1. Date Briefer’s Name Briefer’s Org Code Briefer’s Phone # Briefer’s Email Program logo here Program Executive Office Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (PEO C4I) Revised Sample Brief Template v2 Sample: Statement D: Distribution authorized to Department of Defense (DOD) and U. S. DOD contractors only. Other requests must be referred to PEO C4I or the SPAWAR Office of Congressional and Public Affairs (SPAWAR 00P).

2. Program logo here 2 Key Stakeholders NameOrganization APM MDA DT Coordinator COMOPTEVFOR (OTD) COMOPTEVFOR (OTC) CNO (N912) CNO (N-sponsor) JITC DOT&E (if required) Others (as required) -PMW, SYSCOMS, Service

3. Program logo here 3 Purpose of Briefing

4. Program logo here 4 Briefing Outline

5. Program logo here 5 Program Overview ACAT Program Phase Milestone or Decision that this phase of test will support Mission Inventory Objective (quantities)

6. Program logo here 6 ADM Exit Criteria and Action Item Status R Required at this time, but not completed G Completed YIn progress & on schedule

7. Program logo here 7 Concept/Requirement

8. Program logo here 8 System Overview Component/System Description

9. Program logo here 9 System Overview Capability Enabler

10. Program logo here 10 Deployed/ Mobile Units BASE IMA FISC Pier Connections CLINIC TRNG CEN HQ TELEPORT/STEP Long Haul (DISN & Commercial ) TRAINING CENTER USN/USMC LOGISTIC BASE NAVAL AMPHIBIOUS BASE NOC BASE MC AIR STATION End-to-End Connectivity NMCI at the Pier Development Strategy End-to-End Capability

11. Program logo here 11 Program Overview Accomplishments/History

12. Program logo here 12 Program Overview Previous Guidance (if Required)

13. Program logo here 13 Acquisition Coordination Team (ACT) The following (Program Name) ACT members have been briefed on the program status and concur with the fielding of (Program Name).

14. Program logo here 14 Program Information and Documentation Status R Required at this time, but does not exist B Requires development or updating w/in 12 months O Required at this time and under development/update G Current, with all required approvals Y In approval cycle. Expected Date in Comments NR Not required. Rationale in Comments

15. Program logo here 15 [insert program name] Program Overview Chart DATE OF REPORT: MM/DD/YYYY PM / SponsorCostSchedulePerformance Programmatic Compliance Logistics Contract Execution Contact Info here Description: Program Start Date: MM / YY [Insert program description here] Joint or International: [Insert joint or International details] Key Performance Parameters KPPObjectiveThresholdDemo OP Avail.90.90.98 S/W Reliability 200 hrs 200 hrs 1000 hrs S/W Mean 5 sec 5 sec 3.2 sec xxxx x x x Acquisition Objectives Quantity650 IOC12 / 99 Target Price (unit)$Various $M (FY XX)$610.12 Contractor Data ContractorLitton DSD Value / Type$NA / GSA Start / CompleteAPR97 / APR03 ContractorXXX Value / Type$XX / XXX Start / CompleteXXX / XXX Cost Data ($ in M)* CostObjectiveThresholdCurrent Est. R&D 0 0 0 Proc 300.3 300.3 380 O&S 250.5 250.5 276.1 xxxx x x x * Values from last approved APB (IT) ACAT Level: MDA: Budget Source: Overall Volatility Contract Execution Ratings: G= CPI/SPI.95 or > Y= CPI/SPI.85 -.94 R = CPI/SPI <.85 OSD T&E Oversight: Y/N

16. Program logo here 16 Affordability by Increment Notes 1. FY05 includes 11 LRIP systems and 27 Increment II Upgrade Kits which are on CODE B hold pending FRP 2. Target Inventory Objective of 110 systems * Current procurement and install schedule includes 96 ships and 4 shore sites * Remaining 10 systems planned for FY09 not shown in table, Program direction expects INC III installation to begin and INC II to end in FY09

17. Program logo here 17 SPAWAR 01-6 Cost Risk * Confidence Index based on weighted averages

18. Program logo here 18 Cost as an Independent Variable (CAIV)

19. Program logo here 19 Analysis of Alternatives KPPALT 1ALT 2ALT 3ALT 4 KPP 1 KPP 2 KPP 3 KPP 4 LCC ($TYM) Then Year Millions $$$$

20. Program logo here 20 Source Documents: –Typical source documents that effect strategy are ICD/CDD/CPD, AoA, etc. Approach: Single Step or Evolutionary –Each increment requires a MS C and if development a MS B. These could be supported by one CDD containing all capabilities and multiple CPDs supporting each increment of useable capability. Each increment could use the same CDD (revalidated each time) for the MS B and would have a separate CPD for the MS C. This method supports Evolutionary acquisition, the preferred approach. See CJCSI 3170 for other Evolutionary approached Acquisition Strategy (Requirements and Approach)

21. Program logo here 21 Acquisition Strategy (Program Structure) Concept Decision Milestone A RFP Development Milestone B Contract Award Development Test/OA Milestone C/LRIP Decision Operational Test IOC FRP Decision FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08FY09FY10

22. Program logo here 22 Acquisition Strategy (Business Approach) Current Contracts New Procurement Actions Proposed [name of effort] Contract –Competitive or Sole Source (if sole source provide justification –Contract Type: –Estimated contract value: –Period of Performance: –Acquisition Objectives: –Estimated Contract Award: –Status of Acquisition Plan:

23. Program logo here 23 Contractor Name, Contract Number, Contract Type, Short Contract Title Contract EV Metrics and Performance Projections Y Solvency (Provide comments in notes page) PEO and Program Manager/PMS-XXX, Program Acronym, ACAT XX, Date Reported CPI: SPI:

24. Program logo here 24 CPARS/IPARS/Award Fee Matrix Contractor PM Name/Gov’t PM Name Date of Review: ddmmmyy

25. Program logo here 25 LOGISTICS SUPPORT (Compliance with DoD/SECNAV 5000 series and policy documents) Logistics RequirementCompliance Exception Notes Independent Logistics Assessment (ILA) GREEN/YELLOW/RED Rating? When completed? Navy Training System Plan (NTSP) NTSP completed? Sustainment Training in Place? YES/NO Diminishing Manufacturing Sources & Matl. Shortages (DMSMS) DMSMS Process/Tool used to ID Obsolescence challenges? YES/NO Unique Identification (UID) Policy implementation DFARS Clause 252.211-7003 in contract/contract mods? YES/NO Digital Product and Technical Data Manuals, Drawings, Illustrations available in approved digital formats? YES/NO Human Systems Integration (HSI) HSI factors addressed in AS, SEP, and NTSP? YES/NO Performance Based Logistics (PBL) implementation PBL strategy considered and decision documented in BCA? YES/NO

26. Program logo here 26 Program Assessment Installation Readiness Place the assessment rating icon here. Delete the remaining.

27. Program logo here 27 Software Maturity Software Trouble Reports (STRs) S/W Build Version x.xx # of STRs

28. Program logo here 28 Software Maturity Priority 1 STR’s

29. Program logo here 29 Software Maturity Priority 1 STR Status

30. Program logo here 30 [Combat capability] ThresholdObjective [C4I Interoperability, (Strategic, Theater, Force Coord.)] [Endurance] [Cost] [Manning] [Sustained Speed] KPP Compliance

31. Program logo here 31 NESI SUMMARY Technical Evaluation Summary CountScoring No Evaluation No Compliance (0) Low Compliance (1) Some Compliance (2) Complete Compliance (4) Waived Waived (Registered) 131Total Tests Evaluation Count Total Score 2.26Mean Score Best Possible Total Score Percent of Best Possible Score Acquisition Evaluation Summary CountScoring No Evaluation No Compliance (0) Low Compliance (1) Some Compliance (2) Complete Compliance (4) Waived Waived (Registered) 35Total Tests Evaluation Count Total Score 3.31Mean Score Best Possible Total Score Percent of Best Possible Score

32. Program logo here 32 NESI Status 0 1 2 3 4 Acquisition 01 2 3 4 Technical No Compliance Complete Compliance Some Compliance Low Compliance The “Mean Score” from each summary chart automatically creates the Maturity level.

33. Program logo here 33 COI Assessment (Based on DT Results)* COIRisk Effectiveness Capacity (example) Survivability (example) Joint Interoperability (Net Ready) Etc. Suitability Reliability Maintainability Operational Availability Logistic Supportability Compatibility Interoperability Training Human Factors Safety Documentation * For DRR, assess likelihood of achieving COI Thresholds

34. Program logo here 34 DT Recommendation

35. Program logo here 35 Developmental Testing & Evaluation (DT&E) Results ParameterThresholdObjectiveResult/Assessment KPP’s KPP 1 KPP 2 MOE’s/MOS’s MOE 1 MOE 2 MOS 1 MOS 2 CTP’s CTP 1 CTP 2

36. Program logo here 36 OT Scope of Test

37. Program logo here 37 T&E Exceptions Waivers Deferrals

38. Program logo here 38 Interoperability (Net Ready)

39. Program logo here 39 PEO C4I Review Checklist

40. Program logo here 40 PEO C4I Review Checklist

41. Program logo here 41 PEO C4I Review Checklist

42. Program logo here 42 PEO C4I Review Checklist

43. Program logo here 43 Program Manger’s OTRR Checklist Navy Criteria for Certification: The following criteria for certification of readiness applies to all OT&E for all Navy Programs (EOA, OA, IOT&E, FOT&E). The program manager with the concurrence of the OTA, may tailor criteria listed below ( with the exception of item #1). The MDA may add criteria as necessary to determine the readiness for OT. YesNoN/AApproval Date 1. The TEMP is current and approved. OT prior to Milestone B shall have an approved T&E Strategy (TES). 2. DT&E results indicate DT objectives and performance thresholds identified in the TEMP have been satisfied for the ORD/CDD/CPD, as appropriate. a. If no, are they projected to be at system maturity, and do the results indicate that the system will perform successfully in OT&E? b. In addition, will they meet the criteria for approval at the next program decision milestone (e.g., full rate production on completion of IOT&E)? 3. All significant areas of risk have been identified and corrected, or mitigation pans are in place. 4. DT&E data and reports have been provided to the OTA not less than 30 days prior to the commencement of OT, unless otherwise agreed to by the OTA. 5. Entrance criteria for OT identified in the TEMP have been satisfied.

44. Program logo here 44 Program Manger’s OTRR Checklist (con’t) YesNoN/AApproval Date 6. System operating, maintenance, and training documents have been provided to the OTA 30 days prior to the OTRR, unless otherwise agreed to by the OTA. 7. Logistic support, including spares, repair parts, and support/ground support equipment is available as documented. a. Is there any logistics support which will be used during OT&E, but will not be used with the system when fielded (e.g., contractor provided depot level maintenance)? 8. The OT&E manning of the system is adequate in numbers, rates, ratings, and experience level to simulate normal operating conditions. 9. Training has been completed and is representative of that planned for fleet units. 10. All resources required to execute OT including instrumentation, simulators, targets, and expendables have been identified and are available. 11. Models, simulators, and targets have been accredited for intended use.

45. Program logo here 45 Program Manger’s OTRR Checklist (con’t) YesNoN/AApproval Date 12. The system provided for OT&E, including software, is production representative. Differences between the system provided for test and production configuration shall be addressed at the OTRR. 13. Threat information (e.g., threat system characteristics and performance, electronic countermeasures, force levels, scenarios, and tactics), to include security classification, required for OT&E is available to satisfy OTA test planning. 14. The system is safe to use as planned in the concept of employment. Any restrictions to safe employment are stated. a. The environmental, safety, and occupational health (ESOH) program requirements have been satisfied. b. The system complies with Navy/Marine Corps environmental, safety, and occupational health/hazardous waste requirements, where applicable. c. Environmental, safety, and occupational health/hazardous waste reviews and reports have been provided to the OTA.

46. Program logo here 46 Program Manger’s OTRR Checklist (con’t) YesNoN/AApproval Date 15. All software is sufficiently mature and stable for fleet introduction. a. All software Trouble Reports are documented with appropriate impact analyses. There are no outstanding Trouble Reports that: 1) Prevent the accomplishment of an essential capability. 2) Jeopardize safety, security, or other requirement designated "critical“. 3) Adversely affect the accomplishment of an essential capability and no work-around solution is known, or 4) Adversely affect technical, cost, or schedule risks to the project or to life-cycle support of the system, and no work-around solution is known. 16. For software qualification testing (SQT), a Statement of Functionality that describes the software capability has been provided to the OTA and CNO (N091).

47. Program logo here 47 Program Manger’s OTRR Checklist (con’t) YesNoN/AApproval Date 17. For programs with interoperability requirements (e.g., NR-KPP ORD/CDD/CPD), appropriate authority has approved the ISP. a. JITC concurs that program interoperability demonstrated in development has progressed sufficiently for the phase of OT to be conducted. 18. Approval of spectrum certification compliance and spectrum supportability has been obtained. 19. For IT systems, including NSS, the system has been assigned a MAC and Confidentiality Level. a. System certification accreditation documents, including the SSAA and the Authority to Operate (ATO) or Interim Authority to Operate (IATO), has been provided to the OTA. 20. Other(s)…

48. Program logo here 48 Program Manger’s OTRR Checklist (con’t) YesNoN/AApproval Date 21. For aircraft programs, there are no unresolved NAVAIRSYSCOM deficiencies that affect: a. Airworthiness b. Capability to accomplish the primary or secondary mission(s) c. Safety of the aircrew/operator/maintainer d. Integrity of the system or an essential subsystem e. Effectiveness of the operator as an essential subsystem

49. Program logo here 49 e LIKELIHOOD e d c b a CONSEQUENCE dc b a HighMedium LowMedium Risk Advisory Board: [Mr. X, PMA xxx] [Ms. Y, XYZ Corp] [Ms. Z, DASN YY] A brief description of Issue # 4 and rationale for its rating. Approach to remedy/mitigation A brief description of Issue # 4 and rationale for its rating. Approach to remedy/mitigation A brief description of Issue # 3 and rationale for its rating. Approach to remedy/mitigation A brief description of Issue # 3 and rationale for its rating. Approach to remedy/mitigation A brief description of Issue # 2 and rationale for its rating. Approach to remedy/mitigation A brief description of Issue # 2 and rationale for its rating. Approach to remedy/mitigation A brief description of Issue # 1 and rationale for its rating. Approach to remedy/mitigation A brief description of Issue # 1 and rationale for its rating. Approach to remedy/mitigation A brief description of Issue # 5 and rationale for its rating. Approach to remedy/mitigation A brief description of Issue # 5 and rationale for its rating. Approach to remedy/mitigation A brief description of Issue # 6 and rationale for its rating. Approach to remedy/mitigation A brief description of Issue # 6 and rationale for its rating. Approach to remedy/mitigation Acronyms: [IMA= Intermediate Maintenance Activity] Program Risk Assessment

50. Program logo here 50 Key Issues No further action required Significant interest outside Program Cannot be solved within the Program Legend IssueDue DateResponseStatus

51. Program logo here 51 Other Decision Factors and Challenges [List as appropriate] Example: Acquisition Coordination Team, Chaired by [insert name] concurred that [insert program name] is ready for OT&E on [date] Example: Acquisition Coordination Team, Chaired by [insert name] concurred that [insert program name] is ready to enter SDD Phase

52. Program logo here 52 PM Assessment

53. Program logo here 53 Recommendations