1. Post Milestone C Programs
Configuration Steering Board Template Charts Program Title
Post Milestone C Programs
…for Annual Review/Event Driven CSBs
Rank, Name
Office Symbol
If you have questions in preparing your briefing please contact your local Acquisition Center of Excellence (ACE) for guidance.
Wright Patterson AFB DSN:  /COMM:
Hanscom AFB DSN:   /COMM:
Eglin AFB DSN: /COMM:
Warner Robbins DSN /COMM:
Hill AFB DSN: /COMM: or
Tinker AFB DSN: /COMM:
Los Angeles AFB (SMC/PID) DSN: /COMM
SAF/AQXC Commercial: (If you have recommendations to improve the CSB template)
Updated July 2014

2. EXAMPLE “Why We Are Here Today” Information to include:
Reference Tech Baseline
List of Deltas/Changes Approved by PEO or SAE
Cost of Deltas/Changes to Program and AF Enterprise
Rationale for Deltas/Changes
Proposed recommendations to change the program
BLUF Example:
“Program” Increment III (98% expended)
No significant development activity remaining
“Program” Inc IV (focus of CSB)
No funding vs requirements mismatches in program profile
No change in requirements since Inc IV MS B, Apr 11
Potential descoping options
EXAMPLE
Please do not make statements to the effect “We are here because we are required…etc”.
DODI states “review requirements changes that may be necessary to achieve affordability constraints on production and sustainment costs”
One “why are we here” chart explaining reason for CSB
(i.e. A planned “Event Driven” CSB or a programmatic issue that required changing the date and/or type for the prescheduled “Annual Descoping” CSB)
See Notes Page 2 2

3. Interrelationships, Dependencies and Synchronization with Complementary Systems
CH-53X
UH-1/AH-1 (upgrades)
JHSV
JSF
MH-60S
MV22
GCCS-M
JPALS
DCGS-N
CEC
SSDS Mk 2
SSDS P3I
MPF(F)
LHA(R)
DRAFT
Chart needs to be updated to adequately address immature programs’ possible interrelationships with systems. Also need to reflect current systems that are in development and on schedule that cannot yet interface with other systems.
Purpose:
Very few programs today operate or function independently. Most programs are affected by other components and systems, and it usually takes a combination of programs to accomplish the full effects of a weapon or communication system. In other words, the JROC needs to understand the nature and degree to which the capability being reviewed interacts within a family of systems or system or systems in order to make the best decision.
The interrelationship and dependency chart will provide decision makers an understanding of these interrelationships and any critical interdependencies between the program under review in the context of other DoD programs and how well they are synchronized.
The Program Manager of the reviewed program is the best source of information on which programs/systems the reviewed program depends upon either operationally (supports other weapon systems), physically (embedded components) or systemically (communications or digital links).
Business Rules:
Programs to Include:
The reviewed program is in the center of the chart with any crucial interrelated ACAT I programs listed with arrowheads denoting the direction of dependency. Crucial Interdependency are such that the program under review cannot achieve capabilities articulated in the CONOPs, CDD, or CPD (as appropriate) without the related capability provided by this program. Two way dependencies will have a double-headed arrow.
Program groupings, where possible, should be by mission or capability area vice platform type.
Cost, Schedule & Performance (CSP) Ratings:
Provide the latest PM Rating for each interrelated program as updated monthly for ACAT I programs as part of the Defense Acquisition Executive Summary (DAES) process.
For non-ACAT I programs obtain the interrelated programs latest assessment directly from the other Program or Program Executive Office. Criteria for these ratings will be in accordance with DoD 5000 series and DAES reporting guidance.
Integration (I) Ratings:
Synchronization - PM for the Reviewed program will provide an assessment (Green, Yellow or Red color in I-box) of the synchronization of this program with needs of his program. In other words, whether the dependant program is on track to deliver the quantity required on the scheduled required.
Green reflects schedule, performance requirements, and quantities fully support the Reviewed program needs.
Yellow reflects there may be problems in the schedule, performance requirements or quantities to support the Reviewed program needs.
Red reflects the program cannot support the Reviewed program’s schedule, performance requirements or quantities.
Same as DAES slide
Solid denotes current system
Dash denotes future system
Arrow to LHA(R) denotes supports LHA(R)
Arrow from LHA(R) denotes LHA(R) supports
Indicates program are interdependent
No known issues affecting inter-related programs
Resolvable interface issues affecting programs
Unresolvable interface issues affecting programs

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

5. Funding vs. Requirement Assessment
Same as DAES slide
Notes:
Fill in values in the unshaded (white) cells only. The rest of the data is calculated automatically. The spreadsheet cells will round to the nearest hundred thousand dollars ($0.1M).
Display investment funding for baselined acquisition program only (not O&S or follow-on investment).
Delete any appropriation sections that have no budgeted or required costs.
Programs must use footnotes to state source of "Required" estimate, O&M service life projection & cost categories, and any RDT&E-funded quantities (if any).
Program offices are to use the latest version of the funding program template. Regularly check the DAB Calendar as the IPT Program Funding template changes as PPBES events occur.
Definitions:
Prior: President’s Budget (PB) position submitted prior to the Current budget position. Although the President only submits the FYDP to Congress, the cells for the next fiscal year and “To-Complete” should be populated for the investment appropriations using the values reported in the Selected Acquisition Report or latest DAES associated with that PB (if available).
Current: Latest approved Service POM budget position or approved President’s Budget.
Use POM Position from August through January; Use PB from February through July.
When the DoD Appropriation is enacted, programs should update that cell of all the "Current” PB funding and quantity rows to reflect the actual appropriated amounts.
Required: Latest estimate of funds required to successfully execute program, i.e., support the Warfighter and not simply match available budget TOAs. Typically, this would reflect the Will Cost estimate, Service Cost Position (SCP), or PEO-supported Program Office Estimate (POE) that has not yet been validated by Service Cost Agency or CAPE. Note: total required quantity is the acquisition objective recognized by the Joint Staff or similar body and would be reflected in the program's Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) or similar document but may not be reflected in the budget due to affordability or funding issues.
Weapon System O&M: In this section, list the O&M-funded costs from initial system deployment through end of system operations. Include all costs of operating, maintaining, and supporting a fielded system. Specifically, this consists of the costs (organic and contractor) of equipment, supplies, software, and services associated with operating, modifying, maintaining, supplying, training, and supporting a system in the DoD inventory. Do not include acquisition-related O&M, and non-O&M O&S costs such as military personnel and Investment-funded system improvements. Please address questions on the O&M requirements to OSD(AT&L)/L&MR...see POC below.
Total Required Acquisition (BY$M): Current Estimate of Total RDT&E, procurement, MILCON and acquisition-related O&M in base-year dollars as reported in the program’s quarterly DAES (if applicable). The percentage displayed is the portion of the Acquisition cost out of the sum of Acquisition and O&S costs.
Total Required O&S (BY$M): Current Estimate of Total Operating and Support costs in base-year dollars as reported in the program’s quarterly DAES (if applicable). A foot note should identify the projected service life. The percentage displayed is the portion of the O&S cost out of the sum of Acquisition and O&S costs
Curr Est (APUC): Program Manager’s current estimate of Average Procurement Unit Cost, in base-year dollars (total procurement divided by procurement-funded quantities). The APUC should match the values reported in the program's quarterly DAES (if applicable). (The current estimate is the latest PB with fact of life changes).
Curr Est (PAUC): Program Manager’s current estimate of Program Acquisition Unit Cost, in base-year dollars (total RDT&E, procurement, MILCON and acquisition-related O&M divided by total quantity). The PAUC should match the values reported in the program's quarterly DAES (if applicable).
Points of Contact:
Army Programs: LTC Tommie Sherrill, OSD(AT&L)/ARA Phone:
Navy Programs: LCDR Dave Adams, OSD(AT&L)/ARA Phone:
Air Force Programs: Lt Col Rob Pittman, OSD(AT&L)/ARA Phone:
O&M Section: Jim Kelly, OSD(AT&L)/LM&R Phone:
See Notes Page

6. Requirements Changes (+/-) since last CSB
New / Refined Requirements
Threshold / Objective
Rationale for New Req.
Current Est.
Weight
7500 lbs / 6600 lbs
AMC/A3/5 identified new weight requirement updated to allow transport in …
7650 lbs
Resolution
7 cm / 5 cm
New threat identified by xxxx and being worked through AFROC that …
6.8 cm
Etc.
Do not limit to just new KPPs/KSAs or changes to CDD/CPD. Also, include updates or refinement to requirements identified by the User or other organizations
Do not limit to just new KPPs/KSAs or changes to CDD/CPD. Also, include updates or refinement to requirements identified by the User or other organizations.
See Notes Page

7. Requirements/Affordability Analysis
Programs need to provide information on any design/requirements trades that have been conducted to evaluate cost/schedule vs. performance
State your affordability caps from last MS review
Include charts depicting curves showing how cost/schedule vary with performance/capability and showing where the current requirement/design parameter falls on the curve
Address any issues regarding how needed Military Utility/Capability play in the design/requirements trades
Address affordability as it relates to sustainment and RTOC impact
Affordability goals are key objectives set to inform requirements and design tradeoffs during early research and development. Affordability caps are fixed requirements that are functionally equivalent to Key Performance Parameters (KPPs). Based on the Component’s affordability analysis and recommendations, the MDA sets and enforces affordability constraints as follows:
At MDD: tentative affordability cost goals (e.g., total funding, annual funding profiles, unit procurement and/or sustainment costs, as appropriate) and inventory goals to help scope the AoA and provide targets around which to consider alternatives;
At Milestone A: affordability goals for unit procurement and sustainment costs; and
At the Pre-B Decision Review, Milestone B, and Beyond: binding affordability caps.
These constraints are documented in the ADMs for these decision points. At Milestone B, the affordability caps are documented in the program’s APB. Any programs that skip earlier reviews, or have baselines set before Milestone B, receive goals or constraints commensurate with their position in the acquisition cycle and their levels of maturity.
Examples are provided in the Back-Up charts

8. EXAMPLE Configuration Update ECP Performance Impact Schedule Impact
Previous 12 Months
ECP
Performance Impact
Schedule Impact
Interfaces
Affected
Cost
Disconnected Waypoints
Incorporates more operationally relevant method of handling non-sequenced points during route planning
None. Change incorporated in subsequent, planned release
User Interface only
$484K Total – all FY08 funds
Mission Data Load Handler
Allows for proper handling of mission data loads for multiple aircraft OFPs from single workstation
$569K – all FY08 funds
EXAMPLE
Identify all ECPs affecting form, fit or function from past 12 months and all anticipated during the next 12 months
Next 12 Months
ECP
Performance Impact
Schedule Impact
Interfaces
Affected
Cost
None
Identify all ECPs affecting form, fit or function from past 12 months and all anticipated during the next 12 months
It is unacceptable state “none” or “no impact” in the Performance and Schedule Impact fields as well as the Interfaces Affected field.
It is unacceptable for only a “TBD” to appear the Cost field
See Notes Page 8

9. Potential Descoping Options
User Capability Assessment and Perf Impact
Impact to remaining program
Investment to date
Savings
Defer Mode S
Low-to-med impact in FY08-13 timeframe: Risks denial to European airspace
No impact
$12M spent of an estimated $36M effort
$24M Total: $3M FY $8M FY09 $10M FY10 $3M FY11
Reduce sensor resolutions by 50%
Med impact in FY10-11 and High impact in FY12-21: Inability to …
Changes critical path to xxxx; reduces schedule risk by four months
$3M spent in risk reduction; total effort estimated at $87M
$84M Total: $2M FY $7M FY09 $15M FY10 $23M FY11 $28M FY12 $9M FY13
Etc.
* What would program descope to address a FUNDING CUT
Provide three or four options based on input from user on requirements, impact to programs ability execute remaining program, and % of costs already invested
Input is required (per DODI dated XXX 2013) “propose a set of descoping options with supporting rationale addressing operational implications to the Configuration Steering Board that reduce program cost or moderate requirements”
Good rule of thumb: Treat this as a budget drill
Discuss establishing thresholds of possible budget removal (i.e. what must be descoped if 10%, 20%, 30% of budget were removed)
Identify whether descoping options have been reviewed and/or approved by users in any venue prior to CSB
Examples are provided in the Back-Up charts
See Notes Page

10. Program Should-Cost Summary
Instructions:
See slide notes for detailed instructions
Should Cost Summary should focus on phase being entered (EMD in this case);
Estimates for future phases not as important; can be TBD
Use Back-up slides to elaborate on each initiative (see Backup for “Should Cost Initiative POAM”)
Same as DAES slide
This chart is an example of how a summary of should-cost initiatives could look from a funding impact perspective.
Should-Cost estimates are established for each Milestone/DAB.
The cost summary compares the Current Budget (enacted & PB) with the Will Cost estimate (usually the ICE) and should-cost estimates for the program phases (or some other logical top-level categories/subprograms).
The acquisition phase being entered is the primary focus of attention and it is understood that the potential savings of potential initiatives in later years are very notional.
See Notes Page

11. Should-Cost Estimate Example
One slide for each major S-C initiative
Key Events/Schedule (Plan):
Event and Target Date
Short description
Initiative Name:
Short Narrative Description of Basis for Should Cost Estimates: (List reasons should cost estimate is below will cost, with dollar impact)
Investments for future ROI should be included
Adjustments and Impacts to Spend Plan
Contract Implications
Incentive/fee structure, timing of evaluations & savings realized
Subcontractor management
Risks
List risks to achieving these savings
Progress Update/Results:
Key events accomplished / not accomplished / reason
Same as DAES slide
A chart with this type of detailed content should be provided for each major should-cost initiative that has been developed for the phase the program is entering.
Key elements include:
Should-Cost estimate of target activity/process compared with Will Cost for that activity/process as well as Will Cost for entire program (this provides an indication of how significant the savings are in the context of the entire program). Example shows Acquisition Will Cost, but initiatives could highlight O&S savings as well or instead.
Focus on near term costs/savings of initiative but inclusion of Total for all years.
Description of initiative with basis for achieving savings
Spend plan with phasing of key obligations and outlays and decision points when savings could be realized.
Contract methods and timing involved
Primary risks to executing plan
Schedule to show key events that must take place to execute the initiative and aid in assessing progress
Progress Update section: This section would be updated for each subsequent review of the program’s Should-Cost initiatives.
See Notes Page

12. “Issues Opportunity”
This is an opportunity to communicate/discuss program issues with the SAE
Discuss affordability and requirements
Discuss sustainment issues
Discuss any issues that are of a particular concern to the PEO and PM (examples might be)
OSD Oversight issues
Funding instability
Technical transition issues
Congressional Interest
New User unfunded requirements/refinements
Besides meeting the legal requirements (Section 814 of Public Law , “Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009,” “Configuration Steering Boards for Cost Control Under Major Defense Acquisition Programs”) for a CSB, wants to increase the value of the meeting to address important program issues. The PM/PEO are encouraged to identify issues that provide the most concern. It is an open opportunity to identify: "what worries me most”. What "keeps me up at night"? These may include oversight issues, funding instability, congressional interest, or other issues such as slow transition of technology. This is an opportunity for the PM/PEO to notify the SAE of potential issues either not addressed previously, or reiterate some of those addressed earlier. Identifying these issues is the first step; but have a plan to address them. Also, identify how the SAE might help. An example might be asking the SAE to break a logjam disagreement with the OSD staff. Another might be a problem getting coordination through another Air Force Directorate (GC, TE, IL etc). In some cases where the discussion is appropriate for an Air Force only meeting, a separate session can be set up to follow the CSB meeting with OSD and the Joint Staff excused from the meeting.
See Notes Page

13. Backup Slides
AS REQUIRED

14. Critical Technologies
Program Name
Top Cost Drivers
Performance (KPPs & select KSAs)
A, % of program cost
B , % of program cost
C , % of program cost
D , % of program cost
E , % of program cost
KPP 1
KPP 2
KPP 3
KSA 2
KSA 5 G Y G R N T O
N – no capability T – Threshold O - Objective
Technology Readiness Assessment
Acquisition Program Baseline (APB)
+25%
+30%
+50%
This DAES chart to be used as a primary chart in an event driven CSB and a backup for annual CSBs
Purpose:
This chart displays a program’s essential performance elements in the context of the system’s cost, schedule and technical risks. This information:
Provides the JROC an understanding of desired capabilities balanced against the technical risks and costs of a system prior to validating the capability documents (CDD or CPD). Therefore, the primary focus of the cost driver and technology quads is their relationship to the system KPPs.
Allows the JROC to assess, over time, the impact of desired system performance parameters on the ability to deliver the system within the Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) Cost and Schedule.
Over time, as the program transitions through its acquisition lifecycle, performance attributes will progress towards the threshold KPP/KSA values and, corresponding technology risk will be reduced as reflected in higher TRLs. Additionally, the major cost drivers and program costs will also change over time as the program goes from one phase to the next and may shift away from the cost of the KPPs especially after Critical Design Reviews and first article testing.
The Program Manager is the best source of data for this chart. Starting in FY07, all ACAT I Program Managers are required to report this information as part of the new USD(AT&L) DAES monthly report.
Quad 1: Top Cost Drivers
Identify the top 5 or so areas that drive the current program costs and their percentage of total program acquisition costs. The JROC is primarily interested in knowing how much meeting a KPP costs the program. As practical, first note any cost driver that is directly linked to a KPP, and then any other significant cost categories.
The areas identified must be specific enough to allow the JROC to understand both the primary cost challenges the program is managing and the significance of the cost driver on the capability to be delivered.
The areas selected should, in combination, represent a significant percentage of total program costs. Back-up information is recommended for each of the 5 or so cost drivers presented.
Quad 2: Performance (KPPs & select KSAs)
Include at a minimum the KPPs and KSAs associated with Cost, Schedule or technology challenges. Do not list every KPP or attribute. Specifically list any KPP that the program is having trouble meeting or is related to risks in meeting cost or schedule baselines.
Add the Objective and Threshold values from the CDD or CPD in place of the “T” and “O”. If T=O, show this on the scale.
Locate arrows on the scale based on current known system/component performance relative to the KPP’s threshold and objective values. The color of the arrow will reflect an assessment of risk as follows:
Red indicates the KPP Threshold value cannot be achieved without reaching or exceeding 10% of the APB Cost Baseline or exceeding 6 months from the APB Schedule Baseline. Identify, on a separate chart, actions being taken to correct. Be prepared to discuss recommendations with the JROC on KPP or other program adjustments.
Yellow indicates there is risk of not meeting the KPP threshold. Identify, on a separate chart, actions taken to correct.
Green indicates the KPP Threshold has been achieved or is on a path to be met within current APB Cost and Schedule baselines.
Quad 3: Technology Readiness Assessment
This section should frame for the JROC the most important technologies required to achieve the KPPs/KSAs. The maturity level of critical technologies is a major factor in successful programs and the TRLs for the CTEs is a major factor in JROC validation of CDDs and CPDs. Identify the major critical technology elements (CTEs) for the program based on the Technology Readiness Assessment Deskbook. Specifically include CTEs that relate to any KPPs for the system.
Provide the current TRL value based on an independent review or assessment, and the estimate of each technology at the next program milestone. For ACAT I programs the independent review will be performed by DDR&E. For non-ACAT I programs, the applicable Senior Acquisition Executive may delegate the independent review as appropriate. If no independent review has been accomplished yet
Quad 4: Acquisition Program Baseline
This section reflects the major program parameters in the program’s APB. Replace the word “Baseline” with the actual Objective Cost and Schedule information in the APB. If the program is prior to MS B, the information should reflect the draft APB or estimated APB values and add appropriate caveats on chart.
Locate the marker based on current program estimates. Marker Color will reflect the current program assessment of cost and schedule risk as follows:
Red indicates the cost, schedule or funding requirements cannot be met. There is insufficient trade space to close the issues or mitigate risk. The program may require restructuring and/or additional funding. Identify, on a separate chart, the actions/recommendations to rectify.
Yellow indicates some aspects of the program (contracts, approved APB) may not be met for the cost, schedule or funding requirements. Identify, on a separate chart, the actions/recommendations to rectify.
Green indicates that all aspects of the program are met (contract, approved APB) for all schedule, cost and funding requirements.
Identify cost delta in % for PAUC and APUC for the program as identified in the approved APB or estimated values in absence of an approved APB for original and current baseline. If current baseline is the original baseline, do not show the original baseline bar.
Make a prediction for the direction the delta PAUC and APUC will go for the next year; either increasing (right arrow), decreasing (left arrow) or no change (no arrow) under the projection heading.
Identify either the Objective IOC or FOC values which ever is next.
Identify the +6 months value from the APB Schedule Baseline Values.
Identify the next major program event (MS A/B/C, PDR, CDR, DT/OT, OPEVAL, FIRST FLIGHT, ETC)
Provide MS B and C Dates in box indicated.
Baseline
Cost Δ% to original baseline
Cost Δ% to current baseline
Schedule
IOC or FOC
(Next Major Evt)
Projection
PAUC R
Critical Technologies
Current Assessment
Next Milestone
Technology A
TRL #
Technology B
Technology C
Technology D
Technology E
Technology F
APUC G
Baseline
+10%
+15%
+25%
PAUC Y
APUC G
Baseline G
Baseline
MS B Date: M/Yr
MS C Date: M/Yr Y
+6 mos
See Notes Page

15. Previous Program Example
Program X Example: Cost vs. Msn Capability Tradespace Emerging Threat Scenarios
Previous Program Example
NOT A MANDATORY FORMAT

16. Program X Example: Path to Affordable Requirements
Previous Program Example
NOT A MANDATORY FORMAT

17. Program X Example: Anticipated FY13 Cuts
BLUF: Anticipated FY13 cuts are manageable with mod-low impact
Pending $13M FY13 SAC-D mark
Sequestration cut = 9% of $101.4M FY13 - $450K FY12 undistrib.
Descope Cap Demo C ~42% to manage sequestration FY13 cut
Previous Program Example
NOT A MANDATORY FORMAT
3DELRR Ledger $M
FY13 Approved
114.4
FY13 Mark
(13.0)
FY13 Sequester
(8.7)
FY13 Adj BA
92.7
FY13 Rqd (EAC)
(101.0)
FY13 Delta
(8.3)
PDRs
Demo C
Contractor Costs ($M)
Prior
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Nov
Total
KTR #1
29.4
1.7
1.2
0.8
36.0
KTR #2
24.7
2.8
2.0
1.9
1.3
34.7
KTR #3
26.8
3.3
1.4
0.9
1.5
35.2
80.9
7.8
4.6
4.4
3.0
5.2
105.9
Demo C work ≤ $19.8M