Re Reass Defense Acquisition Life Cycle Compliance Baseline (Pre-Tailoring) - PowerPoint Presentation

Re Reass Defense Acquisition Life Cycle Compliance Baseline (Pre-Tailoring) Acquisition & Procurement Milestones, Phases and Decision Points These decision points, milestones and phases are standard elements of the Defense Acquisition System; however, MDAs, with PM input, have full latitude to tailor programs in the most effective and efficient structure possible, unless constrained by statute B Source Selection Contract Award for EMD Phase Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction ( TMRR) Phase Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase Materiel Solution Analysis (MSA) Phase A Source Selection Contract Awards for TMRR Phase PDR Before or After DRFPRD PDR PDR This chart illustrates DoDI 5000.02, Hybrid Program Model A (Hardware Dominant); tailoring to individual program circumstances is encouraged. IOC C Low-Rate Initial Production/ Limited Release Sustainment Production & Deployment (P&D) Phase Disposal CDR MDA Approved MDD CDD-V Ver . 1.4 August 28, 2019 AoA Study Guidance AoA Study Plan DCAPE Full Rate Production/Deployment DRFPRD FOC FRPDR Operations & Support (O&S) Phase Financial Management Program Oversight & Review Major Products Systems Engineering Logistics/ Sustainment Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) ACAT – Acquisition Category AoA – Analysis of Alternatives APB – Acquisition Program Baseline ASR – Alternative Systems Review CARD – Cost Analysis Requirements Description CCE – Component Cost Estimate CCP - Component Cost Position CDD – Capability Development Document CDD –V – Capability Development Document Validation CDR – Critical Design Review CI - Counterintelligence CIPs – Critical Intelligence Parameters CONOPS/OM/MSP – Concept of Operations/Operational Mode Summary/Mission Profile CSB – Configuration Steering Board DCAPE – Director, Cost Assessment & Program Evaluation DRFPRD – Development Request for Proposals Release Decision DT&E – Developmental Test & Evaluation DoDI – Department of Defense Instruction DOT&E – Director of Operational Test & EvaluationECPs – Engineering Change ProposalsEMD – Engineering & Manufacturing DevelopmentEOA – Early Operational AssessmentEVM – Earned Value ManagementFCA – Functional Configuration AuditFD – Full Deployment FOC – Full Operational CapabilityFOT&E – Follow-on Operational Test & EvaluationFRP – Full-Rate Production FRP/FD – Full-Rate Production / Full Deployment Decision ReviewFYDP – Future Years Defense ProgramIBR – Integrated Baseline ReviewICD – Initial Capabilities DocumentICE – Independent Cost EstimateILA - Independent Logistics AssessmentIOC – Initial Operational CapabilityIOT&E – Initial Operational Test & EvaluationISR – In-Service ReviewITRA - Independent Technology Risk Assessment (MDAPs Only)JITC – Joint Interoperability Test CommandJROC – Joint Requirements Oversight CouncilLCCE – Life Cycle Cost EstimateLCSP – Life Cycle Sustainment PlanLFT&E – Live Fire Test & EvaluationLMDP – Life-Cycle Mission Data Plan LRIP – Low-Rate Initial ProductionMAIS - Major Automated Information SystemMDA – Milestone Decision AuthorityMDAP – Major Defense Acquisition ProgramMDCITA - Multi-Discipline Counterintelligence Threat AssessmentMDD – Materiel Development DecisionMS – Milestone MSA – Materiel Solution AnalysisOA – Operational AssessmentOTRR – Operational Test Readiness ReviewPBL – Performance–Based Life-Cycle Product Support; Performance-Based LogisticsPCA – Physical Configuration AuditPDR – Preliminary Design ReviewPIR – Post Implementation ReviewPM – Program ManagerPMO – Program Management OfficePPBE – Planning, Programming, Budgeting & ExecutionPRR – Production Readiness ReviewRDT&E – Research, Development, Test & EvaluationRFP – Request for ProposalSCRM – Supply Chain Risk ManagementSEP – Systems Engineering PlanSRR – System Requirements ReviewSFR – System Functional ReviewSVR – System Verification ReviewTEMP – Test & Evaluation Master PlanTMRR – Technology Maturation & Risk ReductionTRA – Technology Readiness AssessmentTRR – Test Readiness ReviewVOLT – Validated Online Lifecycle Threat Acronyms & Abbreviations Source Selection Contract award(s)for MSA Phase AoA Capabilities Based Assessment Contracting Contract Award for LRIP Acquisition Strategy Source Selection Materiel Solution Prototypes Production Representative Articles LRIP Articles Full-Rate Production Systems Software Build 0.1 Build 1.1 Build 1.3 Build 1.2 Build 2.1 (*The actual number and type of software builds during the program will depend on system type.) Build 3.1 Build 3.2* ASR TRA Statutory information requirements are shown in dark red bold italics.Regulatory and best practice information requirements are shown in blue bold. For a complete list of statutory and regulatory information requirements see Table 2 of DoDI 5000.02 or MDID tool. Test and Evaluation SRR SFR CSB SVR PCA PRR TEMP Developmental Testing of Prototypes EOA Developmental Testing OA IOT&E DT&E LFT&E FOT&E ILA ILA Demonstrate Product Support ILA RDT&E Operations & Maintenance Procurement Configuration Steering Board (CSB) meets at least annually once established PRR TRA For a more detailed PPBE reference see the DAU Financial Management Platinum Card TRR OTRR TRR JITC Interoperability Testing Contract Awards for FRP/FD/Sustainment Source Selection Appropriation Types Operational Mode Summary / Mission Profile Competitive Prototyping Full Funding in FYDP Full Funding in FYDP Should Cost Targets Should Cost Targets ECPs, Sustainment Contracts/Software Support Contracts PIR PBL Implementation and Optimization MDAP MDAP/MAIS MDAP MDAP/MAIS MDAP MDAP MDAP/MAIS MDAP Affordability Analysis Affordability Analysis Full Funding in FYDP Affordability Analysis MDAP MDAP/MAIS MDAP Affordability Analysis Full Funding in FYDP Affordability Analysis ICD Draft CDD CDD DOT&E Report o n IOT&E LFT&E Report LCSP TMRR RFP Milestone & Phase Information Requirements FRP RFP Study Contract RFP EMD RFP LRIP RFP MDD Authorizes MSA Phase Entry Directs conduct of AoA Designates Lead Component Determines Phase of Entry Milestone A Approves TMRR Phase Entry Approves Materiel Solution & Acquisition StrategyApproves TMRR RFP release & Source Selection MDAP Program Certification MS BProgram InitiationApproves EMD Phase EntryApproves APB & Updated DRFPRD InformationMDAP Program Certification MS C Approves Production & Deployment Phase EntryApproves Updated APB & Acquisition Strategy FRPDRApproves proceeding to Full Rate Production and/or Full Deployment (FDDR) DRFPRDApproves Acquisition Strategy & EMD RFP Release This review is the critical decision point in a programLast point at which significant changes can be made without major disruption CDD-VValidation of the program requirements contained in the CDD by the requirements authority (JROC for ACAT I & IA) TMRR Phase Key Activities Competitive PrototypingTechnology Readiness Assessment (TRA)Preliminary Design Review (PDR)Validate Capability Development Document (CDD)Update Acquisition Strategy, and Other Information to Support DRFPRD and MS BRelease Request for Proposal (RFP) and Conduct Source Selections for TMRR and EMD MSA Phase Key Activities AoA Cost/Performance TradesAffordability AnalysisRisk AnalysisDevelop Acquisition Strategy, and Other Information to Support MS ASelect PM; establish PMO EMD Phase Key Activities Developmental Testing (DT)Operational Assessments (OA)Critical Design ReviewUpdate Acquisition Strategy, APB and Other Information to Support MS CUpdate Capability Development Document (CDD)Release RFP and Conduct Source Selection for LRIP/FRP Prepare for Production, Fielding and Sustainment P&D Phase Key ActivitiesLRIPInitial Operational Test & Evaluation (IOT&E)Full Rate ProductionDeployment Performance Based Logistics (PBL) ImplementationUpdate Intel/CI Products O&S Phase Key ActivitiesOverlaps P&D PhaseFull Rate Production & Deployment ContinuePBL Implementation ContinuesDisposal – Demilitarization and Disposal at end of useful lifeUpdate Intel/CI Products MDA Approved MDA Approved MDA Approved Should Cost Targets SEP SEP Program Protection Plan Draft Program Protection Plan Program Protection Plan TEMP TEMP LCSP Draft LCSP LCSP TEMP LCSP Program Protection Plan Program Protection Plan SEP Acquisition Strategy Acquisition Strategy Acquisition Strategy TEMP Should Cost Targets Economic Analysis (MAIS) CARD CCE CCP ICE CARD CCE CCP ICE CARD CCE CCP ICE Economic Analysis (MAIS) MDAP CARD CCE CCP ICE Manpower Estimate Economic Analysis (MAIS) Integration Key Phase Activities Acquisition Intelligence VOLT VOLT Develop CIPs Develop Threat Modules VOLT CDD Cost-Performance Analysis and Trades Integrated Priority List Capabilities Gap Assessment Joint Intelligence Estimate Refine CIPs & Threat Modules Identify Intelligence Mission Data LMDP Determine Intelligence Mission Data Dependencies LMDP LMDP SCRM VOLT (Includes Cybersecurity Strategy Annex) LMDP Post AOA Review End of Service Life Decision Defense Intelligence Threat Library Refine CIPs, Threat Modules and Intelligence Mission Data Refine CIPs, Threat Modules and Intelligence Mission Data Refine Requirements For Production Reassess CI, Cybersecurity, and Security Environment Reassess CI, Cybersecurity, and Security Environment Reassess CI, Cybersecurity, and Security Environment SCRM SCRM SCRM Update as Required Update as Required Update as Required Update as Required MDCITA MDCITA MDCITA MDCITA Update as Required email suggestions for improvement Draft SEP Draft TEMP CONOPS/ OMS/ MP CONOPS/ OMS/ MP CONOPS/ OMS/ MP FCA https:// www.dau.mil/tools/t/DAU-Glossary Within 180 Days if EVM is Required IBR Within 180 Days if EVM is Required IBR Within 180 Days if EVM is Required IBR Within 180 Days if EVM is Required IBR Update to CDD If Needed See the Interactive Adaptive Acquisition Framework for other approaches to acquiring capability. ITRA ITRA ITRA ITRA

Bui l d 1.2 B u il d 1.3 Hybrid Program A (Hardware Do m i nant) F R P IOC FOC A B B ui l d 0 . 1 B u i ld 1 .1 C LR I P B u i ld 3 .1 Bui l d 1 . 4 I n te g r at i on Bu il d 3.2* Bui l d 2 . 1 B u i ld 1 . 5 O T &E * The actual number and type of builds during the program will depend on system type. Materiel Development Decision CDD Validation Development RFP Release Decision Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Materiel Solution Analysis Disposal Operations & Support Sustainment Engineering & Manufacturing Development Production & Deployment Risk Reduction Model 4: Accelerated Acquisition Program Preliminary Design Review I O C FOC A / B C Concurrent Technology Maturation, Risk Reduction and Development O T &E Sustainment Disposal Materiel Solution Analysis Materiel Development Decision Concurrent Production and Deployment Operations & Support Model 1: Hardware Intensive Program Full-Rate Production (FRP) Decision Initial Operational Capability (IOC) A B C Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) O T &E Sustainment Disposal Development RFP Release Decision CDD Validation Materiel Development Decision Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Engineering & Manufacturing Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support Full Operational Capability (FOC) Model 2: Defense Un i que Software Intensive Program IOC A B B uil d 0 . 1 B uil d 1 . 1 B uil d 1 . 2 Bu i l d 1 . 3 B uil d 1 . 4 C Integration Bu ild 2.1* Bu i l d 1 . 5 O T &E Sustainment Disposal Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Engineering & Manufacturing Development Deployment Operations & Support Limited Deployment Risk Reduction Materiel Development Decision CDD Validation Development RFP Release Decision Full Deployment Decision (FDD) Full Deployment (FD) * The actual number and type of builds during the program will depend on system type. Model 3: Incrementally F i elded Software Intensive Program A B Limited Fielding Decisions B ui l d 0 B uild 1 Build 2 . . . Build n O T &E Development & Fielding Increment 2 B FDD FD IOC Build 2 . 1 B ui l d 2 .2 . . . B u i l d 2 .n OT&E B FDD FD IOC Build n . 1 B u i l d n.2 . . . B u i ld n . n O T &E Disposal Materiel Development Decision CDD Validation Development RFP Release Decision Full Deployment Decision (FDD) Full Deployment (FD) IOC Operations & Support Materiel Solution Analysis Risk Reduction Risk Reduction Build Limited Fielding Decisions Development RFP Release Decision Sustainment Sustainment Operations & Support Development & Fielding Risk Reduction Limited Fielding Decisions Development RFP Release Decision Sustainment Operations & Support Development & Fielding Risk Reduction Increment 3 (2) Program Structure. The structure of a DoD acquisition program and the procedures used should be tailored as much as possible to the characteristics of the product being acquired, and to the totality of circumstances associated with the program including operational urgency and risk factors. ( a) MDAs will tailor program strategies and oversight, including program information, acquisition phase content, the timing and scope of decision reviews and decision levels, based on the specifics of the product being acquired, including complexity, risk factors, and required timelines to satisfy validated capability requirements. ( b) When there is a strong threat-based or operationally driven need to field a capability solution in the shortest time, MDAs are authorized to implement streamlined procedures designed to accelerate acquisition system responsiveness. Statutory requirements will be complied with, unless waived in accordance with relevant provisions. ( c) In accordance with Section 806 of Public Law 114-92 (Reference (d)), the Secretary of Defense may waive acquisition law or regulation to acquire a capability that would not otherwise be available to the DoD Components. This waiver authority may not be delegated. Alternative Pathways - Today , the Department predominately uses two acquisition pathways that are well understood and used regularly; one for Major Defense Acquisition Programs (described in DoDI 5000.02) and one for Urgent/Emerging Operational Needs (described in DoDI 5000.71). However, in today's near-peer competitive environment, DoD needs alternative pathways to acquire capabilities faster than these two models alone can support. The FY 2016 NDAA provided such an additional pathway, referred to as "middle tier acquisition." This provision recognizes DoD's need to move faster on promising technologies that are too early to declare as an acquisition program , but have the ability to provide significant Warfighter advantages if delivered faster. Tailoring and Program Models - The models provide baseline approaches. A specific program should be tailored to the unique character of the product being acquired. Hybrid Program B (Software Dominant) Materiel Development Decision CDD Validation A B F D D C FD I O C Risk Reduction Build 1.1.1 Build 1.1.2 Limited Deployment Build 1.3.1 Materiel Solution Analysis Build 1.0.1 Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Build 1.2.1 Integration Build 1.2.2 Engineering & Manufacturing Development Development RFP Release Decision Build 1.3.2 OT&E Production & Deployment Sustainment Operations & Support F D D FD IOC Increment 2 B B ui l d 2.1 . 1 B u i l d 2.1 . 2 C LD B u i l d 2 . 3.1 B u i l d 2.1 . 3 In t e gr a t i on B u i l d 2.2 O T &E B u i l d 2.3 . 2 Disposal Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Engineering & Manufacturing Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support Development RFP Release Decision Sustainment Risk Reduction Back Access the interactive version of this chart at https :// www.dau.edu/tools/t/ILC The Milestone Documentation Identification (MDID) tool filters statutory and regulatory documentation requirements by milestone or decision point and program ACAT level. Access the MDID tool at https://www.dau.edu/tools/t/Milestone-Document-Identification-Tool-(MDID )- DAU’s Service Acquisition Mall (SAM) is intended to help you get your job done by providing usable tools and templates to create your performance-based service acquisition requirements . Access the SAM at https:// www.dau.edu/tools/t/Service-Acquisition-Mall The DAU Provision Clause Matrix tool provides guidance on the use of all provisions and clauses contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS ). Access the Provision Clause Matrix at https :// www.dau.edu/tools/t/FAR ,-DFARS,-VAAR,- DEAR-Provision-and-Clause-Matrix The Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG) is designed to complement those policy documents by providing the acquisition workforce with discretionary best practices that should be tailored to the needs of each program . Access the DAG at https:// www.dau.edu/tools/t/Defense-Acquisition-Guidebook The Integrated Product Support (IPS) Roadmap tool maps the IPS elements across the acquisition lifecycle. Access the IPS roadmap at : https:// www.dau.edu/tools/t/DoD-Integrated-Product-Support- (IPS)- Implementation-Roadmap DoDI 5000.02 https://www.dau.edu/tools/t/Interactive-Adaptive-Acquisition-Framework-Tool

CONCEPT / NEED OPERATIONS AND SUSTAINMENT Path Selection Urgent/Emergent Operational Needs DoDI 5000.02 Encl 13 Middle-TierFY16 NDAASection 804 TailorableTraditional DoDI 5000.02 Acquisition of ServicesDoDI 5000.74 Defense Business Systems (DBS)DoDI 5000.75 UONs, JUONs, JEONs ≤2 Years Rapid Prototyping ≤5 Years Rapid Fielding ≤5 Years MS A MS B MS C FOC Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Engineering & Manufacturing Development Production & Deployment MDD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7-step process ATP ATP ATP ATP CNI BSA BSFR&AP BSAT&D CS Business Capability Acquisition Cycle There are many Pathways to deliver capabilities. Click on areas of the chart to learn more. FRP/DR SOLUTION/CAPABILITY Acronyms & Abbreviations ATP: Authority to Proceed BSA: Business Solution Analysis BSAT&D: Business System Acquisition Testing & Deployment BSFR&AP: Business System Functional Requirements & Acquisition Planning CNI : Capability Need Identification CS: Capability Support FOC: Full Operational Capability FRP: Full-Rate Production FRP/DR: Full-Rate Production / Decision Review JEON: Joint Emergent Operational Need JUON: Joint Urgent Operational Need MDD: Materiel Development Decision NDAA: National Defense Authorization Act ADAPTIVE ACQUISITION FRAMEWORK (Click here for the Interactive Tool) Back

Model 1: Hardware Intensive ProgramDoDI 5000.02 Back Video Overview of the Defense Acquisition System Figure 3 is a model of a hardware intensive development program such as a major weapons platform. This is the classic model that has existed in some form in all previous editions of this instruction. It is the starting point for most military weapon systems; however, these products almost always contain software development resulting in some form of Hybrid Model A (paragraph 5c(3)(f)1 describes Hybrid Model A).

Model 2: Defense Unique Software Intensive ProgramDoDI 5000.02Video Overview ofthe Defense Acquisition SystemFigure 4 is a model of a program that is dominated by the need to develop a complex, usually defense unique, software program that will not be fully deployed until several software builds have been completed. The central feature of this model is the planned software builds – a series of testable, integrated subsets of the overall capability – which together with clearly defined decision criteria, ensure adequate progress is being made before fully committing to subsequent builds. Examples of this type of product include military unique command and control systems and significant upgrades to the combat systems found on major weapons systems such as surface combatants and tactical aircraft. Several software builds are typically necessary to achieve a deployable capability. Each build has allocated requirements, resources, and scheduled testing to align dependencies with subsequent builds and to produce testable functionality to ensure that progress is being achieved. The build sequencing should be logically structured to flow the workforce from effort to effort smoothly and efficiently, while reducing overall cost and schedule risk for the program. Back

Model 3: Incrementally Deployed Software Intensive ProgramDoDI 5000.02Figure 5 is a model that has been adopted for many Defense Business Systems. It also applies to upgrades to some command and control systems or weapons systems software where deployment of the full capability will occur in multiple increments as new capability is developed and delivered, nominally in 1- to 2-year cycles. The period of each increment should not be arbitrarily constrained. The length of each increment and the number of deployable increments should be tailored and based on the logical progression of development and deployment for use in the field for the specific product being acquired. This model is distinguished from the previous model by the rapid delivery of capability through multiple acquisition increments, each of which provides part of the overall required program capability. Each increment may have several limited deployments; each deployment will result from a specific build and provide the user with a mature and tested sub-element of the overall incremental capability. Several builds and deployments will typically be necessary to satisfy approved requirements for an increment of capability. Back Video Overview of the Defense Acquisition System

Model 4: Accelerated Acquisition ProgramDoDI 5000.02Figure 6 is a model that applies when schedule considerations dominate over cost and technical risk considerations. This model compresses or eliminates phases of the process and accepts the potential for inefficiencies in order to achieve a deployed capability on a compressed schedule. The model shows one example of tailoring for accelerated acquisition and many others are possible. This type of structure is used when technological surprise by a potential adversary necessitates a higher-risk acquisition program. Procedures applicable to urgent needs that can be fulfilled in less than 2 years are a subset of this model and are discussed in Enclosure 13. Back Video Overview of the Defense Acquisition System

Hybrid Program A (Hardware Dominant)DoDI 5000.02Figure 7 is a model depicting how a major weapons system combines hardware development as the basic structure with a software intensive development that is occurring simultaneously with the hardware development program. In a hardware intensive development, the design, fabrication, and testing of physical prototypes may determine overall schedule, decision points, and milestones, but software development will often dictate the pace of program execution and must be tightly integrated and coordinated with hardware development decision points. Back Video Overview of the Defense Acquisition System

Hybrid Program B (Software Dominant)DoDI 5000.02Figure 8, Model 6: Hybrid Model B (Software Dominant), depicts how a software intensive product development can include a mix of incrementally deployed software products or releases that include intermediate software builds. All of the comments about incremental software fielding associated with Model 3 in paragraph 5c(3)(d) apply to this model as well. This is a complex model to plan and execute successfully, but depending on the product it may be the most logical way to structure the acquisition program. Back Video Overview of the Defense Acquisition System

DoDI 5000.02 Table 2 (Partial - click below for the full document) BackDoDI 5000.02

Materiel Development Decision (MDD) (1) Materiel Development Decision (a) The Materiel Development Decision is based on a validated initial requirements document (an ICD or equivalent requirements document) and the completion of the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Study Guidance and the AoA Study Plan. This decision directs execution of the AoA, and authorizes the DoD Component to conduct the Materiel Solution Analysis Phase. This decision point is the entry point into the acquisition process for all defense acquisition products; however, an “acquisition program” is not formally initiated (with the accompanying statutory requirements) until Milestone B, or at Milestone C for those programs that enter directly at Milestone C. DoD Components may have conducted enough analysis to support preliminary conclusions about the desired product at this point. If so, that analysis may be used by the MDA to narrow the range of alternatives. If not, requirements are likely to be less well-defined or firm, and a wider range of alternatives will need to be considered. (b) At the Materiel Development Decision, the DCAPE, (or DoD Component equivalent) will present the AoA Study Guidance, and the AoA lead organization will present the AoA Study Plan. In addition, the Component will provide the plan to staff and fund the actions that will precede the next decision point (usually Milestone A) including, where appropriate, competitive concept definition studies by industry. (c) If the Materiel Development Decision is approved, the MDA will designate the lead DoD Component; determine the acquisition phase of entry; and identify the initial review milestone, usually, but not always, a specific milestone as described in one of the program models. MDA decisions will be documented in an ADM. The approved AoA Study Guidance and AoA Study Plan will be attached to the ADM. Back DoDI 5000.02 Video Overview of the MSA Phase

Materiel Solution Analysis (MSA) Phase (2) Materiel Solution Analysis Phase (a) Purpose. The purpose of this phase is to conduct the analysis and other activities needed to choose the concept for the product that will be acquired, to begin translating validated capability gaps into system-specific requirements including the Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) and Key System Attributes (KSAs), and to conduct planning to support a decision on the acquisition strategy for the product. AoA solutions, key trades among cost, schedule, and performance, affordability analysis, risk analysis, and planning for risk mitigation are key activities in this phase.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. This phase ends when a DoD Component has completed the necessary analysis and the activities necessary to support a decision to proceed to the next decision point and desired phase in the acquisition process. The next phase can be Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR), EMD, or P&D, depending on the actions needed to mature the product being acquired. Each of these phases has associated decision points to authorize entry: Milestone A, Development RFP Release and Milestone B, or Milestone C. Each decision point and phase has information requirements identified in Table 2 in Enclosure 1 of this instruction, and other criteria as defined in paragraphs 5d(3) through 5d(14) in this instruction. Back DoDI 5000.02 Video Overview of the MSA Phase

Milestone A (3) Milestone A ( a) The Milestone A decision approves program entry into the TMRR Phase and release of final RFPs for TMRR activities. The responsible DoD Component may decide to perform technology maturation and risk reduction work in-house and/or award contracts associated with the conduct of this phase. Competitive prototypes are part of this phase unless specifically waived by the MDA. Key considerations are: 1 . The justification for the preferred materiel solution. 2 . The affordability and feasibility of the planned materiel solution. 3. The scope of the capability requirements trade space and understanding of the priorities within that trade space. 4. The understanding of the technical, cost, and schedule risks of acquiring the materiel solution, and the adequacy of the plans and programmed funding to mitigate those risks prior to Milestone B. 5. The efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed acquisition strategy (including the contracting strategy and the intellectual property (IP) strategy) in light of the program risks and risk mitigation strategies. 6. The projected threat and its impact on the materiel solution. ( b) At the Milestone A Review: 1 . The Program Manager will present the approach for acquiring the preferred materiel solution including: the Acquisition Strategy, the business approach, framing assumptions, an assessment of program risk and how specific technology development and other risk mitigation activities will reduce the risk to acceptable levels, and appropriate “Should Cost” management targets. Table 2 of Enclosure 1 lists program information requirements and identifies approval authorities for those requirements. Program Manager requests to tailor or waive information requirements associated with the next decision event may be submitted to the MDA at this milestone and at each subsequent program milestone. When the MDA is the approval authority for an information requirement, the MDA may approve the Program Manager’s request to tailor or waive that requirement. When another official is the approval authority for an information requirement, the MDA may endorse, but cannot approve, a Program Manager’s request to tailor or waive that requirement. An ADM will document decisions by the MDA or other approval officials to tailor or waive information requirement. Back DoDI 5000.02

Video Overview ofthe TMRR Phase Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction (TMRR) Phase (a) Purpose. The purpose of this phase is to reduce technology, engineering, integration, and life-cycle cost risk to the point that a decision to contract for EMD can be made with confidence in successful program execution for development, production, and sustainment. (b) Phase Description 1. This phase should include a mix of activities intended to reduce the specific risks associated with the product to be developed. This includes additional design trades and requirements trades necessary to ensure an affordable product and executable development and production programs. Capability requirements are matured and validated, and affordability caps are finalized during this phase. The TMRR Phase requires continuous and close collaboration between the program office and the requirements communities and authorities . During this phase, any realized Should Cost management savings should normally be used to further reduce program risk and future program costs. Enclosure 2 describes baseline cost control and the use of Should Cost management. 2. This phase normally includes competitive sources conducting technology maturation and risk reduction activities and preliminary design activities up to and including a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) prior to source selection for the EMD Phase. Competitive risk reduction prototypes will be included if they will materially reduce engineering and manufacturing development risk at an acceptable cost. If competitive prototyping is not considered feasible, single prototypes at the system or subsystem level will be considered. 3. There are a number of ways to structure this phase which should be tailored to reduce the specific risks associated with the product being acquired. Technology Readiness Levels, described in the Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Guidance (Reference (e) (f)), should be used to benchmark technology risk during this phase; however, these indices are rough benchmarks, and not conclusive about the degree of risk mitigation needed prior to development. Deeper analysis of the actual risks associated with the preferred design and any recommended risk mitigation must be conducted and provided to the MDA. Back DoDI 5000.02

Capability Development Document Validation (5) CDD Validation and (CSBs) (a) CDD Validation 1. During the TMRR Phase, the requirements validation authority will validate the CDD (or equivalent requirements document) for the program. This action will precede the Development RFP Release Decision Point and provides a basis for preliminary design activities and the PDR that will occur prior to Milestone B unless waived by the MDA. Active engagement between acquisition leadership, including the MDA and the requirements leadership, including the validation authority (the JROC for MDAP and MAIS programs), during the development and review of proposed requirements trades is essential to ensuring that the validated requirements associated with the program continue to address the priorities of the DoD Component and the joint force in a cost effective and affordable way. The MDA (and CAE when the MDA is the DAE) will participate in the validation authorities’ review and staffing of the CDD (or equivalent requirements document) prior to validation, to ensure that requirements are technically achievable, affordable, and testable, and that requirements trades are fully informed by systems engineering trade-off analyses completed by the Program Manager or the DoD Component . 2. The KPPs and KSAs included in the validated CDD, will guide the efforts leading up to PDR, and inform the Development RFP Release Decision Point. As conditions warrant, changes to KPPs and KSAs may be proposed to the applicable capability requirements validation authority. All non-KPP requirements (when delegated by the capability requirements validation authority) are subject to cost-performance trades and adjustments to meet affordability constraints. Cost performance trades (for non-KPP requirements) will be coordinated with the cognizant capability requirements validation authority. ( b) CSBs. For ACAT I and ACAT IA programs, and following CDD Validation, the Acquisition Executive of each DoD Component will form and chair a CSB with broad executive membership including senior representatives from the Office of the USD(AT&L) (including the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition), the Joint Staff (Director of Force Structure, Resources, and Assessments, J-8), DOT&E (or designated representative), and DoD CIO; empowered representatives from the Service Chief of Staff and comptroller offices of the Military Department concerned; representatives from other Military Departments where appropriate; the Military Deputy to the CAE; the PEO; and other senior representatives from OSD and the DoD Component, as appropriate, in accordance with section 814 of Public Law (P.L.) 110-417 (Reference (g)). A DoD Component equivalent board will serve as the CSB for an ACAT IA program that is a DBS. DoD Components should form appropriate level and composition CSBs for lower ACAT programs. Back DoDI 5000.02 Video Overview of the TMRR Phase

Development Request for Proposal Release Decision (6) Development RFP Release Decision Point (a) This decision point authorizes the release of RFPs for EMD and often for LRIP or Limited Deployment options. This review is the critical decision point in an acquisition program. The program will either successfully lead to a fielded capability or fail, based on the soundness of the capability requirements, the affordability of the program, and the executability of the acquisition strategy. The acquisition strategy is put into execution at this decision point by asking industry for bids that comply with the strategy. Release of the RFP for EMD sets in motion all that will follow. This is the last point at which significant changes can be made without a major disruption. ( b) The purpose of the Development RFP Release Decision Point is to ensure, prior to the release of the solicitation for EMD, that an executable and affordable program has been planned using a sound business and technical approach. One goal at this point is to avoid any major program delays at Milestone B, when source selection is already complete and award is imminent. Therefore, prior to release of final RFPs, there needs to be confidence that the program requirements to be bid against are firm and clearly stated; the risk of committing to development and presumably production has been or will be adequately reduced prior to contract award and/or option exercise; the program structure, content, schedule, and funding are executable; and the business approach and incentives are structured to both provide maximum value to the government and treat industry fairly and reasonably. Back DoDI 5000.02 Video Overview of the TMRR Phase

Milestone B (8) Milestone B (a) This milestone provides authorization to enter into the EMD Phase and for the DoD Components to award contracts for EMD. It also commits the required investment resources to the program. Most requirements for this milestone should be satisfied at the Development RFP Release Decision Point; however, if any significant changes have occurred, or if additional information not available at the Development RFP Release Decision Point could impact this decision, it must be provided at the Milestone B. Milestone B requires final demonstration that all sources of risk have been adequately mitigated to support a commitment to design for production. This includes technology, engineering, integration, manufacturing, sustainment, and cost risks. Validated capability requirements, full funding in the FYDP, and compliance with affordability goals for production and sustainment, as demonstrated through an independent cost estimate (ICE), are required. The framing assumptions central to shaping the program’s cost, schedule, and performance expectations are also required. ( b) Milestone B is normally the formal initiation of an acquisition program with the MDA’s approval of the Acquisition Program Baseline (APB). The APB is the agreement between the MDA and the Program Manager and his or her acquisition chain of command that will be used for tracking and reporting for the life of the program or program increment (see section 4 in Enclosure 1 of this instruction for additional policy regarding APBs). The APB will include the affordability caps for unit production and sustainment costs. Affordability caps are established as fixed cost requirements equivalent to KPPs. Development RFP Release Decision Point Back DoDI 5000.02

Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase (9) EMD Phase (a) Purpose. The purpose of the EMD Phase is to develop, build, and test a product to verify that all operational and derived requirements have been met, and to support production or deployment decisions. (b) Phase Description 1. General. EMD completes all needed hardware and software detailed design; systemically retires any open risks; builds and tests prototypes or first articles to verify compliance with capability requirements; and prepares for production or deployment to design for production . It includes the establishment of the initial product baseline for all configuration items . a. Design. The system design effort usually includes a standard series of design reviews prior to test article fabrication and/or software build or increment coding. Multiple design iterations may be necessary to converge on a final design for production. The SEP, described in section 2 in Enclosure 3 of this instruction, provides the basis for design activities . b. Post-Milestone B PDR. If a PDR prior to Milestone B has been waived, the Program Manager will plan for a PDR as soon as feasible after program initiation . Back Video Overview of the EMD Phase DoDI 5000.02

Milestone C (10) Milestone C (a) Milestone C and the Limited Deployment Decision are the points at which a program or increment of capability is reviewed for entrance into the P&D Phase or for Limited Deployment. Approval depends in part on specific criteria defined at Milestone B and included in the Milestone B ADM. The following general criteria will normally be applied: demonstration that the production/deployment design is stable and will meet stated and derived requirements based on acceptable performance in developmental test events; an operational assessment; mature software capability consistent with the software development schedule; no significant manufacturing risks; an updated Capability Development Document ( CDD) or equivalent requirements document; demonstrated interoperability; demonstrated operational supportability; costs within affordability caps; full funding in the FYDP; properly phased production ramp up; and deployment support. 1 . In making Milestone C and Limited Deployment decisions, the MDA will consider any new validated threat environments that were not included in the CDD and might affect operational effectiveness, and will consult with the requirements validation authority as part of the production decision making process to ensure that capability requirements are current. DoDI 5000.02 Back

Production and Deployment (P&D) Phase (11) Production and Deployment (P&D) Phase (a) Purpose. The purpose of the P&D Phase is to produce and deliver requirements-compliant products to receiving military organizations. (b) Phase Description. In this phase, the product is produced and fielded for use by operational units. The phase encompasses several activities and events: LRIP, Limited Deployment, OT&E, and the Full-Rate Production Decision or the Full Deployment Decision followed by full-rate production or full deployment. In this phase, all system sustainment and support activities are initiated if they haven’t already commenced. During this phase the appropriate operational authority will declare IOC when the defined operational organization has been equipped and trained and is determined to be capable of conducting mission operations. During this phase Should Cost management and other techniques will be used continuously to control and reduce cost . 1. LRIP and Limited Deployment. LRIP establishes the initial production base for the system or capability increment, provides the OT&E test articles, provides an efficient ramp up to full-rate production, and maintains continuity in production pending OT&E completion. While this portion of the phase should be of limited duration so that efficient production rates can be accomplished as soon and as economically as possible, it should be of sufficient duration to permit identification and resolution of any deficiencies prior to full-rate production. Limited Deployment for software developments is principally intended to support OT&E and can, consistent with the program strategy, be used to provide tested early operational capability to the user prior to full deployment. Milestone C Back Video Overview of the P&D Phase DoDI 5000.02

Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) 1. LRIP and Limited Deployment. LRIP establishes the initial production base for the system or capability increment, provides the OT&E test articles, provides an efficient ramp up to full-rate production, and maintains continuity in production pending OT&E completion. While this portion of the phase should be of limited duration so that efficient production rates can be accomplished as soon and as economically as possible, it should be of sufficient duration to permit identification and resolution of any deficiencies prior to full-rate production. Limited Deployment for software developments is principally intended to support OT&E and can, consistent with the program strategy, be used to provide tested early operational capability to the user prior to full deployment. Back DoDI 5000.02 Video Overview of the P&D Phase

Full Rate Production Decision Review (FRPDR) (12) Full-Rate Production Decision or Full Deployment Decision. The MDA will conduct a review to assess the results of initial OT&E, initial manufacturing, and limited deployment, and determine whether or not to approve proceeding to Full-Rate Production or Full Deployment. Continuing into Full-Rate Production or Full Deployment requires demonstrated control of the manufacturing process, acceptable performance and reliability, and the establishment of adequate sustainment and support systems. (a) In making the Full-Rate Production Decision or the Full Deployment Decision, the MDA will consider any new validated threat environments that might affect operational effectiveness, and may consult with the requirements validation authority as part of the decision making process to ensure that capability requirements are current. ( b) Except as specifically approved by the MDA, critical deficiencies identified in testing will be resolved prior to proceeding beyond LRIP or limited deployment. Remedial action will be verified in follow-on test and evaluation. ( c) The decision to proceed into full-rate production or full deployment will be documented in an ADM. Table 2 in Enclosure 1 identifies the statutory and regulatory requirements associated with this decision. Back DoDI 5000.02 Video Overview of the P&D Phase

Initial Operational Capability (IOC)Initial Operational Capability (IOC) - In general, attained when selected units and/or organizations in the force structure scheduled to receive a new system have received it and have the ability to employ and maintain it. The specifics for any particular system IOC are defined in that system’s Capability Development Document (CDD).DAU Glossary Back Video Overview of the P&D Phase

Full Rate Production (FRP) (13) Full-Rate Production or Full Deployment. In this part of the P&D Phase, the remaining production or deployment of the product is completed, leading to Full Operational Capability or Full Deployment. Back DoDI 5000.02 Video Overview of the P&D Phase

Full Operational Capability (FOC)Full Operational Capability (FOC) - In general, attained when all units and/or organizations in the force structure scheduled to receive a system have received it and have the ability to employ and maintain it. The specifics for any particular system FOC are defined in that system’s Capability Development Document (CDD).DAU Glossary Back Video Overview of the P&D Phase

Operations and Support (O&S) Phase (14) Operations and Support (O&S) Phase (a) Purpose. The purpose of the O&S Phase is to execute the product support strategy, satisfy materiel readiness and operational support performance requirements, and sustain the system over its life cycle (to include disposal). The O&S Phase begins after the production or deployment decision and is based on an MDA-approved LCSP. Enclosure 6 includes a more detailed discussion of sustainment planning; Enclosure 7 addresses planning for human systems integration. (b) Phase Description. The phase has two major efforts, Sustainment and Disposal. The LCSP, prepared by the Program Manager and approved by the MDA, is the basis for the activities conducted during this phase. 1. Sustainment. During this phase, the Program Manager will deploy the product support package and monitor its performance according to the LCSP. The LCSP may include time-phased transitions between commercial, organic, and partnered product support providers. The Program Manager will ensure resources are programmed and necessary IP deliverables and associated license rights, tools, equipment, and facilities are acquired to support each of the levels of maintenance that will provide product support; and will establish necessary organic depot maintenance capability in compliance with statute and the LCSP. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Disposal. At the end of its useful life, a system will be demilitarized and disposed of in accordance with all legal and regulatory requirements and policy relating to safety (including explosives safety), security, and the environment. Back Video Overview of the O&S Phase DoDI 5000.02

Sustainment 1. Sustainment. During this phase, the Program Manager will deploy the product support package and monitor its performance according to the LCSP. The LCSP may include time-phased transitions between commercial, organic, and partnered product support providers. The Program Manager will ensure resources are programmed and necessary IP deliverables and associated license rights, tools, equipment, and facilities are acquired to support each of the levels of maintenance that will provide product support; and will establish necessary organic depot maintenance capability in compliance with statute and the LCSP. a. A successful program meets the sustainment performance requirements, remains affordable, and continues to seek cost reductions by applying Should Cost management and other techniques throughout the O&S Phase. Doing so requires close coordination with the war-fighting sponsor (i.e., user), resource sponsors, and materiel enterprise stake holders, along with effective management of support arrangements and contracts. During O&S, the Program Manager will measure, assess, and report system readiness using sustainment metrics and implement corrective actions for trends diverging from the required performance outcomes defined in the APB and LCSP. b. Over the system life cycle, operational needs, technology advances, evolving threats, process improvements, fiscal constraints, plans for follow-on systems, or a combination of these influences and others may warrant revisions to the LCSP. When revising the LCSP, the Program Manager will revalidate the supportability analyses and review the most current product support requirements, senior leader guidance, and fiscal assumptions to evaluate product support changes or alternatives and determine best value . Back DoDI 5000.02 Video Overview of the O&S Phase

Disposal 2. Disposal. At the end of its useful life, a system will be demilitarized and disposed of in accordance with all legal and regulatory requirements and policy relating to safety (including explosives safety), security, and the environment.Back DoDI 5000.02 Video Overview of the O&S Phase Defense Acquisition Guidebook

Analysis of Alternatives Study Guidance Provides direction to the AoA sponsor on what the AoA must include. The study guidance requires, at minimum, full consideration of possible trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives for each alternative considered. The study guidance also requires an assessment of whether or not the joint military requirement can be met in a manner consistent with the cost and schedule objectives recommended by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC). For potential and designated Acquisition Category (ACAT) I and IA programs, the Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (DCAPE) approves study guidance and the study plan for the AoA prior to the Materiel Development Decision (MDD). After the MDD review, the MDA directs that an AoA be conducted by the responsible DoD Component or Principal Staff Assistant (PSA). For ACAT II and III programs, Component AoA procedures apply.   Defense Acquisition GuidebookChapter 2, Paragraph 2.3 Back

Analysis of Alternatives Study Plan Based on the AoA Study Guidance, the AoA Study Plan establishes a roadmap of how the analysis must proceed, who is responsible for the different elements, and why they are doing them. The Study Plan is a "living document" and must be updated throughout the AoA effort to reflect new information and changing study perceptions and direction. By design, the AoA Study Plan is structured so it can evolve into the AoA Final Report. For Acquisition Category (ACAT) I and IA programs, the AoA Study Guidance and AoA Study Plan are approved by the Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (DCAPE) prior to the Materiel Development Decision (MDD). Following the MDD, the organization responsible conducts the AoA and submits a report to the DCAPE, the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA), and the Joint Staff prior to the Milestone A review. For ACAT II and ACAT III programs, Component AoA procedures apply.  Defense Acquisition GuidebookChapter 2, Paragraph 2-2.3.2 Back

Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (DCAPE) The functions and personnel from the Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG) were transferred to the Office of the Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (DCAPE) within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) by the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) of 2009. DCAPE is the Principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense and other senior officials in the DoD for independent cost assessment, program evaluation, and analysis. Within the office of DCAPE, the Deputy Director for Cost Assessment oversees policy and procedures for cost estimating and conducts independent cost estimates for Major Defense Acquisition Programs(MDAPs) and Major Automated Information Systems (MAIS). DoDD 5105.84 Director of Cost Assessment and Program EvaluationBack

Independent Technology Risk Assessments (ITRAs)It is DoD policy that:• ITRAs will be conducted on all Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP) prior to Milestone A, Milestone B approval, and any decision to enter into low-rate initial production or full-rate production.• ITRAs will be completed in a timely manner to facilitate milestone or production decisions by the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA), and every effort will be expended to prevent any unreasonably delay.• The ITRA will consider the full spectrum of Technology, Engineering and Integration risk and the potential impacts to cost, schedule and performance. ITRAs provide a view of program technical risk, independent of the program or Component. When conducted in the first instance for each covered program the ITRA will facilitate the MDA's establishment of program cost, schedule, and performance goals as required by title 10, U.S.C., section 2448a.• An ITRA conducted prior to Milestone A will identify critical technologies and manufacturing processes that need to be matured. At subsequent milestone or production decisions, ITRAs will identify critical technologies and manufacturingprocesses that have not been successfully demonstrated in a relevant environment.• ITRAs will be provided to the MDA to support the determinations, certifications, and reporting to Congress in accordance with Title 10, U.S.C., sections 2366a, 2366b, and2366c. Responsibilities.• The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)) will conduct or approve ITRAs. This responsibility may be delegated.• The designated Service, Agency, and Program Manager will support the ITRA execution, to include providing access to programmatic and technical information and facilitating ITRA team visits to the program office, product centers, test centers, and contractor(s) as deemed necessary by the official conducting the ITRA . Back ITRA Memo

Acquisition Strategy a. Acquisition Strategies (1) Overview. The Program Manager will develop and execute an approved Acquisition Strategy. This document is the Program Manager’s plan for program execution across the entire program life cycle. It is a comprehensive, integrated plan that identifies the acquisition approach and key framing assumptions, and describes the business, technical, and support strategies that the Program Manager plans to employ to manage program risks and meet program objectives. The strategy evolves over time and should continuously reflect the current status and desired goals of the program. The Acquisition Strategy defines the relationship between the acquisition phases and work efforts, and key program events such as decision points and reviews. The strategy must reflect the Program Manager’s understanding of the business environment; technical alternatives; small business strategy; costs, risks and risk mitigation approach; contract awards; the incentive structure; test activities; production lot or delivery quantities; operational deployment objectives; opportunities in the domestic and international markets; foreign disclosure, exportability, technology transfer, and security requirements; and the plan to support successful delivery of the capability at an affordable life-cycle price, on a realistic schedule. Acquisition Strategies are baseline plans for the execution of the program and should be prepared and submitted in time to obtain approval to support more detailed planning and the preparation of Requests for Proposal. The Acquisition Strategy is an approved plan; it is not a contract. Minor changes to the plan reflected in the Acquisition Strategy due to changed circumstances or increased knowledge are to be expected and do not require MDA pre-approval. Major changes, such as contract type or basic program structure, do require MDA approval prior to implementation. All changes should be noted and reflected in an update at the next program decision point or milestone. Back Defense Acquisition Guidebook Chapter 1 – Program Management DoDI 5000.02

Configuration Steering Board (CSB) (b) CSBs. For ACAT I and ACAT IA programs, and following CDD Validation, the Acquisition Executive of each DoD Component will form and chair a CSB with broad executive membership including senior representatives from the Office of the USD(A&S) (including the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition), the Joint Staff (Director of Force Structure, Resources, and Assessments, J-8), DOT&E (or designated representative), and the DoD Chief Information Officer DoD CIO; empowered representatives from the Service Chief of Staff and comptroller offices of the Military Department concerned; representatives from other Military Departments where appropriate; the Military Deputy to the CAE; the PEO; and other senior representatives from OSD and the DoD Component, as appropriate, in accordance with section 814 of Public Law (P.L.) 110-417 (Reference (f) (g)). A DoD Component equivalent board will serve as the CSB for an ACAT IA program that is a DBS. DoD Components should also form appropriate level and composition CSBs for lower ACAT programs. 1. The CSB will meet at least annually, and more frequently as capability requirements or content trades are needed, to review all requirements changes and any significant technical configuration changes for ACAT I and IA programs in development, production, and sustainment that have the potential to result in cost and schedule impacts to the program. The CSB will review potential capability requirements changes and propose to the requirements validation authority those changes that may be necessary to achieve affordability constraints on production and sustainment costs or that will result in a more cost-effective product. Changes that increase cost will not be approved unless funds are identified and schedule impacts areaddressed. The CSB will monitor changes in program requirements and ensure that the Service Chief, in consultation with the Secretary of the Military Department concerned and the JROC, approves of any proposed changes that could have an adverse effect on program cost, schedule, or performance. Program requirements will fall under the cognizance of the CSB upon receipt of a validated CDD or other validated requirements document, and before the Development RFP Release Decision Point. CSBs may also be formed earlier in the program at the discretion of the CAE. 2. The Program Manager, in consultation with the PEO and the requirements sponsor, will, on at least an annual basis, identify and propose to the CSB a set of recommended requirements changes to include descoping options that reduce program cost and/or moderate requirements and changes needed to respond to any threat developments. These options will be presented to the CSB with supporting rationale addressing operational implications. The chair of the CSB will recommend to the DoD Component requirements authority, the validation authority, and the DAE (if an ACAT ID or MAIS program and KPPs are affected) which of these options should be implemented. Back DoDI 5000.02

Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) A statutory requirement for Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) and a regulatory information requirement for all other acquisition programs. It is a systematic, metrics-based process that establishes the maturity of critical technologies. The TRA may be conducted concurrently with other technical reviews such as the Alternative Systems Review (ASR), System Requirements Review (SRR), or the Production Readiness Review (PRR). If a platform or system depends on specific technologies to meet system operational threshold requirements in development, production, or operation, and if the technology or its application is either new or novel, then that technology is considered “critical.” The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Research and Engineering) (ASD(R&E)) is required to conduct an independent assessment of the Program Manager’s TRA for MDAPs as part of the Development Request for Proposal (RFP) Release Decision Point Review. This assessment will inform the Certification Memorandum required at Milestone B in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2366b. The TRA at Milestone C is a regulatory requirement when Milestone C is Program Initiation. Back CLE 021 Technology Readiness Assessments

Capability Gap Assessment3.1.1. Capability Gap Assessment (CGA). The CGA is an annual assessment, coordinated by the J-8, which examines CCMD identified prioritized gaps as part of the Annual Joint Assessment. The CGA groups similar gaps, assesses efforts to close or mitigate capability gaps, and recommends programmatic and/or non-programmatic actions to close or mitigate capability gaps. See Appendix A to this enclosure for more detail of the CGA process. 1. Overview.1.1. Purpose. The CGA is a deliberate assessment by which the CJCS and JROC carry out statutory responsibilities outlined in References [2], [135], and [136]. Responsibilities supported by the CGA include:1.1.1. Providing advice to the SecDef on the effect that critical force capability deficiencies and strengths will have on accomplishing national security objectives.1.1.2. Providing advice on program recommendations and budget proposals to conform to priorities established for the CCMDs and in strategic plans. 1.1.3. Submitting to the congressional defense committees a report on the requirements of the CCMDs.1.1.4. Conferring with and obtaining information from the CCMDs and evaluating and integrating that information into advice given to the President and the SecDef.1.1.5. Assisting the SecDef with funding proposals for the CCMDs.1.1.6. Identifying and assessing the priority of joint military requirements and assigning joint priority among fielded and future programs meeting valid requirements . 2. Inputs to the CGA Process. The CGA process begins with the receipt of the IPLs provided by the CCMDs in response to the AJA and the Chairman’s request for assessment of critical warfighter capability gaps linked to their top priority risk mitigation measures. Additional inputs include joint lessons learned, CDD needs, JUONs, JEONs, and Chief, National Guard Bureau (CNGB) issues. Since some inputs are received throughout the year, a “snapshot” of these inputs will be taken at the beginning of the CGA process to capture those issues to evaluate during assessment. Back JCIDS Manual 2018 Pages C-7, C-A-1

Integrated Priority List A list of a combatant commander's highest priority requirements, prioritized across Service and functional lines, definingshortfalls in key programs that, in the judgment of the combatant commander, adversely affect the capability of the combatant commander's forces to accomplish their assigned mission. 2.1. CCMD IPLs. Annually, the CCDRs submit a prioritized list of their most pressing capability gaps to the CJCS and the SecDef for inclusion in the Chairman’s Annual Report to Congress. IPLs are intended to provide visibility for those few key problem areas which, in the judgment of the CCDR, require the highest priority attention by the DoD in finding capability solutions. Back JCIDS Manual 2018 C-A-1 , GL-17

Capabilities Based Assessment3.1. Capabilities-Based Assessment.3.1.1. The CBA provides an analytic basis to identify capability requirements and associated capability gaps prior to development and submission of capability requirements documents for review and validation.3.1.1.1. Details of the CBA process are in Appendix A to Enclosure C and in References [139], [140], and [141].3.1.1.2. Applicable Joint Concepts and associated implementation plans must be considered during CBAs and other analyses. Details of Joint Concept development activities are in Reference [131].3.2. DOTmLPF-P Analysis. Analysis of DOTmLPF-P is part of all CBAs, but may be used independently of a CBA when the scope of an issue being studied is not likely to result in new materiel solution development. Back JCIDS Manual 2018 Page C-B-3

Initial Capabilities Document (ICD)3.3.1. ICD (included the IS-ICD variant). An ICD specifies one or more capability requirements and associated capability gaps that represent unacceptable operational risk if left unmitigated. The ICD also recommends partially or wholly mitigating identified capability gap(s) with a materiel capability solution, or some combination of materiel and non-materiel solutions. A validated ICD is an entrance criterion necessary for each Materiel Development Decision (MDD).______________________________________________________2.1.1.1. In validating an ICD, the validation authority:2.1.1.1.1. Validates the capability requirements (and associated initial objective values) as being necessary to fulfill joint military capabilities in support of the national defense strategy and approves prioritization of associated capability gaps. 2.1.1.1.2. Approves the document and supporting data contained therein, including the recommended approach(es) to address the validated capability requirements and eliminate or mitigate, to the maximum extent possible, the capability gaps.2.1.1.1.3. Includes, where applicable, recommendations for development of the AoA guidance, in support of Reference [5]. Back JCIDS Manual 2018 Pages A-2&3, A-A-2&3

Concept of Operations/Operational Mode Summary/Mission Profile (CONOPS/OMS/MP) The CONOPS/OMS/MP is a Component approved acquisition document that is derived from and consistent with the validated/approved capability requirements document. The CONOPS/OMS/MP describes the operational tasks, events, durations, frequency, and environment in which the materiel solution is expected to perform each mission and each phase of the mission. The CONOPS/OMS/MP will be provided to the MDA at the specified decision events and normally provided to industry as part of the RFP.Back DoDI 5000.02

Post AoA Review2.6.1.2. Post-AoA (or similar study) Review.2.6.1.2.1. Following the completion of the AoA, or similar study, the Sponsor will provide primary stakeholders the opportunity to assess how the different alternatives address the validated joint military capability and associated capability gaps, to ensure the critical dependencies/enablers and assumptions have been considered, and to understand the associated lifecycle costs. It also provides the opportunity to review the results of other activities completed during the MSA phase of acquisition, and the proposed KPPs, KSAs, and APAs for the recommended alternative(s).2.6.1.2.2. For Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs), upon completion of the Post-AoA review, the validation authority will provide a JROCM or Component level memorandum that endorses the AoA results and provides recommendations to the MDA, pursuant to Title 10 U.S.C. § 2448a (Reference [13]), for program costs and fielding targets. Back JCIDS Manual 2018 Page A-A-13

Draft Capability Development Document (CDD)2.6.1.2.3. The Post-AoA review shall allow for sufficient time prior to completion to permit Sponsor preparation and approval of the draft CDD to inform both the development of the RFPs in support of the Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) phase of acquisition and the Milestone A decision. The CDD that is prepared and approved by the Sponsor is a critical criterion for the Milestone A decision. The draft CDD is not provided to the Joint Staff Gatekeeper for staffing and validation submission at that time.Back JCIDS Manual 2018 Page A-A-13

Cost Performance Analysis & Trades (4) Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction Phase (a) Purpose. The purpose of this phase is to reduce technology, engineering, integration, and life-cycle cost risk to the point that a decision to contract for EMD can be made with confidence in successful program execution for development, production, and sustainment. (b) Phase Description 1. This phase should include a mix of activities intended to reduce the specific risks associated with the product to be developed. This includes additional design trades and requirements trades necessary to ensure an affordable product and executable development and production programs. Capability requirements are matured and validated, and affordability caps are finalized during this phase. The TMRR Phase requires continuous and close collaboration between the program office and the requirements communities and authorities. During this phase, any realized Should Cost management savings should normally be used to further reduce program risk and future program costs. Enclosure 2 describes baseline cost control and the use of Should Cost management. Back DoDI 5000.02 JCIDS Manual 2018 Page B-G-8

Capability Development Document (CDD)3.3.3. CDD (includes the IS-CDD variant). A CDD specifies capability requirements, in terms of system level performance attributes which include Key Performance Parameters (KPPs), Key System Attributes (KSAs), and Additional Performance Attributes (APAs) to support development of one or more increments of a materiel capability solution. A validated CDD is a requirement for the Development Request for Proposal (RFP) release decision point before Milestone B. In cases where the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) waives Milestone A or B but an Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase of acquisition will be conducted, the CDD shall be validated before RFP release for the EMD phase of acquisition or the beginning of the EMD phase of acquisition, whichever comes first. In cases where Milestone B and C are combined, such as for high cost first articles of spacecraft and ships, the CDD shall be the authoritative document for the first article produced during EMD without the need for updated CDDs.______________________________________________________2.6.1.4.1. The Sponsor may update the CDD based on knowledge gained during source selection and EMD phase activity. It is likely performance attributes set in the initial CDD will change as more information is gained. In these cases, the Sponsor shall submit the updated CDD for review and revalidation by the approval authority IAW the deliberate staffing section of this appendix.2.6.1.4.2. A CDD Update will follow the deliberate staffing process outlined in this appendix. During these updates, primary stakeholders will have the ability to review and provide comment only on the updated parts of the document as approved by the Joint Staff Gatekeeper (when JCB or JROC is the validation authority) and in consultation with the document Sponsor. Back JCIDS Manual 2018 Pages A-3, A-A-14&15

Refine Requirements for Production (EMD Phase)6.4.2. During EMD, tradeoffs are made between the threshold and objective values to optimize performance given the available technology for the increment and the competing demands introduced by combining subsystems into the overall system.6.4.3. A deeper analysis of cost-capability trade-offs at and around threshold and objective values may be beneficial to decision makers, by exploring incremental return on investment where certain performance attributes might be insensitive to small deviation at great advantage in lifecycle cost, performance, schedule, and quantity reviews.6.4.4. After the Critical Design Review (CDR), these tradeoff decisions are essentially completed and a more precise determination of acceptable performance can be stated in an update to the CDD if required.6.4.5.4. During EMD, optimum performance values may be identified based on lifecycle cost, performance, or other considerations, as shown in Figure B-16(d).6.4.5.5. Further design tradeoffs among the collective performance attributes may necessitate settling for design performance values higher or lower than the optimum values for the individual performance attributes. Figure B-16(e) shows an example in which optimum performance was traded off because of other considerations, resulting in reduced performance within this performance attribute. 6.4.5.6. If required, the updated CDD prior to Milestone C may include threshold and objective values that are revised versions of the values documented in the CDD. Figure B-16(f) shows an example of the revised performance attributes. Note that these values are not necessarily bounded between the original threshold and objective values. Back JCIDS Manual 2018 Pages A-A-14&15 , B-G-6-8

End of Service Life Decision3.2.1.10. Upgrades and end of service life decisions.3.2.1.10.1. For incremental improvements to fielded capability solutions, through more capable production increments and/or retrofit of fielded systems, the Sponsor may use a new CDD or an appendix to a validated CDD. In this case, the Sponsor will staff and validate the proposed capability solution through the deliberate process as outlined in Appendix A to Enclosure A of this manual.3.2.1.10.2. When a capability solution is approaching end of service life, there are three courses of action:3.2.1.10.2.1. If the capability is obsolete or otherwise not required in the future, the validation authority will rescind the validation and the Sponsor will dispose of the capability solution. The capability requirements portfolio will be updated to reflect the removal of the capability requirements.3.2.1.10.2.2. If the originally validated capability requirements remain valid, then a replacement capability solution can be acquired to meet the same performance attributes under the authority of the originally validated document. The capability requirements portfolio will be updated to reflect the replacement capability solution.3.2.1.10.2.3. If adversary threats, strategic guidance, or other operational context have changed such that upgraded capabilities are required for the replacement system, a new capability requirements document will be generated by the Sponsor. FCB Chairs and other stakeholders will assess impact on the capability requirements portfolios during staffing of the document. Back JCIDS Manual 2018 Page C-16

Defense Intelligence Threat LibraryThe online repository of Threat Modules. Back DoDI 5000.02

Critical Intelligence Parameter (CIP)A threat capability or threshold established collaboratively by the requirements sponsor and the component capability developer, changes to which could critically impact the effectiveness and survivability of the proposed system. Back DAU Glossary

Intelligence Mission Data (IMD)IMD - DoD intelligence used for programming platform mission systems in development, testing, operations, and sustainment including, but not limited to, the functional areas of signatures, EWIR, OOB, C&P, and GEOINT. 5. USD(AT&L). The USD(AT&L), in accordance with Reference (b), shall: a. Ensure each program office or its predecessor organization plans and manages their life-cycle IMD requirements and address risk of projected shortfalls throughout acquisition and sustainment. The risk management process and planning shall begin prior to Milestone A in concert with the analysis of alternatives and the initiation of an LMDP. b. Ensure that requirements and program needs for IMD are addressed by the program manager in program development, testing, fielding, operation, and sustainment of required weapons, smart munitions, sensors, and systems capabilities. IMD-dependent programs shall incorporate the status, risk summary, and, when applicable, the funding for any projected IMD shortfalls into the technology development strategy or acquisition strategy, as appropriate for the respective milestone, for both development and life-cycle support. c. Assign appropriate representation to the IMDSSG and IMDOB, described at Enclosure 2. d. Represent DoD Acquisition Community equities in the development of IMD resourcing strategies to manage risk to capabilities of acquisition programs .C&P - characteristics and performance, EWIR - electronic warfare integrated reprogramming,GEOINT - geospatial intelligence, IMDOB - Intelligence Mission Data Oversight Board, IMDSSG - Intelligence Mission Data Senior Steering Group, LMDP - life-cycle mission data plan, OOB - order of battle Back DoDD 5250.01 Pages 8, 9, & 13

Life-Cycle Mission Data Plan (LMDP)A statement of program needs that is applied throughout the life of an Intelligence Mission Data (IMD)-dependent acquisition program and potentially influences programmatic decisions based on the availability of IMD over the life of the program. c. Life-cycle mission data plans (LMDPs) shall be established by the program office, or its predecessor organization, for each IMD-dependent acquisition program and effort beginning at Milestone A. Acquisition effort IMD dependency shall be identified in accordance with Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Memorandum (Reference (m))…. 5. USD(AT&L). The USD(AT&L), in accordance with Reference (b), shall: a. Ensure each program office or its predecessor organization plans and manages their life-cycle IMD requirements and address risk of projected shortfalls throughout acquisition and sustainment. The risk management process and planning shall begin prior to Milestone A in concert with the analysis of alternatives and the initiation of an LMDP. IMD - Intelligence Mission Data Back DoDD 5250.01 Pages 2, 9, & 13

Validated Online Lifecycle Threat (VOLT)The authoritative threat assessment tailored for and normally focused on one specific Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) and authorized for use in the Defense Acquisition Management process.Sources:Defense Intelligence Agency Directive 5000.200Defense Intelligence Agency Instruction 5000.002 Back DoDI 5000.02

Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM)A systematic process for managing supply chain risk by identifying susceptibilities, vulnerabilities and threats throughout DoD’s “supply chain” and developing mitigation strategies to combat those threats whether presented by the supplier, the supplied product and its subcomponents, or the supply chain (e.g., initial production, packaging, handling, storage, transport, mission operation, and disposal). Back DoDI 5200.44 Incorporating Change 3, Effective October 15, 2018Page 13

Multidiscipline Counterintelligence Threat Assessment (MDCITA)Multi-disciplined threat product that focuses on the foreign intelligence collection threat to the CPI of a specific US technology program that will be used in a risk assessment for the allocation of resources to protect the CPI and the program during the acquisition cycle. Critical Program Information (CPI)U.S. capability elements that contribute to the warfighters’ technical advantage, which if compromised, undermines U.S. military preeminence. U.S. capability elements may include, but are not limited to, software algorithms and specific hardware residing on the system, its training equipment, or maintenance support equipment. Back DAU Glossary

Request for Proposal (RFP) A document used in negotiated acquisitions to communicate Government requirements to prospective contractors and to solicit proposals. RFPs for competitive acquisitions describe the Government’s requirement; anticipated terms and conditions that will apply to the contract; information required to be in the offeror’s proposal; and factors and significant sub-factors that will be used to evaluate the proposal and their relative importance.Back DAU GlossarySource Selection Guidance and Memo CLC007, Contract Source Selection FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection DFARS Subpart 215.3, Source Selection

Source Selection Source Selection generally refers to the process of evaluating a competitive bid or proposal to enter into a Government procurement contract. The term "source selection" is used for referring to acquisitions awarded according to Federal Acquisition Regulation Parts 13 (Simplified Acquisition), 14 (Sealed Bidding), or 15 (Contracting by Negotiation). However, it is most commonly used specifically for FAR Part 15 acquisitions.Back Acquipedia - Source SelectionSource Selection Guidance and Memo CLC007, Contract Source Selection FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection DFARS Subpart 215.3, Source Selection

Contract AwardOccurs when the contracting officer (CO) has signed and distributed the contract to the contractor. Review of a contractor's Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB). It is conducted by Program Managers (PMs) and their technical staffs, or Integrated Product Teams (IPTs), on contracts requiring compliance with DoD Earned Value Management System (EVMS) criteria requirements within 6 months after contract award. The Government and the Contractor will jointly assess the Contractor's baseline to be used for performance measurement to ensure complete coverage of the statement of work, logical scheduling of the work activities, adequate resourcing, and identification of inherent risks. Back DAU Glossary Acquipedia Article Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) Source Selection Guidance and Memo CLC007, Contract Source Selection FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection DFARS Subpart 215.3, Source Selection

Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) The documentation by which a proposed engineering change is submitted to the responsible authority recommending that a change to an original item of equipment be considered, and the design or engineering change be incorporated into the article to modify, add to, delete, or supersede original parts.Back DAU GlossaryMIL-HDBK-61A(SE) 7 February 2001 Value Engineering GuidebookDAG Chapter 3 Systems EngineeringCLE 001 Value Engineering

Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) ENCLOSURE 9ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES (AOA)1. PURPOSE. The AoA assesses potential materiel solutions that could satisfy validated capability requirement(s) documented in the Initial Capabilities Document, and supports a decision on the most cost effective solution to meeting the validated capability requirement(s). In developing feasible alternatives, the AoA will identify a wide range of solutions that have a reasonable likelihood of providing the needed capability.2. AOA PROCEDURES a. The Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (DCAPE) develops and approves study guidance for the AoA for potential and designated Acquisition Category (ACAT) I and IA programs and for each joint military or business requirement for which the Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) or the Investment Review Board Deputy Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense (DCMO) is the validation authority. In developing the guidance, the DCAPE solicits the advice of other DoD officials and ensures that the guidance requires, at a minimum: (1) Full consideration of possible tradeoffs among life-cycle cost, schedule, and performance objectives (including mandatory key performance parameters KPPs) for each alternative considered. ( 2) An assessment of whether the joint military requirement can be met in a manner consistent with the cost and schedule objectives recommended by the JROC or other requirements validation authority. ( 3) Consideration of affordability analysis results and affordability goals if established by the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA). b. The DCAPE provides the AoA Study Guidance to the DoD Component or organization designated by the MDA or, for ACAT IA programs, to the office of the principal staff assistant responsible for the mission area, prior to the Materiel Development Decision (MDD) and in sufficient time to permit preparation of the study plan prior to the decision event. The study plan will be coordinated with the MDA and approved by the DCAPE prior to the MDD. The designated DoD Component or other organization or the principal staff assistant will designate responsibility for completion of the study plan and the AoA . c. The final AoA written report will be provided to the DCAPE not later than 60 calendar days prior to the Milestone A review (or the next decision point or milestone as designated by the MDA). Not later than 15 business days prior to the Milestone A review, DCAPE evaluates the AoA and provides a memorandum to the MDA, with copies to the DoD Component head or other organization or principal staff assistant assessing whether the analysis was completed1) Materiel Development Decision consistent with DCAPE study guidance and the DCAPE-approved study plan. Back DAG Chapter 2-Analysis of Alternatives, Cost Estimating and Reporting DoDI 5000.02

Materiel Solution (3) Milestone A (a) The Milestone A decision approves program entry into the TMRR Phase and release of final RFPs for TMRR activities. The responsible DoD Component may decide to perform technology maturation and risk reduction work in-house and/or award contracts associated with the conduct of this phase. Competitive prototypes are part of this phase unless specifically waived by the MDA. Key considerations are: 1. The justification for the preferred materiel solution. 2. The affordability and feasibility of the planned materiel solution. 3 . The scope of the capability requirements trade space and understanding of the priorities within that trade space. 4. The understanding of the technical, cost, and schedule risks of acquiring the materiel solution, and the adequacy of the plans and programmed funding to mitigate those risks prior to Milestone B. 5 . The efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed acquisition strategy (including the contracting strategy and the intellectual property (IP) strategy) in light of the program risks and risk mitigation strategies. 6. The projected threat and its impact on the material materiel solution. Back DoDI 5000.02

TMRR Phase Prototypes (4) TMRR Phase (a) Purpose. The purpose of this phase is to reduce technology, engineering, integration, and life-cycle cost risk to the point that a decision to contract for EMD can be made with confidence in successful program execution for development, production, and sustainment. (b) Phase Description 1. This phase should include a mix of activities intended to reduce the specific risks associated with the product to be developed. This includes additional design trades and requirements trades necessary to ensure an affordable product and executable development and production programs. Capability requirements are matured and validated, and affordability caps are finalized during this phase. The TMRR Phase requires continuous and close collaboration between the program office and the requirements communities and authorities. During this phase, any realized Should Cost management savings should normally be used to further reduce program risk and future program costs. Enclosure 2 describes baseline cost control and the use of Should Cost management. 2. This phase normally includes competitive sources conducting technology maturation and risk reduction activities and preliminary design activities up to and including a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) prior to source selection for the EMD Phase. Competitive risk reduction prototypes will be included if they will materially reduce engineering and manufacturing development risk at an acceptable cost. If competitive prototyping is not considered feasible, single prototypes at the system or subsystem level will be considered. Back DoDI 5000.02

Production Representative Articles 2. Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E). Developmental testing and evaluation provides feedback to the Program Manager on the progress of the design process and on the product’s compliance with contractual requirements. DT&E activities also evaluate the ability of the system to provide effective combat capability, including its ability to meet its validated and derived capability requirements, including the verification of the ability of the system to achieve KPPs and KSAs, and that initial system production and deployment and OT&E can be supported. The effort requires completion of DT&E activities consistent with the TEMP. Successful completion of adequate testing with production or deployment representative prototype test articles will normally be the primary basis for entering LRIP or Limited Deployment. Enclosure 4 includes more detailed discussions of DT&E requirements. 3. Early OT&E Events. Independent operational assessments, conducted by the Component operational test organization, will normally also occur during EMD. These events may take the form of independent evaluation of developmental test results or of separate dedicated test events such as Limited User Tests. Developmental and operational test activities should, to the extent feasible, be planned in conjunction with one another to provide as efficient an overall test program as possible. Enclosures 4 and 5 provide more detailed discussions of DT&E and OT&E. Back DoDI 5000.02

Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Articles 1. LRIP and Limited Deployment. LRIP establishes the initial production base for the system or capability increment, provides the OT&E test articles, provides an efficient ramp up to full-rate production, and maintains continuity in production pending OT&E completion. While this portion of the phase should be of limited duration so that efficient production rates can be accomplished as soon and as economically as possible, it should be of sufficient duration to permit identification and resolution of any deficiencies prior to full-rate production. Limited Deployment for software developments is principally intended to support OT&E and can, consistent with the program strategy, be used to provide tested early operational capability to the user prior to full deployment. 2. OT&E. The appropriate operational test organization will conduct operational testing in a realistic threat environment. The threat environment will be based on the program’s System Threat Assessment Validated On-line Life-cycle Threat Report and appropriate scenarios. For MDAPs, MAIS programs, and other programs on the DOT&E Oversight List, the DOT&E will provide a report providing the opinion of the DOT&E as to whether the program is operationally effective, suitable, and survivable before the MDA makes a decision to proceed beyond LRIP. For programs on the DOT&E Oversight List, operational testing will be conducted in accordance with the approved TEMP and operational test plan. If LRIP is not conducted for programs on the DOT&E Oversight List, fully production-representative articles must nonetheless be provided for the conduct of the required operational testing. Enclosures 4 and Enclosure 5 provide details about developmental and operational testing and the TEMP . Back Acquipedia Article Materiel Fielding Plan DoDI 5000.02

Full-Rate Production Systems (13) Full-Rate Production or Full Deployment. In this part of the P&D Phase, the remaining production or deployment of the product is completed, leading to Full Operational Capability or Full Deployment. Back Acquipedia ArticleSystem Fielding and Sight Activation AR 700–142Type Classification, Materiel Release, Fielding, and TransferCopy and paste the link below into your browser for access https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN7195_AR700-142_Web_FINAL.pdfDoD Integrated Product Support (IPS) Implementation Roadmap DoDI 5000.02 Acquipedia ArticleMateriel Fielding Plan

Alternative Systems Review (ASR) A multi-disciplined technical review to evaluate whether there is sufficient understanding of the technical maturity, feasibility, and risk of the preferred materiel solution. Review addresses the adequacy of the system requirements documentation in addressing the operational capability needs in the Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) and draft Capability Development Document (CDD), and in meeting affordability, technology, and operational effectiveness and suitability goals. Back DAG Chapter 3 Systems EngineeringVideo on Technical Reviews Across the Lifecycle Register with DLA Assist for access to IEEE Std 15288.2™-2014 IEEE Standard for Technical Reviewsand Audits on Defense Programs

Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) An acquisition program’s primary technical planning document to help Program Managers develop, communicate, and manage the overall systems engineering (SE) approach that guides all technical activities of the program. The SEP documents key technical risks, processes, resources, metrics, systems engineering (SE) products, organizations, design considerations, and completed and scheduled SE activities. It serves as the blueprint for the integration and management of technical processes and design development in order to define and balance system performance, cost, schedule, risk, and security within the program and throughout its life cycle. The SEP is a living document in which SE planning should be kept current and fidelity should evolve as the program progresses through each acquisition phase. Back DAG Chapter 3 Systems Engineering SEP Outline 3.0

System Requirements Review (SRR) The SRR is a multi-disciplined technical review to ensure that the system under review is ready to proceed into initial systems design, and that all system requirements and performance requirements derived from the Initial Capabilities Document or draft Capability Development Document are defined and testable, and are consistent with cost, schedule, risk, technology readiness, and other system constraints. Generally this review assesses the system requirements as captured in the system performance specification, and ensures that the system requirements are consistent with the approved materiel solution (including its support concept) as well as available technologies resulting from the prototyping effort. It is held normally during the Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) phase. Back DAG Chapter 3 Systems EngineeringRegister with DLA Assist for access to IEEE Std 15288.2™-2014 IEEE Standard for Technical Reviewsand Audits on Defense Programs Video on Technical Reviews Across the Lifecycle

Integrated Baseline Review (IBR)Back Acquipedia Article on Integrated Baseline Reviews DoDI 5000.02 WSM 005 Integrated Baseline Review Workshop The IBR is a joint assessment of the contractor’s Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB) conducted by the government program manager and the contractor for each contract that requires the application of EVM. The IBR is not a one-time event but should be considered a continuous process, and the plan should be continually evaluated as changes to the baseline are made (modifications, restructuring, etc.). IBRs should be used as necessary throughout the life of a project to facilitate and maintain mutual understanding of: - The scope of the PMB consistent with authorizing documents;- Risks in the PMB associated with technical performance, cost, schedule, resources and management processes; and- Corrective actions where necessary. Policy requirements are contained in the DoDI 5000.02 Enclosure 1 Table 8.

System Functional Review (SFR) A multi-disciplined technical review to ensure that the system's functional baseline is established and has a reasonable expectation of satisfying the requirements of the Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) or draft Capability Development Document (CDD) within the currently allocated budget and schedule. It completes the process of defining the items or elements below system level. Back DAG Chapter 3 Systems Engineering Register with DLA Assist for access to IEEE Std 15288.2™-2014 IEEE Standard for Technical Reviewsand Audits on Defense Programs Video on Technical Reviews Across the Lifecycle

Preliminary Design Review (PDR) A design review that assesses the maturity of the preliminary design supported by the results of requirements trades, prototyping, and critical technology demonstrations. The PDR establishes the allocated baseline (hardware, software, human/support systems) and underlying architectures to ensure the system under review has a reasonable expectation of satisfying the requirements within the currently allocated budget and schedule, and confirms that the system under review is ready to proceed into detailed design (development of build-to drawings, software code-to documentation and other tasks) with acceptable risk. Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) are required to conduct this review prior to the completion of the Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) phase. For MDAPs and Major Automated Information Systems (MAIS) programs, a post-PDR assessment will be conducted and provided to the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA). For ACAT ID and ACAT IAM programs, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Systems Engineering) (DASD(SE)) will participate in the program’s PDRs as the basis for preparation of the post-PDR assessment to inform the MDA of technical risks and the program’s readiness to proceed into detailed design. For ACAT IC and ACAT IAC programs, the Component Acquisition Executive will conduct the post-PDR assessment. Non-major programs also normally conduct this review prior to the completion of the TMRR phase, but may conduct it early in the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase, if program circumstances warrant. Back DAG Chapter 3 Systems EngineeringRegister with DLA Assist for access to IEEE Std 15288.2™-2014 IEEE Standard for Technical Reviews and Audits on Defense ProgramsVideo on Technical Reviews Across the Lifecycle

Critical Design Review (CDR) A multi-disciplined technical review to assess design maturity, design build-to or code-to documentation and remaining risks, and establish the initial product baseline. It is used to determine whether the system design is ready to to begin developmental prototype hardware fabrication and/or software coding with acceptable risk Generally, this review assesses the system's design as captured in product specifications for each configuration item (CI) in the system’s product baseline, and ensures that each CI in the product baseline has been captured in the detailed design documentation. Normally conducted during the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase. Back DAG Chapter 3 Systems Engineering Register with DLA Assist for access to IEEE Std 15288.2™-2014 IEEE Standard for Technical Reviewsand Audits on Defense Programs Video on Technical Reviews Across the Lifecycle

Functional Configuration Audit (FCA) The FCA shall be conducted to ascertain that a configuration item’s (CI’s) actual performance meets the requirements stated in the functional and allocated baseline documentation. The FCA shall confirm that: a) The CI’s actual performance based on results of approved verification methods (test,demonstration, analysis, or inspection) satisfies the performance requirements in the functional and allocated baselines. b) For those performance requirements that cannot be completely verified during testing, adequateanalysis or simulation using approved methods has produced validated data to permit assessment of an acceptable risk level that system performance will satisfy those requirements. c) The initial product baseline documentation (drawings, parts lists) accurately reflects the physical configuration for which the test data and any analysis and simulation data are verified. The FCA shall be held when the acquirer and supplier concur that the CI development is complete and actual CI performance as documented in development test (DT), analysis, and simulation data is sufficientto show satisfaction of the functional and allocated baseline. Back DAG Chapter 3 Systems Engineering Register with DLA Assist for access to IEEE Std 15288.2™-2014 IEEE Standard for Technical Reviewsand Audits on Defense Programs Video on Technical Reviews Across the Lifecycle

System Verification Review (SVR) A multi-disciplined technical review to verify that the as-tested system meets the requirements per the functional baseline and is ready for validation with acceptable risk. Generally this review is an audit trail from the System Functional Review (SFR). It assesses the system functionality, and determines if it meets the functional requirements (derived from the Capability Development Document [CDD]) documented in the functional baseline. The SVR establishes and verifies final product performance. It provides inputs to the Capability Development Document (CDD). The SVR is often conducted concurrently with the Production Readiness Review (PRR). A Functional Configuration Audit (FCA) may also be conducted concurrently with the SVR, if desired. Back DAG Chapter 3 Systems Engineering Register with DLA Assist for access to IEEE Std 15288.2™- 2014 IEEE Standard for Technical Reviews and Audits on Defense Programs Video on Technical Reviews Across the Lifecycle

Production Readiness Review (PRR) A formal examination of a program to determine if the design is ready for production and if the prime contractor and major subcontractors have accomplished adequate production planning without incurring unacceptable risks that will breach thresholds of schedule, performance, cost, or other established criteria. PRRs are normally performed as a series of reviews toward the end of Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase. A final PRR should occur at the completion of the EMD phase and assess the manufacturing and quality risk as the program proceeds into Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP). Under some circumstances, a PRR may also be appropriate during the LRIP effort to assess manufacturing risk for full-rate production.Back DAG Chapter 3 Systems Engineering Register with DLA Assist for access to IEEE Std 15288.2™-2014 IEEE Standard for Technical Reviews and Audits on Defense ProgramsVideo on Technical Reviews Across the Lifecycle

Physical Configuration Audit (PCA) Physical examination of the actual configuration of the item being produced. It verifies that the related design documentation matches the item as specified in the contract. The system product baseline is finalized and validated at the PCA.Back DAG Chapter 3 Systems Engineering Register with DLA Assist for access to IEEE Std 15288.2™-2014 IEEE Standard for Technical Reviews and Audits on Defense ProgramsVideo on Technical Reviews Across the Lifecycle

Program Protection Plan (PPP)A living plan to guide efforts to manage the risks to Critical Program Information (CPI) and mission critical functions and components as well as program and system information. This milestone acquisition document captures both systems security engineering (SSE) and security activities and the results of the analyses as the program and system become more defined. ----------------------------------------------------------The PPP will be submitted for MDA approval at each milestone review beginning with Milestone A.Additionally, Program Managers will submit the Program’s Cybersecurity Strategy as part of every PPP. The purpose of the PPP is to help programs ensure that they adequately protect their technology, components, and information. Cybersecurity is a critical component of this plan. Considerations for Program Protection and Cybersecurity should also be included in the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) Back DAG Chapter 9 – Program Protection DoDI 5200.39 DoDI 5000.02

Cybersecurity StrategyRequirement for all acquisitions of systems containing Information Technology (IT), including National Security Systems (NSS). The Cybersecurity Strategy provides the program's plan for ensuring cybersecurity and will be reviewed prior to all acquisition milestone decisions, program decision reviews, and acquisition contract awards. The Cybersecurity Strategy is an appendix of the Program Protection Plan.Back DoDI 8510.01 Prevention of damage to, protection of, and restoration of computers, electronic communications systems, electronic communication services, wire communication, and electronic communication, including information contained therein, to ensure its availability, integrity, authentication, confidentiality, and nonrepudiation. Cybersecurity DoDI 8500.01 Cybersecurity and Acquistion Lifecycle Integration Tool (CALIT) CLE 074 Cybersecurity Throughout DoD Acquisition DoDI 5000.02 DAG Chapter 9 – Program Protection

Software Engineering/Development Approaches Also referred to as software development paradigms, these are process models for how the various tasks related to software development can be organized. Typical approaches or paradigms encountered in DoD software development include waterfall, incremental, and spiral as described below. The incremental development approach typically forms the basis for software development within the larger systems-level of evolutionary acquisition (EA).Waterfall Approach: Development activities are performed in order, with possibly minor overlap, but with little or no iteration between activities. User needs are determined, requirements are defined, and the full system is designed, built, and tested for ultimate delivery at one point in time. A document-driven approach best suited for highly precedented systems with stable requirements.Incremental Approach: Determines user needs and defines the overall architecture, but then delivers the system in a series of increments (“software builds”). The first build incorporates a part of the total planned capabilities; the next build adds more capabilities, and so on, until the entire system is complete .Spiral Approach: A risk-driven controlled prototyping approach that develops prototypes early in the development process to specifically address risk areas followed by assessment of prototyping results and further determination of risk areas to prototype. Areas that are prototyped frequently include user requirements and algorithm performance. Prototyping continues until high risk areas are resolved and mitigated to an acceptable level. Back DAU Glossary CLE 041 Software Reuse CLE 060 Practical Software and Systems Measurement CLE 068 Intellectual Property and Data Rights

Post Implementation Review (PIR)4. POST IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW (PIR). The functional sponsor, in coordination with the Component CIO and Program Manager, is responsible for developing a plan and conducting a PIR for all fully deployed IT, including NSS. PIRs will report the degree to which doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, facilities, and policy changes have achieved the established measures of effectiveness for the desired capability; evaluate systems to ensure positive return on investment and decide whether continuation, modification, or termination of the systems is necessary to meet mission requirements; and document lessons learned from the PIR. If the PIR overlaps with Follow-on Operational Test and Evaluation, the sponsor should coordinate planning of both events for efficiency. The preparation of the TEMP and the MDA’s decision to proceed with full-rate production satisfy the requirement for weapons systems. The post fielding assessment(s), the disposition assessment, and the disposition decision for an urgent need (as described in Enclosure 13), meet the requirement for a PIR. Back DAG Chapter 3 Systems Engineering DoDI 5000.02

Test & Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) c. The Program Manager will use a Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) as the primary planning and management tool for the integrated test program. Whenever feasible, testing will be conducted in an integrated fashion to permit all stakeholders to use data in support of their respective functions. Integrated testing requires the collaborative planning and collaborative execution of test phases and events to provide shared data in support of independent analysis, evaluation, and reporting by all stakeholders, particularly the systems engineering, developmental (both contractor and government) and operational T&E communities. The Program Manager will establish an integrated test planning group consisting of empowered representatives of test data producers and consumers (to include all applicable stakeholders) to ensure collaboration and to develop a strategy for robust, efficient testing to support systems engineering, evaluations, and certifications throughout the acquisition life cycle. d. The Program Manager will identify the test resources needed to execute the DT&E program to acquire the data that will be used to understand program progress, identify issues, verify compliance, and balance cost and performance. Test resource requirements will be included in the TEMP. Back DAG Chapter 8 Test & EvaluationDOT&E TEMP Guidebook DoDI 5000.02

Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E)4. DT&E ACTIVITIES a. DT&E activities will start when requirements are being developed to ensure that key technical requirements are measurable, testable, and achievable. b. A robust DT&E program includes a number of key activities to provide the data and assessments for decision making. The DT&E program will: (1) Verify achievement of critical technical parameters and the ability to achieve KPPs, and assess progress toward achievement of critical operational issues. (2) Assess the system’s ability to achieve the thresholds prescribed in the capabilities documents. (3) Provide data to the Program Manager to enable root cause determination and to identify corrective actions. (4) Validate system functionality. (5) Provide information for cost, performance, and schedule tradeoffs. ( 6) Assess system specification compliance. (7) Report on program progress to plan for reliability growth and to assess reliability and maintainability performance for use during key reviews. (8) Identify system capabilities, limitations, and deficiencies. (9) Include T&E activities to detect cyber vulnerabilities within custom and commodity hardware and software. (10) Assess system safety. ( 11) Assess compatibility with legacy systems. (12) Stress the system within the intended operationally relevant mission environment. (13) Support cybersecurity assessments and authorization, including Risk Management Framework security controls. ( 14) Support the interoperability certification process. (15) Document achievement of contractual technical performance, and verify incremental improvements and system corrective actions. (16) Assess entry criteria for Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) and Follow-On Operational Test and Evaluation. (17) Provide DT&E data to validate parameters in models and simulations. ( 18) Assess the maturity of the chosen integrated technologies. Back DAG Chapter 8 Test & Evaluation CLE 030 Integrated Testing Video on DT&E and OT&E DoDI 5000.02

Test Readiness Review (TRR) A Test Readiness Review (TRR) provides the formal approval authority with a review showing that the system is ready to enter the test and that the funding and execution of a test executes the test and gathers the required information. TRRs assess test objectives, test methods and procedures, test scope, safety, and whether test resources have been properly identified and coordinated. TRRs are also intended to determine if any changes are required in planning, resources, training, equipment, or timing to successfully proceed with the test. If any of these items are not ready, senior leadership may decide to proceed with the test and accept the risk, or mitigate the risk in some manner. A TRR is conducted for those events identified in the TEMP.Back DAG Chapter 8-3.9.1 Test Readiness Reviews Register with DLA Assist for access to IEEE Std 15288.2™-2014 IEEE Standard for Technical Reviewsand Audits on Defense Programs DoDI 5000.02

Early Operational Assessment (EOA) (1) The lead OTA will prepare and report results of one or more early OAs (EOAs) as appropriate in support of one or more of the design phase life-cycle events (namely, the CDD Validation, the Development RFP Release Decision Point, or Milestone B). An EOA is typically an analysis, conducted in accordance with an approved test plan, of the program’s progress in identifying operational design constraints, developing system capabilities, and mitigating program risks. For programs that enter development at Milestone B, the lead OTA will (as appropriate) prepare and report EOA results after program initiation and prior to the Critical Design Review. Back DAG Chapter 8-3.2 Operational T&E DoDI 5000.02CLE 030 Integrated Testing Video on DT&E and OT&E

Operational Test Readiness Review (OTRR) The OTRR is the formal approval process for deciding if a system is ready to enter operational testing, In accordance with DoDI 5000.02 (Encl. 5, para 12). OTRRs are conducted to:Verify required contractor and/or developmental testing is complete with satisfactory system performance.Ensure OT test plans are approved and OT preparations are complete.Ensure other requirements supporting OT—such as threat representation validation reports and OTA accreditation of threat representations, models, simulations, and other test instrumentation—are complete.Verify that T&E and system under test resources and capabilities are available and ready to proceed with the OT&E.Verify system-under-test is production representative.Determine if any changes are required in planning, resources, training, equipment, or schedule in order to successfully execute the test.Identify any problems that impact on the start or adequate execution of the test and subsequent evaluation or assessment of the system. Make decisions as appropriate to resolve problems or to change or confirm scheduled requirements.Safety planning. Back DAG Chapter 8-3.9.1 Test Readiness Reviews Register with DLA Assist for access to IEEE Std 15288.2™-2014 IEEE Standard for Technical Reviewsand Audits on Defense Programs DoDI 5000.02

Operational Assessment (OA) (2) An OA is a test event that is conducted before initial production units are available and which incorporates substantial operational realism. An OA is conducted by the lead OTA in accordance with a test plan approved by DOT&E for programs that are on under OSD OT&E oversight. As a general criterion for proceeding through Milestone C, the lead OTA will conduct and report results of at least one OA. For an acquisition program employing the Incrementally Deployed Software Intensive Program model, a risk-appropriate OA is usually required in support of every limited deployment (see Model 3 at paragraph 5c(3)(d) in this instruction). An operational test, usually an OA, is required prior to deployment of accelerated or urgent acquisition programs that are on under OSD OT&E or LFT&E oversight. An OA may be combined with training events (see paragraph 11a(9) in this enclosure). An OA is not required for programs that enter the acquisition system at Milestone C.Back DAG Chapter 8-3.2 Operational T&E DoDI 5000.02 CLE 030 Integrated TestingVideo on DT&E and OT&E

JITC Interoperability Test Certification Provided by the Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC) upon completion of testing. Valid for 4 years from the date of the certification or when subsequent program modifications change components of the NR-KPP or supportability aspects of the system (when materiel changes (e.g., hardware or software modifications, including firmware) and similar changes to interfacing systems affect interoperability; upon revocation of joint interoperability test certifications; and/or non-materiel changes occur that may affect interoperability).Back Interoperability Process GuideDAG Chapter 6-3.8.1 Interoperability Requirements and Verification DAU Glossary Video onInteroperability

Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) (2) Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) is required for all programs under DOT&E oversight in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2399 (Reference (h)). The lead OTA will conduct an independent, dedicated phase of IOT&E before full-rate production or full deployment that provides objective test results free from potential conflicts of interest or bias. The primary purpose of IOT&E is to determine a system’s operational effectiveness and operational suitability. IOT&E can also be used to support system certification requirements and training requirements as long as the primary purpose is accomplished. Back DAG Chapter 8-3.2 Operational T&EDoDI 5000.02 Video on DT&E and OT&E

Live Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT&E)9. LFT&E. 10 U.S.C. 2366 (Reference (g) (h)) mandates the LFT&E and formal LFT&E reporting for all covered systems, as determined by DOT&E, including Accelerated Acquisitions, survivability improvement, and kit programs to address urgent needs. DOT&E will require approval of LFT&E strategies and LFT&E test plans (including survivability test plans) for covered systems as defined in section 2366. The DOT&E will determine the quantity of test articles procured for all LFT&E test events for any system under DOT&E LFT&E oversight.Back DAG Chapter 8-3.2.2.5.1 Live Fire T&E Objectives Video on LFT&E DoDI 5000.02

DOT&E Report on IOT&EFor programs under Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) oversight, the DOT&E will submit an IOT&E report to the Secretary of Defense and the congressional defense committees before a program may proceed beyond Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) or proceed beyond limited deployment. The report addresses the adequacy of the IOT&E performed and evaluates the operational effectiveness and suitability of the covered platform or weapon system. For systems under LFT&E oversight, a combined IOT&E and LFT&E report may apply that evaluates the survivability and/or lethality of the system in addition to effectiveness and suitability.Back DAG Chapter 8-3.2 Operational T&E DAU Glossary DoDI 5000.02

Live Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT&E) ReportReport prepared by the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) on survivability and lethality testing. Submitted to the Congress for covered systems prior to the decision to proceed beyond Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP). Prepared within 45 days of receiving the component LFT&E Report.2. Report prepared by the component on the results of survivability and lethality testingBack DAG Chapter 8-3.2.2.5.1 Live Fire T&E Objectives DAU Glossary DoDI 5000.02 Video on LFT&E

Follow-On Test and Evaluation (FOT&E)The Test and Evaluation (T&E) that may be necessary after the Full-Rate Production Decision Review (FRPDR) to refine the estimates made during Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E), to evaluate changes, and to reevaluate the system to ensure that it continues to meet operational needs and retains its effectiveness in a new environment or against a new threat.Back DAG Chapter 8-3.2 Operational T&EDAU Glossary Video on DT&E and OT&E

Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP)Initially prepared for Milestone A and updated for the Development Request for Proposal (RFP) Release Decision Point, Milestone B, Milestone C, Full-Rate Production Decision Review (FRPDR) and at least every 5 years after a system’s Initial Operational Capability (IOC). It documents life cycle sustainment planning initialized during the Materiel Solution Analysis (MSA) Phase and the evolution of sustainment planning through the other acquisition phases (Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR); Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD); Production and Deployment (P&D)) and throughout the system’s life cycle to disposal. The LCSP addresses how the Program Manager (PM) and other organizations will acquire and maintain oversight of the fielded system. ---------------------------------------Program Protection Planning considerations including Cybersecurity are important components of the LCSP. Back DAG Chapter 4 Life Cycle Sustainment DAU Glossary Life Cycle Sustainment Plan Outline 2.0 DoD Integrated Product Support (IPS) Implementation RoadmapProduct Support Manager (PSM) GuidebookCLL 015 Product Support Business Case Analysis (BCA) CLL 005 Developing a Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) DoDI 5000.02

Independent Logistics Assessment (ILA)A disciplined and tailored review of a program’s supportability. During system design, the ILA is used to identify, control or mitigate features that are likely to drive future Operating and Support (O&S) costs (affecting a systems O&S affordability goal and cap), and to assess sustainment readiness to support fielding. After fielding, the ILA is used to assess product support performance (to include evaluation of each of the program’s Integrated Product Support Elements) to meet warfighter needs, sustainment metrics, O&S affordability cap, and to identify O&S cost growth and cost drivers. Back DAU GlossaryCLL 020 Independent Logistics Assessments DoDI 5000.02DAG Chapter 4 Life Cycle Sustainment DoD Integrated Product Support (IPS) Implementation Roadmap

Demonstrate Product Support (c) Preparation for Production, Deployment, and Sustainment. During EMD, the Program Manager will finalize designs for product support elements and integrate them into a comprehensive product support package. Early in the EMD Phase, the Program Manager’s initial product support performance requirements allocations will be refined based on the results of engineering reviews. Later in this phase, programs will demonstrate product support performance through test, to ensure the system design and product support package meet the sustainment requirements within the affordability caps established at Milestone B. Back DoDI 5000.02DAG Chapter 4 Life Cycle Sustainment DoD Integrated Product Support (IPS) Implementation Roadmap

Performance Based Logistics (PBL)PBL is synonymous with performance-based life cycle product support, where outcomes are acquired through performance-based arrangements that deliver Warfighter requirements and incentivize product support providers to reduce costs through innovation. These arrangements are contracts with industry or intragovernmental agreements.[1]A PBL arrangement is not synonymous with Contractor Logistics Support (CLS). CLS signifies the “who” of providing support, not the “how” of the business model. CLS is support provided by a contractor, whether the arrangement is structured around Warfighter outcomes with associated incentives or not. PBL arrangements, on the other hand, are tied to Warfighter outcomes and integrate the various product support activities (e.g., supply support, sustaining engineering, maintenance, etc.) of the supply chain with appropriate incentives and metrics. In addition, PBL focuses on combining best practices of both Government and industry. Back DAG Chapter 4 Life Cycle SustainmentPerformance Based Logistics (PBL) Guidebook CLL 011 Performance Based Logistics (PBL)CLL 001 Life Cycle Management & Sustainment MetricsProduct Support Manager (PSM) GuidebookDoD Integrated Product Support (IPS) Implementation Roadmap

Platinum CardThis tool provides a convenient quick reference to key DoD funds management definitions, policy, and processes. It serves as a valuable reference source for anyone dealing with the financial management aspects of the Defense acquisition process.Back https://www.dau.edu/tools/t/Funds-Management-Platinum-Card

 Years   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 O&M                 RDT&E                   Procurement                   Ships                   MILCON                 MILPERS                   Appropriation Life Cycle Current Period : Available for new obligations, obligation adjustments, expenditures, and outlays Expired Period : Available for obligation adjustments, expenditures, and outlays Cancelled : Unavailable for obligations, obligation adjustments, expenditures, and outlays CLB 009 Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution and Budget Exhibits DoD 7000.14-R Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (DoD FMR) Types of Funds Acquipedia Article Back Forward

Life Cycle Cost Composition MILCON Facilities Disposal O&M (or others as appropriate ) RDT & E Development Costs of PME & Support Items Systems Engineering Program Management Test & Evaluation RDT & E Development Costs of PME & Support Items Systems Engineering Program Management Test & Evaluation Development Cost Operations & Support • O&M, MILPERS Operating and Support O&M, MILPERS (or others as appropriate) PROCUREMENT Initial Spares PROCUREMENT Prime Mission Equipment (PME ) PROCUREMENT Support Items Flyaway Cost Weapon System Cost Procurement Cost Life Cycle Cost Program Acquisition Cost Back Video on Lifecycle Cost Composition

Affordability AnalysisLong-range planning and decision making that determines the resources a Component can allocate for each new capability by ensuring that the total of all such allocations - together with all other fiscal demands that compete for resources in the Component - are not above the Component’s future total budget projection for each year.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------c. Timing of Affordability Analysis. Affordability analysis should be conducted as early as possible in a system’s life cycle so that it can inform early capability requirements trades and the selection of alternatives to be considered during the AoA. Affordability constraints are not required before the MDD; however, conducting some analysis before that point is beneficial. The best opportunity for ensuring that a program will be affordable is through tailoring capability requirements before and during the AoA(s) and early development. Thus, the Components will incorporate estimated funding streams for future programs within their affordability analyses at the earliest conceptual point and specify those estimates at the MDD and beyond to inform system design and alternative selection. Back CLB 007 Cost Analysis DAU Glossary DAG Chapter 2 - Analysis of Alternatives, Cost Estimating and Reporting DoDI 5000.73 - Cost Analysis Guidance and Procedures DoDI 5000.02

Research Development Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) FundsRDT&E appropriations finance research, development, test and evaluation efforts performed by contractors and government installations to develop equipment, material, or computer application software; its Development Test and Evaluation (DT&E); and its Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E). These efforts may include purchases of end items, weapons, equipment, components, and materials as well as performance of services – whatever is necessary to develop and test the system. This applies to automated information systems as well as weapon systems. RDT&E funds are also used to pay the operating costs of dedicated activities engaged in the conduct of Research and Development programs. RDT&E funds are used for both investment-type costs (e.g., sophisticated laboratory test equipment) and expense-type costs (e.g., salaries of employees at R&D-dedicated facilities). There is an RDT&E appropriation for each service (Army, Navy, and Air Force) as well as one to cover other Defense agencies, operational test and developmental test. RDT&E appropriations are normally available for obligations for two years. RDT&E funds are budgeted using the incremental funding policy. Back Acquipedia ArticleResearch Development Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) Funds CLB 009 Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution and Budget Exhibits DoD 7000.14-R Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (DoD FMR)

Cost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD)A detailed description of an acquisition program that is used to prepare the Independent Cost Estimate (ICE), Program Office Estimate (POE), Component Cost Estimate (CCE), Component Cost Position (CCP), and other cost estimates, as required. It is the common description and basis for analysis of the technical and programmatic features of the program. The CARD must be signed by the program executive officer and program manager and initially prepared to support the first milestone review after the Materiel Development Decision. Following the milestone review, updates of the CARD must be submitted annually to reflect the most recent President’s Budget and the anticipated program objective memorandum. The CARD must be prepared and submitted by the program office in accordance with the guidance issued by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (DCAPE). Back Acquipedia ArticleCost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD)CLB 007 Cost Analysis DAU Glossary DoDI 5000.73 - Cost Analysis Guidance and Procedures DAG Chapter 2 - Analysis of Alternatives, Cost Estimating and Reporting

Component Cost Estimate (CCE)Documents the cost analysis conducted by the Service Cost Agency (SCA) in cases where the SCA does not develop an Independent Cost Estimate (ICE). This cost analysis may range from: • a SCA non-advocate estimate,• an independent SCA assessment of another government estimate, or• Other SCA cost analysis, as determined by the SCA and reflected in DoD Component policyBack CLB 007 Cost Analysis DAU GlossaryDoDI 5000.73 - Cost Analysis Guidance and ProceduresAcquipedia Article Cost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD)DAG Chapter 2 - Analysis of Alternatives, Cost Estimating and Reporting

Economic Analysis (EA)A systematic approach for evaluating the costs of a program or a set of alternatives. An EA evaluates the relative economic (financial) costs of different technical alternatives, design solutions, and/or acquisition strategies, and provides the means for identifying and documenting their costs. Normally associated with Automated Information System (AIS) acquisition programs, it is a statutory requirement for Major Automated Information Systems (MAIS). Back DoDI 7041.03 Economic Analysis for Decision-making DAU Glossary CLB 007 Cost Analysis DoDI 5000.73 - Cost Analysis Guidance and Procedures

Component Cost Position (CCP)The cost position established by the DoD Component that is derived from the DoD Component Cost Estimate and the Program Office Estimate per DoD Component policy prior to Milestones A, B, and C and the Full Rate Production decision. It must be signed by the DoD Component Deputy Assistant Secretary for Cost and Economics (or defense agency equivalent) and include a date of record.Back CLB 007 Cost AnalysisDAU Glossary DoDI 5000.73 - Cost Analysis Guidance and Procedures DAG Chapter 2 - Analysis of Alternatives, Cost Estimating and Reporting

Independent Cost Estimate (ICE)An independent estimate for a Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) or Major Automated Information System (MAIS). The term “independent” refers to both organizational and analytic independence. Organizational independence means that the cost estimate is prepared by an entity not within any organization that would unduly influence the estimate. Analytic independence means that the cost estimate is free of any bias or preconceived notions about the program’s most likely cost. The estimate covers the entire life cycle of the program and includes sunk costs; Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) costs; procurement; military construction; military pay; and operations and maintenance costs. The Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (DCAPE) conducts ICEs and cost analyses for MDAPs for which the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) is the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) and as requested by the MDA for other MDAPs. The ICE is also known as the “Will Cost” Estimate.Back DAU GlossaryDoDI 5000.73 - Cost Analysis Guidance and ProceduresCLB 007 Cost Analysis DAG Chapter 2 - Analysis of Alternatives, Cost Estimating and Reporting

Should-Cost TargetA Program Manager's cost goal for an acquisition program, or particular activity or product within an acquisition program, developed by analyzing all elements of the program's Independent Cost Estimate (Will-Cost Estimate) and planning reasonable measures to reduce them. These specific, discrete “Should-Cost” initiatives are developed with prudent, cost-benefit based considerations of associated risks, but without unacceptable reductions in the value received. A program's “Should-Cost” Target represents what the Program Manager believes the program ought to cost if identified cost saving initiatives are achieved.Back CLB 040 Should-Cost ManagementDAU Glossary

Full Funding2. A DoDI 5000.02 requirement for program initiation of an acquisition program. In this sense, full funding means having the dollars and manpower needed for all current and future efforts to carry out the acquisition strategy in the budget and out-years of the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) as one of the criteria for the transition into the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase. For Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) at Milestone B, the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) must certify in writing to the Congress that the program is fully funded through the period covered by the FYDP, relative to reasonable cost and schedule estimates, and also meets other criteria. For all acquisition programs, the MDA normally assesses full funding at all major decision points.Back Acquipedia ArticleFull Funding in FYDP (Future Years Defense Program)CLB 009 Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution and Budget Exhibits DoD 7000.14-R Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (DoD FMR)DAU Glossary

Manpower EstimateAn estimate of the most effective mix of DoD manpower and contract support for an acquisition program. Includes the number of personnel required to operate, maintain, support, and train for the acquisition upon full operational deployment. The estimate is included in the Cost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD) Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) at major milestones.Back CLB 007 Cost Analysis DAU Glossary Manpower Estimate Report Template DAG Chapter 2 - Analysis of Alternatives, Cost Estimating and Reporting

Procurement FundingThe procurement appropriation category consists of a number of procurement titles such as Shipbuilding and Conversion Navy, Aircraft Procurement Air Force, Missile Procurement Army, Procurement Marine Corps, etc. Procurement appropriations are used to finance investment items, and should cover all costs necessary to deliver a useful end item intended for operational use or inventory. Items classified as investments and financed with Procurement appropriations include those whose system unit cost exceeds $250K; all centrally managed end items not purchased from Defense Working Capital Funds, regardless of unit cost (e.g., handguns); purchases from the Defense Working Capital Fund furnished as part of a system acquisition, system modification, major service life extension program and initial spares. The cost of fabricating and installing additions or modifications to existing end items is also funded with procurement appropriations, with certain limited exceptions. Procurement appropriations are normally available for obligation purposes for three years, except for the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy appropriation, which is available for five years. Procurement appropriations are budgeted using the full funding policy.Back Acquipedia ArticleProcurement Funds CLB 009 Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution and Budget Exhibits DoD 7000.14-R Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (DoD FMR)

Operations & Maintenance FundsOperations and Maintenance (O&M) funds include many separate appropriations (e.g., Operations and Maintenance Army, Operations and Maintenance Navy, Operations and Maintenance Marine Corps Reserve, Operation and Maintenance Air National Guard, etc.). O&M appropriations traditionally finance those things whose benefits are derived for a limited period of time (e.g., expenses, rather than investments). Examples of costs financed by O&M funds are headquarters operations, civilian salaries and awards, travel, fuel, minor construction projects of $1M or less, expenses of operational military forces, training and education, recruiting, depot maintenance, purchases from Defense Working Capital Funds (e.g., spare parts), base operations support, and assets with a system unit cost less than the current expense/investment threshold ($250K). O&M appropriations are normally available for obligation for one fiscal year. O&M appropriations are budgeted using the annual funding policy.Back Acquipedia Article Operations & Maintenance FundsDoD 7000.14-R Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (DoD FMR) CLB 009 Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution and Budget Exhibits

DAU GlossaryBack