Enclosure 5: IT Considerations . . . changes
“Title 40/CCA” replaces term CCA. Subtitle III of Title 40, US Code was formerly known as Division E of the Clinger-Cohen Act Table 8 slightly modified for readability: Added: Investment Review Board (IRB) role as “OIPT” for MAIS and MDAP business systems Time-Certain Acquisition of IT Business Systems (No MS A approval unless can achieve IOC within 5 years) Defense Business System Management Committee (DBSMC) Certification for business systems with modernization funding over $1 million – prior to any milestone or FRP approval DoD CIO notification to Congress 60 days before any MDA cancels or significantly reduces size of MAIS fielded or post-MC C MAIS program Revised: Eliminated requirement for DoD CIO certification of CCA compliance. Investment Review Board (IRB). Replaces OIPTs for business systems that are MAIS and MDAP. Also, supports DBSMC for certification of all business systems valued at $1 million or more (see new incl. 11) Time Certain acquisition of IT business systems, also see Table 2-1, Statutory Requirements for MAIS Acquisition Programs, Note 4, and chart 11 of this presentation. For all MAIS, a critical program change that must be reported to Congress is “system failed to achieve IOC within 5 years after funds were first obligated for the program”. DBSMC process covered in more detail in new Encl. 11. CCA Certification: Requirement for DoD CIO to certify compliance with CCA, and notify Congress, was not re-enacted in the DoD Appropriations Act for FY2009, so no longer required.

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

Enclosure 6: Test and Evaluation . . . changes
Continued… OUSD(AT&L), Director, Systems Software and Engineering, will conduct an independent Assessment of Operational Test Readiness (AOTR) for ACAT ID and special interest programs designated by USD(AT&L). CAE will consider AOTR prior to making determination of materiel readiness for IOT&E OSD T&E Oversight List categories: developmental testing, operational testing, or live fire testing. Programs on list designated for OT or live fire testing will be considered same as MDAPs or “covered programs” and subject to all provisions of Title 10, US Code, and DoDI Force protection equipment (including non-lethal weapons) will be identified as a separate category on OSD T&E Oversight List AOTR does not replace Operational Test Readiness Review (OTRR) conducted at Service level. The SAE must consider results of AOTR when making decision on readiness for operational testing.

Enclosure 7: Resource Estimation . . . changes
PMs must use Cost and Software Data Reporting System to report data on contractor costs and resource usage CARD must reflect program definition achieved during TD phase, be in sync with other program documents, and if PDR is before MS B, the final CARD at MS B must reflect results of the PDR Fully burdened cost of delivered energy must be used in trade-off analyses for all tactical systems with end items that create a demand for energy Following areas of assessment added to AoA: Alternative ways to improve the energy efficiency of DoD tactical systems consistent with mission and cost effectiveness Appropriate system training to ensure that training is provided with the system -Both the Contractor Cost Data Report (CCDR) and the Software Resources Data Report (SRDR) were required by Table E3.T3, May 2003 ver. Of DoDI Change here is the highlighting of both in Encl. 7, instead of just the CCDR. -CARD: makes sense that CARD should reflect results of PDR; also remember, the final CDD at MS B should also reflect trades conducted during TD phase, and the cost estimate at MS B should be in sync with the CDD.

Enclosure 8: Human Systems Integration . . . changes
Mix of military, DoD civilian, and contractor support to operate, maintain, and support (including training) a system must be determined based on Manpower Mix Criteria and reported in the Manpower Estimate Economic analyses to support workforce mix decisions must use tools that account for all variable and fixed costs, compensation and non-compensation costs, current and deferred benefits, cash, and in-kind benefits Details on Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (ESOH) moved to new Enclosure 12, Systems Engineering -DoDI , requires use of DoDI to determine workforce mix.

Enclosure 9: Acquisition of Services . . . changes
Planning for acquisition of services must consider: Requirements development and management Acquisition planning Solicitation and contract award Risk management Contract tracking and oversight Performance evaluation Special procedures for IT services that cost over $500M, all services that cost over $1B, and special interest programs designated by ASD(NII), USD(AT&L), or their designees: Senior officials/decision authorities must be notified prior to issuing final solicitation (briefing or written) ASD(NII)/DoD CIO notifies USD(AT&L) of any proposed acquisition of IT services over $1B Review by ASD(NII)/USD(AT&L) initiates review of acquisition strategy – final RFPs cannot be released until approval This chart needs no further explanation.

Continued… Policy extended to services acquired after program achieves Full Operational Capability (FOC), if those services were not subject to previous milestones Policy does not apply to R&D activities or services that are approved as part of an acquisition program managed IAW DoDI Senior Officials and decision authorities may apply policy to R&D services at their discretion SAEs are Senior Officials for acquisition of services USD(AT&L) is Senior Official for acquisition of services for Components outside of military departments – he may delegate decision authority to commanders/ directors of these components Independent management reviews (Peer Reviews) required for contracts of $1B or more Peer Reviews: Service contracts valued at $1B or more. -Organized by Dir, DPAP. -Teams comprised of senior contracting officials from across DoD. Pre-award of all contracts and post-award reviews for service contracts will be conducted. -Senior officials and Component decision authorities will establish procedures for peer reviews for contracts valued at less than $1B.

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

Enclosure 10: Program Management . . . changes
Requires PMs for ACAT II and other significant non-major programs to be assigned for not less that 3 years Program Management Agreements (PMAs) implemented to establish “contract” between PM and acquisition and resource officials Provides that waivers for PM/PEO experience and certifications “should be strictly avoided” Provides for USD(AT&L) waiver for PEOs to assume other command responsibilities Adds US-ratified materiel international standardization agreements to consideration for international cooperative programs -Previously the 4-year requirement for PMs and Deputy PMs to be assigned until at least a major milestone closest to 4 years in the position also applied to PMs of ACAT II programs; changed to 3 years for those programs. -PMAs: Required for ACAT I & II programs. Described as an “achievable and measurable annual plans that are fully resourced”. Signed by the PM, CAE, requirements and resource authority. PMA’s must establish PM’s clear authority to object to addition of new requirements that would be inconsistent with parameters established at MS B and reflected in the PMA unless approved by the CSB. -Note: PEO command responsibilities/waivers: --The Air Force has dual-hatted the commanders of their Product Centers as PEOs. --The Army had obtained a number of waivers to dual hat some PEO’s; however, lessons learned may have reversed the process in the Army. For example, the Commander, Communications & Electronics Command (CECOM) is no longer dual-hatted as PEO C3T. Commander, Joint Munitions and Lethality Life Cycle Management Command is still dual-hatted as Commanding General, Picatinny Arsenal and PEO Ammunition. --Navy PEOs have no other command responsibilities.

Enclosure 11: Management of Business Systems (New)
Applies to “defense business system” modernizations with total modernization or development funding exceeding $1 million Defines Defense Business System as an information system, other than a national security system, operated by, for, or on behalf of DoD, including financial management systems, mixed systems, financial data feeder systems, and IT and information assurance infrastructure Defense Business Systems support activities such as acquisition, financial management, logistics, strategic planning and budgeting, installations and environment, and human resource management This chart needs no further explanation.

Continued… Funds cannot be expended until the Defense Business System Management Committee (DBSMC) approves Investment Review Board Certification (IRB) that the system: Is in compliance with the enterprise architecture; or Is necessary to achieve a critical national security capability or address a critical requirement in an area such as safety or security; or Is necessary to prevent a significant adverse impact on a project that is needed to achieve an essential capability The IRB functions as an “OIPT” for business systems.

Continued… Business Systems Certification and Approval Process 5 Program Manager (PM) 1 Component Pre-Certification Authority (PCA) 2 Investment Review Board (IRB) Defense Business Systems Management Committee (DBSMC) 5 3 6 Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) Certification Authority (CA) 4 -Components appoint PCA who reviews and validates certification requests and sends to responsible IRB -IRB reviews request, Chair signs Certification Authority Memorandum, and requests DBSMC approval – before first milestone review. The IRB Chair determines each request: (a) is in compliance with the enterprise architecture; or (b) is necessary to achieve a critical national security capability or address a critical requirement in an area such as safety or security; or (c) is necessary to prevent a significant adverse effect on a project that is needed to achieve an essential capability, taking into consideration the alternative solutions for preventing such adverse effect. -IRB conducts annual review and may request de-certification if system fails to comply with certification conditions or risks are not acceptable -Certification Authorities (CA) --USD(AT&L): business system of which the primary purpose is to support acquisition, logistics, or installations and environment activities --USD(C): business system of which the primary purpose is to support financial management, or strategic planning and budgeting activities --USD(P&R): business system of which the primary purpose is to support human resource management activities --ASD(NII): business system of which the primary purpose is to support information technology infrastructure or information assurance activities --Deputy Secretary of Defense: business system of which the primary purpose is to support any DoD activity not covered above -DBSMC Chair: DEPSECDEF; Vice Chair: USD(AT&L Note: The Deputy Chief Mgmt Officer of DoD is to be the Vice Chair of the DBSMC. This is a new political position that will be nominated and filled by the next administration. PM completes economic viability review & other plans/analysis as requested by the PCA PCA Validates info from PM, forwards certification request to appropriate IRB IRB reviews request, IRB chair recommends appropriate approval authority sign certification memo and request DBSMC approval CA sends signed certification memo to DBSMC for approval DBSMC Chair approves certification and sends decision to the PM through the PCA PM requests MDA conduct milestone review

Enclosure 12: Systems Engineering (New)
Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) required at each milestone MDA is approval authority for the SEP For programs where USD(AT&L) is MDA and for programs on the DT-only portion of OSD T&E Oversight List, SEPs must be submitted to Director, Systems and Software Engineering 30 days prior to DAB/ITAB review PEOs must have lead systems engineer – oversees SE across PEO’s portfolio; reviews SEPs; assesses performance of subordinate systems engineers with PEO and PMs Event-driven technical reviews required – with SMEs independent of program, unless waived by the MDA Requires configuration management to establish and control product attributes and the technical baseline; at completion of the system-level CDR, PM assumes control of the initial product baseline for all Class 1 configuration changes Spectrum Supportability determination required Encl 12 includes SE policy previously directed by AT&L memos, and in addition: SPECTRUM SUPPORTABILITY. For all electromagnetic spectrum-dependent systems, PMs shall comply with U.S. and host nation spectrum regulations. They shall submit written determinations to the DoD Component CIO or equivalent that the electromagnetic spectrum necessary to support the operation of the system during its expected life cycle is, or will be, available (DoD Directive , Reference

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

Systems Engineering Summit March 4, 2009 Sharon Vannucci

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Systems Engineering Summit March 4, 2009 Sharon Vannucci"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Systems Engineering Summit March 4, 2009 Sharon Vannucci

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Systems Engineering Summit March 4, 2009 Sharon Vannucci"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback