AFI_63-101 _Acquisition_ _Sustainment_Life_Cycle_Management.pdf

BY ORDER OF THE AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 63-101

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE 17 APRIL 2009

Acquisition

ACQUISITION AND SUSTAINMENT LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY

ACCESSIBILITY: Publications and forms are available on the e-Publishing website at www.e-Publishing.af.mil for downloading or ordering.

RELEASABILITY: There are no releasability restrictions on this publication.

OPR: SAF/AQXA Certified by: SAF/AQX (Mr. Blaise Durante)

Supersedes: Pages: 226

AFI 10-602, 18 Mar 2005, Determining Mission Capability and Supportability Requirements

AFI 20-104, 11 Dec 1998, System Executive Management Report;

AFI 21-133(I), 31 Mar 1999, Joint Depot Maintenance Program;

AFI 21-303, 8 Oct 2006, Technical Orders;

AFI 21-401, 31 Jan 1994, Engineering Data Storage, Distribution, and Control;

AFI 21-403, 18 Mar 1994, Acquiring Engineering Data;

AFI 62-201, 25 Jul 1994, System Survivability;

AFI 63-101, 29 Jul 2005, Operations of Capabilities Based Acquisition System;

AFI 63-105, 10 May 1994, End Use Certificates;

AFI 63-107, 10 Nov 2004, Integrated Product Support Planning and Assessment;

AFI 63-111, 21 Oct 2005, Contract Support for Systems, Equipment and End-Items;

AFI 63-201, 21 Jul 1994, Automatic Test Systems and Equipment Acquisition;

AFI 63-801, 25 Jul 1994, Value Engineering Program.

This publication implements Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 63-1/20-1, Acquisition and

Sustainment Life Cycle Management. It establishes the Integrated Life Cycle Management

(ILCM) guidelines, policies and procedures for Air Force (AF) personnel who develop, review, approve, or manage systems, subsystems, end-items and services (referred to as programs throughout this document) procured under DOD Instruction (DODI) 5000.02, Operation of the

Defense Acquisition System and/or National Security Space (NSS) Acquisition Policy 03-01, Guidance for DOD Space System Acquisition Process. Additionally, this AF Instruction (AFI) http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/

2 AFI63-101 17 APRIL 2009

implements the policies in Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 5000.01, The Defense

Acquisition System, DODI 5000.02, (collectively called the DOD 5000 acquisition series), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget , DODI 2010.4, U.S. Participation in Certain NATO Groups Relating to Research, Development Production, and Logistics Support of Military Equipment, DODI 3100.8, The

Technical Cooperation Program (TTCP), DODI 4151.19, Serialize Item Management (SIM) for

Material Maintenances, DODI 4151.20, Depot Maintenance Core Capabilities Determination

Process, DODI 4151.21, Public-Private Partnerships for Depot Level Maintenance, DODI

4151.22, Condition Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+), DOD Directive (DODD) 4650.1, Policy for Management and Use of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, DODD 3222.3, DOD

Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3) Program, DODD 5000.52, Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Workforce Education, Training, and Career Development Program, DODI 5000.66, Operation of the Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Workforce

Education, Training, and Career Development Program, DODI 5000.67, Prevention and

Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure, DODD 5250.01, Management of Signature Support Within the Department of Defense, DODI 8320.04, Item

Unique Identification (IUID) Standards for Tangible Personal Property, 10 USC §2330 -

Procurement of Services, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) 3170.01, Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff Manual (CJCSM) 3170.01, Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and

Development System, and CJCSI 3312.01, Joint Military Intelligence Requirements Certification.

This AFI must be used in conjunction with NSS 03-01, AFI 10-601, Capabilities-Based

Requirements Development, AFI 63-1201, Life Cycle Systems Engineering, AFI 99-103, Capabilities-Based Test and Evaluation and AFI 20-101, Logistics Strategic Planning

Procedures.

Statutory law, Federal, DOD or Joint Staff (JS) directives take precedence. Space programs under the purview of the Under Secretary of the Air Force (SAF/US) utilize NSS 03-01. If there is any conflicting guidance between this AFI and DOD 5000-series, NSS 03-01, CJCSI 3170.01, CJCSM 3170.01, the latter (DOD 5000-series, NSS 03-01, or CJCSI/M 3170.01) shall take precedence.

To ensure standardization, any organization supplementing this instruction must send the implementing publication to SAF/AQX for review and coordination before publishing. Refer recommended changes and questions about this publication to SAF/AQXA using the AF Form

847, Recommendation for Change of Publication; route AF Form 847s from the field through

MAJCOM publications/forms managers. Program records created as a result of processes prescribed in this publication are maintained in accordance with AFMAN 33-363, Management of Records, and disposed of in accordance with the AF Records Disposition Schedule (RDS) located at https://www.my.af.mil/gcss-af61a/afrims/afrims/rims.cfm.

This publication applies to all military and civilian Air Force personnel including major commands (MAJCOMS), direct reporting units (DRU) and field operating agencies (FOA); other individuals or organizations as required by binding agreement or obligation with the Department of the Air Force (DAF). This publication applies to Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) Units.

This publication applies to the Air National Guard (ANG). For nuclear systems or related components ensure the appropriate nuclear regulations are applied. Nuclear components https://www.my.af.mil/gcss-af61a/afrims/afrims/rims.cfm

AFI63-101 17 APRIL 2009 3

governed by joint Department of Defense-Department of Energy agreements are not covered by this instruction.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

This publication has been substantially revised and must be completely reviewed. This version consolidates and supersedes AFI 10-602, AFI 20-104, AFI 21-133(I), AFI 21-303, AFI 21-401, AFI 21-403, AFI 62-201, AFI 63-101, AFI 63-105, AFI 63-107, AFI 63-111, AFI 63-201, and

AFI 63-801 incorporating guidance and procedures for the development, review, approval, or management of systems, subsystems, end-items and services within the ILCM Enterprise. A major change includes a shift from multiple functional guidance documents to a concise set of

ILCM guidance that reduces duplicative and obsolete guidance.

4 AFI63-101 17 APRIL 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1. Acquisition and Sustainment Life Cycle Management

1.1. Purpose

1.2. Applicability

1.3. The Integrated Life Cycle Management (ILCM) Framework

Figure 1.1. Integrated Life Cycle Management Framework

1.4. The ILCM Tenets

1.5. Acquisition and Sustainment Life Cycle Framework

Figure 1.2. Integrated Life Cycle Execution Framework

1.6. Acquisition and Sustainment Organizations

1.7. Integrated Life Cycle Management Chain of Authority

Figure 1.3. ILCM Acquisition and Sustainment Life Cycle Organizations

Figure 1.4. ILCM Programmatic Execution Chains

Chapter 2. Roles and Responsibilities

2.1. Purpose

2.2. Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition (SAF/AQ)

2.3. Under Secretary of the AF (SAF/US)

2.4. Deputy Assistant Secretary, Contracting (SAF/AQC)

2.5. Deputy Assistant Secretary (Science, Technology and Engineering), (SAF/AQR)

2.6. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition Integration (SAF/AQX)

2.7. SAF/AQ Capability Directors (CD)

2.8. Assistant Secretary of the AF, Financial Management and Comptroller

(SAF/FM)

2.9. Deputy Under Secretary of the AF for International Affairs (SAF/IA)

2.10. Assistant Secretary of the AF for Installations, Environment and Logistics

(SAF/IE)

2.11. Director, Space Acquisition (SAF/USA)

2.12. HQ AF, Director of Test and Evaluation (AF/TE)

AFI63-101 17 APRIL 2009 5

2.13. DCS, Manpower and Personnel (AF/A1)

2.14. DCS, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (AF/A2)

2.15. DCS, Operations, Plans and Requirements (HQ AF/A3/5)

2.16. DCS, Logistics, Installations and Mission Support (HQ AF/A4/7)

2.17. HQ AF, Strategic Plans and Programs (HQ AF/A8)

2.18. Chief of Warfighting Integration and Chief Information Officer (CIO)

(SAF/XC and AF/A6)

2.19. Commander, AF Materiel Command (AFMC/CC)

2.20. Commander, AF Research Laboratory (AFRL/CC)

2.21. Commander, AF Space Command (AFSPC/CC)

2.22. Operational Commands and Field Operating Agencies (FOA)

2.23. Commander, Air Education and Training Command (AETC/CC)

2.24. Commander, AF Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC/CC)

2.25. AF Human Systems Integration Office (AFHSIO)

2.26. Program Executive Officers (PEO)

2.27. Program Executive Officer, Combat and Mission Support (AFPEO/CM)

2.28. Designated Acquisition Officials (DAO)

2.29. Program Managers (PM), including System Program Managers (SPM)

2.30. Acquisition Centers of Excellence (ACE)

Chapter 3. Acquisition and Sustainment Life Cycle Readiness

Section 3A—Acquisition and Sustainment Processes

3.1. Acquisition and Sustainment Processes Overview

3.2. Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) Decisions, Certifications, and Reviews

3.3. Capability Based Requirements Development

3.4. Mission Assignment

3.5. Evolutionary Acquisition (EA)

Figure 3.1. Evolutionary Acquisition Approach

3.6. Management of System of Systems (SoS)/Family of System (FoS)

3.7. Air Force Review Boards (AFRB)/Acquisition Strategy Panels (ASP)

3.8. Configuration Steering Board (CSB)

3.9. Design Reviews (Preliminary Design Review (PDR)/Critical Design Review

(CDR)) Reports and Assessments

6 AFI63-101 17 APRIL 2009

3.10. AF Non-Space Acquisition Program Master List (APML)

3.11. Sustainment Program Master List (SPML)

3.12. Request for Reclassification of Acquisition Programs Categorization

3.13. Life Cycle Acquisition and Sustainment Reporting

3.14. Life Cycle Expectation Management

3.15. Total Ownership Costs (TOC)

3.16. Risk-Based Program Management and Decision Making

3.17. Earned Value Management (EVM)

3.18. Performance Based Contracting

3.19. Selection of Contractors for Subsystems and Components

3.20. New Start Notification

3.21. Modification Management

3.22. Program Terminations

3.23. Materiel Fielding

3.24. Post Implementation Review (PIR)

3.25. System/Program Transfer

3.26. Portfolio Transfer

3.27. Urgent Operational Needs

3.28. Warfighter Rapid Acquisition Process

3.29. Joint Capability Technology Demonstration

3.30. Intelligence Supportability Requirements

3.31. Independent Assessments

3.32. Nuclear Weapon Related Acquisition

Section 3B—Acquisition Programmatic Requirements

3.33. Acquisition Programmatic Requirements Overview

3.34. Documentation

3.35. Materiel Development Decision (MDD)

3.36. Courses of Action (COA)

3.37. Program Management Directive (PMD)

3.38. Product Support Sourcing Determination

3.39. Life Cycle Management Plan (LCMP)

3.40. The Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM)

AFI63-101 17 APRIL 2009 7

3.41. Acquisition Program Baseline (APB)

3.42. Expectations Management Agreement (EMA)

3.43. Technology Development Strategy (TDS)

3.44. Test and Evaluation (T&E) Strategy

3.45. Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP)

3.46. Integrated Master Plans (IMP) and Integrated Master Schedules (IMS)

3.47. Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, and Supportability (RAMS) Analysis and

Documentation

3.48. Risk Management Plans

Table 3.1. Translation of MIL-STD-882D Risk Matrix to the OSD Risk Management

Guide Matrix

3.49. Programmatic Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health Evaluation

(PESHE)

3.50. Modeling and Simulation (M&S)

3.51. Contractor Incentives

3.52. Lead Systems Integrator (LSI) Limitations

3.53. Inherently Governmental Functions Determinations

3.54. Commercial Item Purchase

3.55. Buy American Act (BAA)

3.56. Berry Amendment and 10 USC §2533b Compliance

3.57. Leasing

3.58. Serialized Item Management (SIM)

3.59. Military Equipment Valuation (MEV)

3.60. Government Cost Estimates

3.61. Cost Realism

3.62. Budget Stability

3.63. Management Information Systems and Program Control Metrics

3.64. Unliquidated Obligations (ULO)

3.65. Use of Specifications and Standards

3.66. Program Protection Planning

3.67. Information Support Plans (ISP)

3.68. Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning

3.69. System Survivability

8 AFI63-101 17 APRIL 2009

3.70. Arms Control Compliance

3.71. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and Security Assistance (SA)

3.72. Management of AF Training Systems

3.73. End Use Certificates

Section 3C—Life Cycle Systems Engineering Requirements

3.74. Life Cycle Systems Engineering (SE)

3.75. AF SE Management Responsibilities

3.76. Systems Engineering Plan (SEP)

3.77. Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (ESOH)

3.78. Operational Safety, Suitability, and Effectiveness (OSS&E)/Mission

Assurance

3.79. Human Systems Integration (HSI)

3.80. Maintenance Engineering/Sustaining Engineering (ME/SE)

3.81. Configuration Management (CM)

3.82. Product and System Integrity

3.83. Aircraft Information Program

3.84. Software Engineering

3.85. Value Engineering (VE)

3.86. Systems Engineering in Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and Integrated Master

Schedule (IMS)

3.87. System Compatibility and Interoperability

Section 3D—Sustainment Planning Requirements

3.88. Product Support/Sustainment Planning Overview

3.89. Depot Source of Repair (DSOR)

3.90. Data Rights

3.91. Engineering Data

3.92. Technical Orders (TO)

3.93. Packaging, Handling, Storage, and Transportation (PHS&T)

3.94. Contractor Logistics Support

3.95. Industrial Base Constraints

3.96. Support Equipment/Automated Test Systems (SE/ATS)

3.97. Weapon System Support Program (WSSP)

AFI63-101 17 APRIL 2009 9

3.98. Air Force Global Logistics Support Center (AFGLSC)

3.99. Depot Maintenance / Sustainment Cost Reporting (50/50)

3.100. Public-Private Partnerships

Table 3.2. Depot Maintenance Partnership Authorities

3.101. Centralized Asset Management (CAM)

3.102. Provisioning

3.103. Performance Based Logistics (PBL)

Figure 3.2. Performance Based Logistics Relationships

Figure 3.3. PBL Levels

3.104. Demilitarization, Disposal, Reclamation, and Migration

Section 3E—Networks and Information Integration Requirements

3.105. Networks and Information Integration Requirements Overview

3.106. Clinger-Cohen Act

3.107. Information Technology Systems Registration and Support of AF IT Portfolio

Management Process

3.108. Management of Defense Business Systems

3.109. Directed Use of Joint Integrated Architectures

3.110. The Global Information Grid (GIG) Integrated Architecture

3.111. Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)

3.112. Interoperability of IT and NSS

3.113. Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter (NR-KPP)

3.114. Integrated Architecture Data

3.115. Information Assurance (IA)

3.116. Information Technology Lean and SISSU Processes

3.117. Certification and Accreditation

3.118. Spectrum Management

3.119. Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) Waivers/Notifications

3.120. AF IT Standards Waiver Process

3.121. AF Automated Computer Program Identification Number System

3.122. Privacy

3.123. Cyberspace Infrastructure Planning System (CIPS)

10 AFI63-101 17 APRIL 2009

Chapter 4. Acquisition of Services

4.1. Purpose

4.2. Acquisition of Services Objectives

4.3. Acquisition of Services Applicability

4.4. Acquisition of Services Responsibilities

Table 4-1. Services Acquisitions within the US Air Force

4.5. Services Requirements Determination and Approval

Table 4-2. Requirements for Services within the US Air Force

4.6. Services Acquisition Review and Approval

4.7. Data Collection

4.8. AFPEO/CM Acquisition and Management Authority for Air Force Services

Delegations

4.9. Initial Contract Performance Review

4.10. Annual Execution Reviews

4.11. Acquisition of Services Definitions

4.12. Points of Contact for Additional Information

Chapter 5. Acquisition Workforce Management and Professional Development

5.1. Purpose

5.2. Acquisition Workforce

5.3. Responsibilities and Authorities

5.4. Acquisition Workforce Management

5.5. AF Acquisition Professional Development Program (APDP)

Chapter 6. Policy Coordination, Review, and Waivers

6.1. Integrated Life Cycle Management Publication Coordination

6.2. Waivers

6.3. Changes

6.4. Information Collection, Records, and Forms

AFI63-101 17 APRIL 2009 11

Attachment 1. Glossary of References and Supporting Documentation

References

Embedded Web Links and E-Mail Addresses

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Terms……

Attachment 2. Pertinent Sections of Title 10, United States Code, Armed Forces

Attachment 3. Format for New Start Validation

Attachment 4. Description of Engineering Data Service Center (EDSC) Categories 219

Attachment 5. Index

12 AFI63-101 17 APRIL 2009

Chapter 1

ACQUISITION AND SUSTAINMENT LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT

1.1. Purpose of AFI 63-101, Acquisition and Sustainment Life Cycle Management. The purpose of this instruction is to implement direction from the Secretary of the Air Force

(SECAF) as outlined in Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 63-1/20-1, Acquisition and

Sustainment Life Cycle Management. The primary mission of the Integrated Life Cycle

Management (ILCM) Enterprise is to provide seamless governance, transparency and integration of all aspects of weapons systems acquisition and sustainment management. This instruction must be used in conjunction with National Security Space (NSS) Acquisition Policy 03-01, Guidance for DOD Space System Acquisition Process, Air Force Instruction (AFI) 10-601, Capabilities Based Requirements Development, AFI 99-103, Capabilities Based Test and

Evaluation, AFI 63-1201, Life Cycle Systems Engineering, and AFI 20-101, Logistics Strategic

Planning Procedures, to provide an integrated framework for the implementation of ILCM.

1.2. Applicability. This instruction applies to the management of all programs identified on the Acquisition Program Master List (APML) and Sustainment Program Master List (SPML), space programs, designated weapon systems cited in AFPD 10-9, Lead Command Designation and Responsibilities for Weapon Systems, and systems, activities, and projects that support warfighter capability planning and validated needs.

1.2.1. Unless otherwise specified, for the purpose of this document, the term Program will be used to identify any program on the APML or SPML, space systems, designated product groups, and other specified system or subsystem activities including Special

Access Programs unless otherwise excluded.

1.2.2. Unless otherwise specified, for the purpose of this document, the term Program

Manager (PM) will be synonymous with System Program Manager (SPM), or Product

Group Manager (PGM) as applicable to a program.

1.3. The Integrated Life Cycle Management (ILCM) Framework. ILCM is the overarching system of concepts, methods, and practices used by the Air Force to effectively manage systems from need identification through final disposal and shall be applied to Air Force acquisition and sustainment activities. ILCM shall be composed of seamless and transparent governance, core and enabling processes to acquire and sustain systems, subsystems, end-items, and services to satisfy validated needs. The goals of ILCM are to recapitalize Air Force capabilities through maximum acquisition cycle time efficiency, provide agile support that will optimize fielded capabilities and the supply chain, minimize the logistics footprint, and reduce total ownership cost. The ILCM framework as illustrated in Figure 1.1 consists of: 1) an ILCM

Executive Forum; 2) enterprise and business system execution; and 3) program execution and support. The framework provides an overarching management structure that integrates across systems, portfolios, and management levels in order to effectively influence and execute life cycle decisions in response to capability shortfalls. The six ILCM tenets outlined below provide the governing management principles necessary for the execution of the ILCM Framework.

These tenets as applied to the framework are primary contributors to satisfying the Air Force

Strategic Objective ―Recapitalizing and modernizing our aging aircraft, satellites, and equipment

AFI63-101 17 APRIL 2009 13

… to optimize the military utility of our systems to better meet 21 st Century challenges.‖ (Air

Force Strategic Plan, 2006-2008, page 7)

Figure 1.1. Integrated Life Cycle Management Framework

1.4. The ILCM Tenets. The six tenets of ILCM are life cycle planning and integration;

expectation management; collaborative and continuous requirements management; life cycle systems engineering; technology planning and insertion; and continual, integrated testing.

Enabling principles necessary for successful application of the ILCM tenets are listed below and detailed in AFPAM 63-128, Guide to Acquisition and Sustainment Life Cycle Management

[when published].

1.4.1. Life Cycle Planning and Integration. ILCM ensures the program is actively managed throughout its entire lifespan, from conception and requirements generation, to technology and product development and testing, and throughout manufacturing and field operations until the system or product is retired and disposed. Three major parallel management and execution structures support life cycle planning and integration:

Capabilities Based Requirements Development, System Acquisition and Sustainment and

Capabilities Based Test and Evaluation. This execution framework provides a roadmap for the ILCM stakeholders and process owners to use in the integrated management of programs across their entire life cycle.

1.4.2. Expectation Management. Expectation management establishes program credibility and accountability through formal, recurring communication among stakeholders and is the cornerstone of the ILCM process. Significant reasons to actively manage expectations are 1) developers, users, and sustainers often interpret requirements differently, 2) program changes occur throughout development and are not always documented which impacts cost, schedule, performance, and risk which affect end-item deliverables, 3) different users may have different views of probability of success, and 4) expectations can drift apart over time through leadership/personnel changes.

ILCM Executive Forum

Strategic

Leadership

Enterprise & Business

System Execution

Program Execution and

Support Activity

Tactical & Operational

Management

ILCM Executive Forum

Strategic

Leadership

Enterprise & Business

System Execution

Program Execution and

Support Activity

Tactical & Operational

Management

14 AFI63-101 17 APRIL 2009

1.4.3. Collaborative and Continuous Requirements Management. Collaborative requirements development requires the user, acquirer, enterprise architect, developer, tester, and sustainer to operate as one team. Continuous management is monitoring and controlling the weapon system requirements baseline throughout the program life cycle.

While the user is responsible for identifying the required capability, this must be accomplished in a collaborative environment with all stakeholders in order to understand and communicate the ―art of the possible.‖ The Joint Capabilities Integration and

Development System (JCIDS) process identified in CJCSI 3170.01, Joint Capabilities

Integration and Development System, is closely integrated with the acquisition process and exists to identify, develop, and validate defense-related requirements.

1.4.4. Life Cycle Systems Engineering. Life cycle systems engineering is the overarching process governing the transition from a stated capability need to an operationally effective and suitable system. Systems engineering addresses architecture, requirements development and management, design, technical management and control, and test and evaluation (T&E) / verification and validation (V&V). It is the integrating mechanism for balanced solutions. The systems engineering process begins early in concept definition and covers all efforts across all life cycle phases, to include sustainment and disposal.

1.4.5. Technology Planning and Insertion. Technology planning and insertion is the timely maturation and incorporation of relevant technology throughout the program life cycle to ensure an operationally effective and suitable system. Technology planning and the assessment of technology readiness levels include consideration of such factors as reliability, producibility, testability, sustainability and operational performance.

Successful technology planning and insertion as part of program life cycle management results in higher fidelity time phased requirements with a more realistic schedule and improved cost estimates.

1.4.6. Continual, Integrated Testing. Continual, integrated testing structures T&E to reduce the time it takes to field effective and suitable systems by providing qualitative and quantitative information to decision makers throughout the program‘s life cycle.

Integrated testing minimizes the distinction between contractor, developmental, and operational testing by implementing integrated testing techniques and objectives to the maximum extent possible. Key stakeholders share all information in open T&E databases, identify problems early, engage contractors to fix deficiencies sooner, and ensure systems are ready to enter dedicated operational testing and fielding with a high probability of success.

1.5. Acquisition and Sustainment Life Cycle Framework. This section summarizes the key acquisition and sustainment activities that occur in each phase of the ILCM framework. A multi-functional collaborative effort between the requirements, acquisition and sustainment, and test communities is necessary for weapon system life cycle management; as illustrated in Figure

1.2. This section provides an overview of key acquisition and sustainment activities throughout the life cycle management phases. Details on key acquisition and sustainment activities can be found in the body of this document and other supporting documentation. For more information regarding requirements, test and evaluation, systems engineering and logistics activities, refer to

AFI 10-601, Capabilities Based Requirements Development, AFI 99-103, Capabilities Based

AFI63-101 17 APRIL 2009 15

Test and Evaluation, AFI 63-1201, Life Cycle Systems Engineering, and AFI 20-101, Logistics

Strategic Planning Procedures. For space milestone requirements reference NSS 03-01.

1.5.1. User Needs and Technology Opportunities. The purpose of this phase is to identify and validate mission needs and to examine promising technology concepts.

Involvement of the acquisition and sustainment community, especially systems engineering subject matter experts, starts with participation in the requirements development process and pre-materiel solution analysis phase activities described in AFI

10-601, CJCSI 3170.01 Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, CJCSM

3170.01 Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, and

CJCSI 6212.01. The key activities that occur at this point include identifying capability shortfalls, conducting the Analysis of Materiel Approaches (AMA), developing the

Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Study Plan, and the development of the Initial Capabilities

Document (ICD).

1.5.1.1. Identifying Capability Shortfalls. The user, with support from the acquisition and sustainment community, identifies capability shortfalls or the need to develop a new technology that will enhance war fighting capability. The process used to identify shortfalls is governed by CJCSI 3170.01, CJCSM 3170.01, and AFI 10-601.

1.5.1.2. Technology Concepts. Promising technologies are identified from all sources domestic and foreign, including government laboratories and centers, academia, and the commercial sector. Initial science and technology investments support the maturation of concepts allowing for introduction of materiel solutions into the weapon system life cycle.

1.5.1.3. Analysis of Materiel Approaches (AMA). The AMA provides a preliminary assessment of candidate materiel approaches resulting in a prioritized list of approaches

(or combination of approaches) that will later be documented as part of the ICD. The

AMA considers joint solutions and contains cost and risk associated with the needed operational capabilities.

1.5.1.4. Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Study Plan. The AoA Study Plan, developed by the Office of Aerospace Studies (OAS), describes how materiel alternative solutions will be analyzed during the Materiel Solution Analysis phase.

1.5.1.5. Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) Development. Acquisition and sustainment personnel participate in the development of the requirements strategy through the requirements development High Performance Team (HPT) process. At the

Requirements Strategy Review (RSR), the ICD sponsor must identify the proposed AF funding strategy for the Materiel Solution Analysis and Technology Development

Phases.

16 AFI63-101 17 APRIL 2009

Figure 1.2. Integrated Life Cycle Execution Framework (Acronyms in Atch 1)

AFI63-101 17 APRIL 2009 17

1.5.1.6. Both the ICD and the AoA Plan must be presented to the MDA for entry into the Materiel Solution Analysis Phase. By this point in the process, acquisition and sustainment personnel should have a thorough understanding of the users‘ desired capabilities, and users should have a realistic understanding of what is technically possible. The sustainment community, in collaboration with the user, needs to address reliability, availability and maintainability to ensure life cycle mission capability and supportability.

1.5.1.7. When the ICD is completed and validated, the user will forward a copy to the

MDA and HQ AFMC (for non-space programs). The MDA, working with appropriate stakeholders, determines if there is sufficient information to proceed with a Materiel

Development Decision (MDD) and entry into Materiel Solution Analysis/Concept

Studies (for space programs).

1.5.1.8. Mission assignment usually takes place at this point, including identification of a PM who will have responsibility from issuance of the Materiel Development

Decision until the effort is officially established as a program at Milestone B.

1.5.1.9. The MDA decision to begin Materiel Solution Analysis/Concept Studies

DOES NOT mean that a new acquisition program has been initiated.

1.5.2. Materiel Solution Analysis Phase/Concept Studies Phase. The purpose of this phase is to assess potential materiel solutions and to satisfy the phase-specific entry criteria for the next program milestone designated by the MDA. This phase begins with the

Materiel Development Decision. Entrance into this phase depends upon an approved ICD resulting from the analysis of current mission performance and an analysis of potential concepts. Activities during this phase are in preparation for a MS-A/KDP-A decision.

1.5.2.1. Analysis of Alternatives (AoA). AoAs document the rationale for identifying a preferred solution or solutions to the capability shortfalls. The MDA approves the

AoA study guidance, but the operational MAJCOMs (or other sources) are responsible for AoA execution. The AoAs should clearly articulate performance, schedule, and cost expectations as well as initial risk assessment of the program to ensure expectations are known and agreed to up front.

1.5.2.2. Technology Development Strategy (TDS). The TDS assesses the maturity and viability of technologies and supports the development and implementation of phased capability requirements. An essential element of the TDS is the assessment of technology applied across the life cycle to include test, sustainability, and availability.

This process results in high confidence requirements, schedules and costs. The TDS summarizes the prototyping and the technology development test plan.

1.5.2.3. Program Documentation Preparation. Activities in this phase are precursors to the development of key program documents. During this phase the PM will begin drafting the initial development, test, and product support strategies. Development considerations include definition of capability increments, management approach, systems engineering approach, design and production approach, business considerations, and risk evaluation. Test considerations include integration of developmental, operational, and live fire testing to ensure that both performance and supportability are adequately verified. Product support strategies consider a balance

18 AFI63-101 17 APRIL 2009

between organic and commercial capabilities, partnerships, and factors to optimize the product support elements. The results of these planning activities support the preparation of a strategic-level Life Cycle Management Plan (LCMP), which is supported by the Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP), Information Support Plan

(ISP), Systems Engineering Plan (SEP), and other functional documentation.

1.5.2.4. The Materiel Solution Analysis Phase ends when the MDA approves the preferred solution resulting from the AoA and approves the associated TDS.

1.5.3. Technology Development/Concept Development and Preliminary Design and

Phase. The Technology Development/Concept Development Phase/ starts at MS-A/KDP-

A when the MDA has approved the TDS. The purpose of this phase is to reduce technology risk, determine the appropriate set of technologies to be integrated into a full system, demonstrate critical technology elements (CTE) on prototypes, and complete a preliminary design. Activities during this phase are in preparation for a MS-B/KDP-B decision.

1.5.3.1. Assessing Technology Readiness. Technology is required to be demonstrated in a relevant environment to be considered mature enough to use for product development after MS-B/KDP-B. The analysis to show this is documented in a

Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA).

1.5.3.2. Requirements Development. The results of the AoA (if accomplished), technology development, and other analyses provide the basis for rationale for adopting either an evolutionary acquisition or a single-step-to-full-capability strategy. The requirements for a single initial increment of affordable military capability are documented by the user in the Capability Development Document (CDD).

1.5.3.3. Preliminary Design Review (PDR). A PDR is conducted for each candidate design to assure design stability, establish the baselines, and promote a high confidence program. The PDR is conducted at the system-level, consistent with phase objectives and exit criteria, and includes user representatives and associated stakeholders. Results of the PDR will be documented in a report that includes recommended design trades based upon an assessment of cost, schedule and performance risk.

1.5.3.4. For space programs an additional milestone, KDP B, separates the Concept

Development and Preliminary Design phases. The PDR occurs prior to KDP-C.

1.5.3.5. Program Documentation Formalization. During this phase the plans that were initiated during Materiel Solution Analysis/Concept Studies and Preliminary Design phases are updated and approved to support program initiation.

1.5.4. Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD)/ Complete Design Phase.

The EMD/ Preliminary Design Phase starts after approval of MS-B/KDP-C. The purpose of the EMD/ Complete Design Phase is to develop an increment of capability; complete system integration; validate producibility and manufacturing processes; posture for life cycle sustainment; ensure affordability; and demonstrate system integration, interoperability, safety, and utility. Activities during these phases are in preparation for a

MS-C/Build Approval decision.

1.5.4.1. Integrated System Design. Guided by the CDD and SEP, this effort defines system and system-of-systems functionality and interfaces, completes hardware and

AFI63-101 17 APRIL 2009 19

software detailed design, reduces system-level risk and establishes product baselines for all configuration items. This effort includes a PDR (if not completed during

Technology Development) and culminates in the system-level Critical Design Review

(CDR). Successful completion of the CDR ends Integrated System Design and continues the EMD/Complete Design phase into System Capability and Manufacturing

Process Demonstration.

1.5.4.2. System Capability and Manufacturing Process Demonstration. This effort demonstrates the ability of the system to satisfy the Key Performance Parameters (KPP) and that production can be supported by demonstrated manufacturing processes. Key activities include developmental test and evaluation (DT&E) to assess technical progress, early operational assessments, and system integration verification. This effort ends when the system is demonstrated in its intended environment using production-representative articles; and industrial capabilities are available.

1.5.4.3. Final Depot Source of Repair (DSOR). An important outcome of the demonstration phase will be the generation of the final DSOR. A DSOR decision for all depot-level maintenance for hardware and software is essential to the life cycle sustainment strategy. DSOR decisions and programmed resources are required prior to

MS-C for new depot capabilities.

1.5.4.4. Capability Production Document (CPD) Development. The CPD provides firm, measurable, and testable requirements necessary to support production and sustainment of an increment of capability. The ICD, AoA/COA, CDD, testing results, and critical design reviews guide CPD development.

1.5.5. Production and Deployment/Build and Operations Phase. The Production and

Deployment/Build and Operations Phase starts after approval of MS-C/Build Approval.

The purpose of the Production and Deployment/Build and Operations phase is to demonstrate operational effectiveness and suitability and to achieve an operational capability. During this phase several key decisions and activities will take place in preparation for the Full Rate Production (FRP) decision and subsequent entry into the

Operations and Support Phase.

1.5.5.1. Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP). LRIP is the production of the system in the minimum quantity necessary to: provide production-configured or representative articles for operational tests; establish an initial production base for the system; and permit an orderly increase in production. LRIP begins when a reasonable degree of confidence is attained that the system will be found operationally effective and suitable according to the user‘s capabilities documented in the CPD.

1.5.5.2. Certification for Operational Testing. The PM working with the test community implements a system certification process to ensure systems are certified ready for dedicated operational test and evaluation. The PM conducts periodic reviews of readiness for Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) to ensure systems are production representative with stabilized performance before they enter IOT&E.

1.5.5.3. Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E). IOT&E shall determine the operational effectiveness and suitability of a system under realistic operational conditions, determine if thresholds in the approved CPD are satisfied, and provide

20 AFI63-101 17 APRIL 2009

additional information on the system‘s operational capabilities. Full Rate

Production/Full Deployment is approved following successful completion of IOT&E.

1.5.5.4. Weapon System Integrity Programs. During this phase integrity programs are established to provide life cycle management analyses and data necessary to support operational activities and monitor and report on system safety, suitability, and effectiveness

1.5.5.5. Initial Sustainment. Full sustainment capability is seldom achieved with initial fielding of a system. Therefore initial sustainment is the planning and sustainment capability delivered that will satisfy the support requirements for validated mission needs of the Initial Operating Capability (IOC). Initial sustainment is a continuous state of maturity until full capability is achieved.

1.5.5.6. Full Rate Production (FRP). Continuation into full-rate production results from a successful Full-Rate Production (or Full Deployment) Decision. This effort delivers the fully funded quantity of systems and supporting materiel and services for the program or increment to the users. During this effort, units will typically attain

IOC.

1.5.5.7. Materiel Fielding. The materiel fielding process integrates asset production and support activities conducted by the program office with asset acceptance/beddown, deployment, operation, and sustainment planning activities conducted by the user. The

PM leads this process, with significant support from the user and sustainment communities. The objective is to ensure an orderly transition of assets from the production line to the user‘s operating location(s).

1.5.5.8. Initial Operating Capability (IOC). IOC is the first attainment of military useful capability as defined by the user. The user defines the specific attributes (e.g.

quantity of delivered end items) of a system‘s IOC and documents them in the CDD and/or CPD. The PM successfully demonstrates that all IOC attributes are satisfied and notifies the user; the using MAJCOM declares IOC.

1.5.6. Operations and Support Phase. The purpose of the Operations and Support Phase is to ensure fielded systems continue to meet operational performance requirements, and to sustain those systems over its life cycle. This phase represents the longest period, greatest cost, and most agile requirements associated with the system and thus planning begins early in the life cycle.

1.5.6.1. Post Implementation Review (PIR). The purpose of the PIR is to compare actual system performance to program expectations and mission realities based upon the operational environment and CONOPS. PIR activities may be accomplished in the context of typical program acquisition activities or system operational processes. The initial PIR is held after IOC but prior to Full Operational Capability (FOC).

1.5.6.2. Transition Support Planning. Transition support planning supports the transfer of life cycle management responsibilities as the weapon system enters into the operational phase. Planning focuses on identifying program sustainment responsibilities, residual program acquisition responsibilities, and program sustainment responsibilities for the operating command(s). The PM leads the planning preparation effort, and is supported by the gaining organization.

AFI63-101 17 APRIL 2009 21

1.5.6.3. Full Sustainment. Full sustainment is achieved when all the requirements of the sustainment strategy are in place to satisfy the established mission requirements for full operational capability (FOC) of the fielded system IAW the LCMP. The PM in collaboration with the Lead Command and AFMC documents the full sustainment criteria in the LCMP and/or Materiel Fielding Plan (MFP).

1.5.6.4. Migration Planning. Migration planning is an integral part of life cycle planning as an element for inventory management of AF assets and addresses demilitarization instructions, reclamation and disposal.

1.6. Acquisition and Sustainment Organizations. Various organizations facilitate the acquisition and sustainment of weapon systems through their life cycle. Figure 1.3 identifies the relationships of primary Air Force organizations involved in ILCM acquisition and sustainment activities. While the acquisition and ―command‖ lines of authority are distinct, they often reside simultaneously with the same individuals. It is the responsibility of each commander/director to ensure separate authority lines are kept clean and processes are streamlined. (Note: Figure 1.3 only indicates organizational relationships and is NOT a formal command or organization structure diagram.)

1.7. Integrated Life Cycle Management Chain of Authority. All Air Force (AF) programs shall have a clear and unambiguous governance chain of authority. The management structure shall be streamlined and characterized by short, clearly defined lines of responsibility, authority, and accountability. Acquisition management responsibility for all ACAT programs flows from the Service Acquisition Executive to the Program Executive Officer or Designated Acquisition

Official to the accountable Program Manager. In no case shall there be more than two levels of review between the Program Manager and the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) in accordance with DODD 5000.01, NSS 03-01, DODI 5000.02, and AFPD 63-1/20-1.

Organizational leaders that are between the accountable Program Manager and the

MDA/Program Executive Officers (PEO)/Designated Acquisition Official (DAO) need to stay informed, but must not hinder direct and open access.

Figure 1.3. ILCM Acquisition and Sustainment Life Cycle Organizations

AF Research

Laboratory Special Programs

(SAF/AQL)

Chief of Staff

SecAF

AFMC

AFOTEC

SAF/AQ

ASC/CCAFPEO/AC

AAC/CCAFPEO/WP

Oklahoma City

Air Logistics Center

ESC/CCAFPEO/C2&CS

AFPEO/CM AF Office of

Scientific Research

AFPEO/JSF

Nuclear Weapons

Center

Ogden Air Logistics

Center

Warner-Robins Air

Logistics Center

Security Assistance

Center

Arnold Engineering

Center

AF Flight Test

Center

Information Dominance

CD (SAF/AQI)

Global Power CD

(SAF/AQP)

Global Reach CD

(SAF/AQQ)

Acquisition Integration

(SAF/AQX)

SMC/CC

AFSPC

SAF/US

Science, Tech and

Engineering (SAF/AQR)

Contracting

(SAF/AQC)

AF A4/A7SAF/IE

AFPEO

Space

ILCM Executive Forum Members

ALC Leadership

Positions DAOs

AF Research

Laboratory Special Programs

(SAF/AQL)

Chief of StaffChief of Staff

SecAF

AFMCAFMC

AFOTECAFOTEC

SAF/AQSAF/AQ

ASC/CCAFPEO/AC

AAC/CCAFPEO/WP

Oklahoma City

Air Logistics Center

ESC/CCAFPEO/C2&CS

AFPEO/CM AF Office of

Scientific Research

AFPEO/JSF

Nuclear Weapons

Center

Nuclear Weapons

Center

Ogden Air Logistics

Center

Warner-Robins Air

Logistics Center

Security Assistance

Center

Arnold Engineering

Center

AF Flight Test

Center

AF Flight Test

Center

Information Dominance

CD (SAF/AQI)

Information Dominance

CD (SAF/AQI)

Global Power CD

(SAF/AQP)

Global Reach CD

(SAF/AQQ)

Global Reach CD

(SAF/AQQ)

Acquisition Integration

(SAF/AQX)

SMC/CC

AFSPCAFSPC

SAF/USSAF/US

Science, Tech and

Engineering (SAF/AQR)

Contracting

(SAF/AQC)

AF A4/A7AF A4/A7SAF/IESAF/IE

AFPEO

Space

ILCM Executive Forum Members

ALC Leadership

Positions DAOs

22 AFI63-101 17 APRIL 2009

1.7.1. To support ILCM execution, all programs must establish clear lines of program execution authority within the management organizational structures (program execution and organizational command.) There are two primary programmatic execution chains in which the majority of AF programs are managed – one for programs primarily in acquisition and one for programs primarily in sustainment as shown in Figure 1.4. As part of program planning, documentation and reporting, the specific lines of programmatic execution authority for each program shall be established and documented.

1.7.2. Based on the guidelines below the programmatic execution chain shall be documented in appropriate program strategy documents. Examples of representative lines of authority can be found in AFPAM 63-128, Guide to Acquisition and Sustainment Life

Cycle Management.

1.7.2.1. Milestone Decision Authority (MDA). The MDA is the DODD 5000.01 designated individual with overall responsibility for a program. The MDA shall have the authority to approve entry of a program into the next phase of the life cycle process and shall be accountable for cost, schedule, and performance reporting to higher authority, including Congressional reporting. The MDA shall ensure that programs are structured to 1) provide the needed capability to the warfighter in the shortest practical time, 2) balance risk, 3) ensure affordability and supportability, and 4) provide adequate information for decision making. In order to provide the appropriate level of command review, the MDA shall be the Defense Acquisition Executive, the Service Acquisition

Executive (SAE) or be a general officer (GO) or member of the Senior Executive

Service (SES) with qualifications equivalent to those outlined for a PEO in the Defense

Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA) and Chapter 5 of this instruction.

1.7.2.1.1. The Defense Acquisition Executive (DAE) shall act as the MDA and have overall authority and responsibility for the management of all Major Defense

Acquisition Program (MDAP) and Major Automated Information System (MAIS) programs identified as Acquisition Category (ACAT) ID and ACAT IAM.

Figure 1.4 ILCM Programmatic Execution Chains

Executive Management

SAE1

A C

Q U

IS

IT

IO

N

S U

S

TA

IN

M

E N

T

AFMC/CC2

or AFSPC/CC2

PEO1 ALC/CC2

or SMC/CC2

System and Program Management

Functional Support

PGM1 SPM2 / PM2 PGM2

DSM3 Chief Engr3 SSM3Project Mgr3 Other Functional Support3

ASD/NII Other OSD Level ExecutionSpace DAE AT&L

Executive Decision and Oversight

1 - Acquisition

Execution

2 –Sustainment

Execution

3 - Execution Independent of Execution Chain Legend:

SPM1 / PM1

DAO1

Executive Management

SAE1

A C

Q U

IS

IT

IO

N

S U

S

TA

IN

M

E N

T

AFMC/CC2

or AFSPC/CC2

PEO1 ALC/CC2

or SMC/CC2

System and Program Management

Functional Support

PGM1 SPM2 / PM2 PGM2

DSM3 Chief Engr3 SSM3Project Mgr3 Other Functional Support3

ASD/NII Other OSD Level ExecutionSpace DAE AT&L

Executive Decision and Oversight

1 - Acquisition

Execution

2 –Sustainment

Execution

3 - Execution Independent of Execution Chain Legend: 1 - Acquisition

Execution

2 –Sustainment

Execution

3 - Execution Independent of Execution Chain Legend:

SPM1 / PM1

DAO1

AFI63-101 17 APRIL 2009 23

1.7.2.1.2. The SAE shall have overall authority and responsibility for the management of AF acquisition programs, including all programs and pre-Milestone

B (MS B)/Key Decision Point B (KDP B) activities.

1.7.2.1.3. The SAE shall act as the MDA for programs identified as ACAT IC, ACAT IAC and ACAT II or special interest programs.

1.7.2.1.4. At the SAE‘s discretion, MDA responsibilities for ACAT II and

ACAT III programs may be delegated to a Program Executive Officer (PEO). The

PEO may further delegate MDA responsibilities for ACAT III programs as indicated in Paragraph 1.7.2.3.3 below.

1.7.2.2. The Commander, Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC/CC) shall have overall authority and responsibility for the management of non-space programs identified on the SPML. The Commander, Air Force Space Command (AFSPC/CC) shall have overall authority and responsibility for the management of space sustainment activities.

1.7.2.3. Program Executive Officers (PEO), Designated Acquisition Officials (DAO), and Air Logistic Centers Commanders (ALC/CC) are responsible for total life cycle management of their assigned portfolios and shall ensure collaboration across the ILCM framework.