DoD_Instruction_5000.2 _Operation_of_the_Defense_Acquisition_System.pdf

Department of Defense

INSTRUCTION

NUMBER 5000.02

December 8, 2008

USD(AT&L)

SUBJECT: Operation of the Defense Acquisition System

References: See Enclosure 1

1. PURPOSE. This Instruction:

a. Reissues Reference (a) to implement DoD Directive 5000.01 (Reference (b)), the guidelines of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11 (Reference (c)), and the various laws, policy, and regulations listed in Enclosure 1 of this issuance.

b. Establishes a simplified and flexible management framework for translating capability needs and technology opportunities, based on approved capability needs, into stable, affordable, and well-managed acquisition programs that include weapon systems, services, and automated information systems (AISs).

c. Consistent with statutory requirements and Reference (b), authorizes Milestone Decision Authorities (MDAs) to tailor the regulatory information requirements and acquisition process procedures in this Instruction to achieve cost, schedule, and performance goals.

2. APPLICABILITY AND SCOPE. This Instruction applies to:

a. OSD, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the Department of Defense (hereafter referred to collectively as the “DoD Components”).

b. All defense technology projects and acquisition programs, including acquisitions of services. Some requirements, where stated, apply only to Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) or Major Automated Information System (MAIS) programs.

c. Highly sensitive classified, cryptologic, and intelligence projects and programs shall follow this Instruction and Reference (b) to the extent practicable.

DoDI 5000.02, December 8, 2008

d. Joint Department of Defense and Director of National Intelligence oversight of wholly and majority National Intelligence Program-funded acquisition programs shall be conducted in accordance with Intelligence Community Policy Guidance 105.1 (Reference (d)), and the Memorandum of Agreement between the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense concerning the Management of Acquisition Programs Executed at the Department of Defense Intelligence Community Elements (Reference (e)).

3. RESPONSIBILITIES

a. MDAs shall establish mandatory procedures for assigned programs. These procedures shall not exceed the requirements for MDAPs and MAIS and other acquisition programs established in this Instruction or in Reference (b).

b. The Heads of the DoD Components shall keep the issuance of any directives, instructions, policy memorandums, or regulations necessary to implement the mandatory procedures contained in this Instruction and Reference (b) to a minimum. Waivers or requests for exceptions to the provisions of this Instruction shall be submitted to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD(AT&L)), the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration (ASD(NII)), or the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), as appropriate, via the Component Acquisition Executive (CAE).

Statutory requirements cannot be waived unless the statute specifically provides for waiver of the stated requirements.

4. PROCEDURES. See Enclosure 2. Additionally, Enclosure 3 of this issuance provides a summary of acquisition category (ACAT) program levels and the decision authority for each ACAT. Tables in Enclosure 4 identify statutory and regulatory information requirements for all milestones and phases, Earned Value Management (EVM) implementation policy, the statutory and regulatory policy for Acquisition Program Baselines (APBs), and program categories with unique decision forums or policies. Enclosure 5 identifies the specific statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to information technology (IT) programs, including National Security Systems (NSS). Enclosure 6 details specific test and evaluation (T&E) procedures. Enclosure 7 provides detailed policy for resource estimation. The policy for Human Systems Integration (HSI) is in Enclosure 8; and policy applicable to the acquisition of services is in Enclosure 9.

Enclosure 10 summarizes the administrative and international policy applicable to all acquisition programs. Enclosure 11 provides specific policy applicable to Defense Business Systems, and Enclosure 12 provides policy for Systems Engineering.

5. RELEASABILITY. UNLIMITED. This Instruction is approved for public release. Copies may be obtained through the Internet from the DoD Issuances Web Site at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives.

6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Instruction is effective immediately.

Enclosures

1. References

2. Procedures

3. Acquisition Category (ACAT) and Milestone Decision Authority (MDA)

4. Statutory and Regulatory Information and Milestone Requirements

5. IT Considerations

6. Integrated T&E

7. Resource Estimation

8. Human Systems Integration

9. Acquisition of Services

10. Program Management

11. Management of Defense Business Systems

12. Systems Engineering

CONTENTS 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REFERENCES

PROCEDURES

1. DEFENSE ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

2. EVOLUTIONARY ACQUISITION

3. USER NEEDS AND TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITIES

4. MATERIEL SOLUTION ANALYSIS PHASE

a. Purpose

b. Entrance Criteria

c. Phase Description

5. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PHASE

a. Purpose

b. Entrance Criteria

c. Phase Description

d. Additional Phase Requirements

6. ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT (EMD) PHASE

a. Purpose

b. Entrance Criteria

c. Phase Description

d. Additional Phase Requirements

7. PRODUCTION AND DEPLOYMENT PHASE

a. Purpose

b. Entrance Criteria

c. Phase Description

8. OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT PHASE

a. Purpose

b. Entrance Criteria

c. Phase Description

9. REVIEW PROCEDURES

a. Review of ACAT ID and IAM Programs

b. Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) Review

c. Information Technology (IT) Acquisition Board (ITAB) Review

d. Configuration Steering Boards (CSB)

e. Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT)

f. Program Support Reviews (PSR)

g. Independent Management Reviews (“Peer Reviews”)

ACQUISITION CATEGORY (ACAT) AND MILESTONE DECISION

AUTHORITY (MDA)

1. GENERAL

CONTENTS 5

2. TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY INFORMATION AND MILESTONE

REQUIREMENTS

IT CONSIDERATIONS

1. CLINGER-COHEN ACT (CCA) COMPLIANCE

2. TIME-CERTAIN ACQUISITION OF AN IT BUSINESS SYSTEM

3. DEFENSE BUSINESS SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (DBSMC)

CERTIFICATION APPROVAL

4. MAIS CANCELLATION OR SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN SCOPE

5. LIMITED DEPLOYMENT FOR A MAIS ACQUISITION PROGRAM

6. DoD ENTERPRISE SOFTWARE INITIATIVE

INTEGRATED T&E

1. OVERVIEW

2. T&E PLANNING

a. TEST AND EVALUATION STRATEGY (TES)

b. TEST AND EVALUATION MASTER PLAN (TEMP)

c. Planning Requirements

3. DT&E

4. READINESS FOR IOT&E

5. OT&E

a. OT&E Requirements

b. OT&E Information Promulgation

c. Use of Contractors in Support of OT&E

6. OSD T&E OVERSIGHT LIST

7. LFT&E

8. M&S

9. FOREIGN COMPARATIVE TESTING (FCT)

10. TESTING INCREMENTS OF AN EVOLUTIONARY ACQUISITION PROGRAM ..56

RESOURCE ESTIMATION

1. CAIG INDEPENDENT LCCEs

2. CARD

3. COST REPORTING

4. CAIG PROCEDURES

5. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES PROCEDURES

6. ENERGY CONSIDERATIONS

HUMAN SYSTEMS INTEGRATION (HSI)

1. GENERAL

CONTENTS 6

2. HSI PLANNING

a. Human Factors Engineering

b. Personnel

c. Habitability

d. Manpower

e. Training

f. Safety and Occupational Health

g. Survivability

ACQUISITION OF SERVICES

1. OVERVIEW

2. APPLICABILITY

3. RESPONSIBILITIES

4. ACQUISITION OF SERVICES PLANNING

a. Requirements Development and Management

b. Acquisition Planning

c. Solicitation and Contract Award

d. Risk Management

e. Contract Tracking and Oversight

f. Performance Evaluation

5. REVIEW AND APPROVAL

6. INDEPENDENT MANAGEMENT REVIEWS (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS

“PEER REVIEWS”)

a. Pre-Award Peer Reviews

b. Post-Award Peer Reviews

7. DATA COLLECTION

8. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 40/CCA

9. DEFINITIONS

a. Service

b. Procurement Action

c. Acquisition of Services

d. IT Services

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

1. ASSIGNMENT OF PROGRAM MANAGERS

2. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS (PMAs)

3. ASSIGNMENT OF PROGRAM EXECUTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

4. JOINT PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

5. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

6. LIFE-CYCLE MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION

MANAGEMENT OF DEFENSE BUSINESS SYSTEMS

1. PURPOSE

CONTENTS 7

2. DEFINITION

3. ACQUISITION REVIEW PROCEDURES

4. ANNUAL REVIEW

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

1. SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ACROSS THE ACQUISITION LIFE CYCLE

2. SYSTEMS ENGINEERING PLAN (SEP)

3. SYSTEMS ENGINEERING LEADERSHIP

4. TECHNICAL REVIEWS

5. CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT

6. ESOH

7. CORROSION PREVENTION AND CONTROL

8. MODULAR OPEN SYSTEMS APPROACH (MOSA)

9. DATA MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL DATA RIGHTS

10. IUID

11. SPECTRUM SUPPORTABILITY

TABLES

Table 1. Description and Decision Authority for ACAT I – III Programs Table 2-1. Statutory Requirements Applicable to MDAPs and MAIS Acquisition Programs (unless otherwise noted) Table 2-2. Statutory Requirements Applicable to ACAT II and Below Acquisition Programs (unless otherwise noted) Table 3. Regulatory Requirements Applicable to All Acquisition Programs (unless otherwise noted) Table 4. Regulatory Contract Reporting Requirements Table 5. EVM Implementation Policy Table 6. APB Policy Table 7. Unique Decision Forums Table 8. Title 40/CCA Compliance Table Table 9. Acquisition of Services Categories

FIGURES

Figure 1. The Defense Acquisition Management System Figure 2. Requirements and Acquisition Process Flow Figure 3. IRB Certification and DBSMC Approval Process

ENCLOSURE 1 8

ENCLOSURE 1

REFERENCES

(a) DoD Instruction 5000.2, “Operation of the Defense Acquisition System,” May 12, 2003

(hereby canceled)

(b) DoD Directive 5000.01, “The Defense Acquisition System,” May 12, 2003

(c) Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11, “Preparing, Submitting, and

Executing the Budget,” current edition

(d) Intelligence Community Policy Guidance 105.1, “Acquisition,” July 12, 20071

(e) Memorandum of Agreement between the Director of National Intelligence and the

Secretary of Defense concerning the Management of Acquisition Programs Executed at the Department of Defense Intelligence Community Elements, March 20082

(f) Defense Acquisition Guidebook3

(g) Section 803 of Public Law 107-314, “Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2003,” “Spiral development under major defense acquisition programs”

(h) Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3170.01, “Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System,” May 1, 2007

(i) DoD Directive 8000.01, “Management of DoD Information Resources and Information

Technology,” February 27, 2002

(j) DoD Information Technology Standards Registry4

(k) Title 10, United States Code

(l) DoD Directive 8320.02, “Data Sharing in a Net-Centric Department of Defense,”

December 2, 2004

(m) DoD Instruction 5200.39, “Critical Program Information (CPI) Protection Within the

Department of Defense,” July 16, 2008

(n) Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Deskbook, May 20055

(o) Section 818 of Public Law 109-364, “John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2007,” “Determination of Contract Type for Development Programs”

(p) DoD Instruction 4630.09, “Wireless Communications Waveform Development and

Management,” November 3, 2008

(q) Defense Intelligence Agency Directive 5000.200, “Intelligence Threat Support for Major

Defense Acquisition Programs,” January 19, 20056

(r) DoD Instruction 1100.22, “Guidance for Determining Workforce Mix,” September 7, 2006

(s) DoD Directive 4151.18, “Maintenance of Military Materiel,” March 31, 2004

(t) ISO 15418-1999- “EAN/UCC Application Identifiers and Fact Data Identifiers and

Maintenance”

(u) ISO 15434-1999 – “Transfer Syntax for High Capacity ADC Media”

1 http://www.dni.gov/electronic_reading_room/ICPG%20105.1.pdf 2 https://akss.dau.mil/Documents/Policy/SECDEF%20MOA%20NIP-Funded%20Acquisition%20Programs%20 Executed%20at%20the%20DoD%20Intelligence%20Community%20Elements.pdf 3 http://akss.dau.mil/dag/ 4 https://disronline.disa.mil/ 5 https://acc.dau.mil/GetAttachment.aspx?id=18545&pname=file&aid=729&lang=en-US 6 Defense Intelligence Agency, Office of the Director, (703) 695-7353

ENCLOSURE 1 9

(v) Sections 11103, 11313, 11317, and subtitle III of title 40, United States Code (formerly the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996)

(w) Section 814 of Public Law 110-417, “Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009,” “Configuration Steering Boards for Cost Control Under Major Defense Acquisition Programs”

(x) Acquisition Knowledge Sharing System7

(y) Section 644 of title 15, United States Code, “Procurement strategies; contract bundling”

(z) Public Law 101-576, “Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990,” November 15, 1990

(aa) Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) No. 6, “Accounting for

Property, Plant, and Equipment,” June 1996

(ab) Section 1115 of title 31, United States Code, “Performance plans”

(ac) Section 4321 et seq. of title 42, United States Code, “National Environmental Policy Act”

(ad) Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions,”

January 4, 1979

(ae) Sections 305 and 901 through 904 of title 47, United States Code

(af) Section 104 of Public Law 102-538, The National Telecommunications and Information

Organization Act, “Spectrum Management Activities”

(ag) Section 811 of Public Law 106-398, “Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001,” “Acquisition and Management of Information Technology”

(ah) Section 806 of Public Law 109-163, “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2006,” “Congressional Notification of Cancellation of Major Automated Information Systems”

(ai) DoD Instruction 8580.1, “Information Assurance (IA) in the Defense Acquisition System,” July 9, 2004

(aj) DoD Instruction 5000.67, “Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DoD Military Equipment and Infrastructure,” January 25, 2008

(ak) DoD Directive 4630.05, “Interoperability and Supportability of Information Technology (IT) and National Security Systems (NSS),” May 5, 2004

(al) DoD Instruction 4630.8, “Procedures for Interoperability and Supportability of Information Technology (IT) and National Security Systems (NSS),” June 30, 2004

(am) Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual 3170.01, “Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System,” May 1, 2007

(an) Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 6212.01D, “Interoperability and Supportability of Information Technology and National Security Systems,” March 8, 2006

(ao) DoD Instruction 8320.04, “Item Unique Identification (IUID) Standards for Tangible Personal Property,” June 16, 2008

(ap) DoD Directive 5250.01, “Management of Signature Support Within the Department of Defense,” January 31, 2008

(aq) DoD Directive 4650.1, “Policy for Management and Use of the Electromagnetic Spectrum,” June 8, 2004

(ar) DoD Directive 5105.21, “Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA),” March 18, 2008

(as) Defense Intelligence Agency Instruction 5000.002, “Intelligence Threat Support for Major

Defense Acquisition Programs,” August 23, 20058

(at) DoD 5000.04-M-1, “Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) Manual,” April 18, 2007

7 http://akss.dau.mil/ 8 Defense Intelligence Agency, Office of the Deputy Director for Analysis, (202) 231-4855

ENCLOSURE 1 10

(au) DoD Earned Value Management Implementation Guide, October 20069

(av) American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) 748-A-

1998 (R2002), August 28, 2002

(aw) National Security Space Acquisition Policy 03-01, “Guidance for DoD Space System

Acquisition Process,” December 27, 200410

(ax) Intelligence Community Directive 105, “Acquisition,” August 15, 2006

(ay) USD(AT&L) Memorandum, “Ballistic Missile Defense Program Implementation

Guidance,” February 13, 2002

(az) Section 811 of Public Law 109-364, “John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2007,” “Time-Certain Development for Department of Defense Information Technology Business Systems”

(ba) DoD IT Business Systems Investment Review Process: Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA) Compliance Guidance, April 10, 200611

(bb) Office of the Secretary of Defense Memorandum, “Designation of Programs for [year] OSD Test and Evaluation (T&E) Oversight,” current edition

(bc) DoD Directive 5000.04, “Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG),” August 16, 2006

(bd) DoD 5000.4-M, “Cost Analysis Guidance and Procedures,” December 11, 1992

(be) DoD Instruction 1322.26, “Development, Management, and Delivery of Distributed

Learning,” June 16, 2006

(bf) DoD Directive 1322.18, “Military Training,” September 3, 2004

(bg) Federal Acquisition Regulation Subpart 37.6, “Performance-Based Acquisition”

(bh) Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Section 207.170, “Consolidation of contract requirements”

(bi) DoD Benefit Analysis Guidebook, undated12

(bj) Federal Acquisition Regulation Subpart 17.1, “Multi-Year Contracting”

(bk) Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Section 217.171, “Multiyear contracts for services.”

(bl) OMB Circular A-94, “Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal

Programs,” Section 13, “Special Guidance for Lease-Purchase Analysis,” October 29, 1992

(bm) Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 16, “Types of Contracts”

(bn) Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12, “Acquisition of Commercial Items”

(bo) Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Section 237.170, “Approval of contracts and task orders for services”

(bp) Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Subpart 217.78, “Contracts or

Delivery Orders Issued by a Non-DoD Agency”

(bq) Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Subpart 252.215-7004, “Excessive

Pass-Through Charges”

(br) Section 852 of Public Law 109-364, “John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2007,” “Report and Regulations on Excessive Pass-Through Charges”

(bs) DoD Directive 2010.6, “Materiel Interoperability with Allies and Coalition Partners,”

November 10, 2004

(bt) DoD Directive 5530.3, “International Agreements,” June 11, 1987

9 http://guidebook.dcma.mil/79/EVMIG.doc 10 https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=33430 11 http://www.dod.mil/dbt/products/investment/BEA_Compliance_Guidance_060410_FINAL.pdf 12 http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/news/Bundling%20Guidebook%20October%202007.pdf

ENCLOSURE 1 11

(bu) DoD Directive 2010.9, “Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements,” April 28, 2003

(bv) DoD Directive 5015.2, “DoD Records Management Program,” March 6, 2000

(bw) Section 3101 et seq. of title 44, United States Code, “Records Management by Federal

Agencies”

(bx) DoD IT Business Systems Investment Review Process: Investment Review Board Concept of Operations, July 12, 200613

(by) DoD IT Business Systems Investment Review Process: Investment Certification and

Annual Review Process User Guidance, August 22, 200614

(bz) MIL-STD-882D, “DoD Standard Practice for System Safety,” February 10, 2000

(ca) DoD Directive 8320.03, “Unique Identification (UID) Standards for a Net-Centric

Department of Defense,” March 23, 2007

13 http://www.dod.mil/dbt/products/investment/IRB_CONOPS_29-AUG-2006.pdf 14 http://www.dod.mil/dbt/products/investment/IRB_Guidance_22-AUG-2006.pdf

ENCLOSURE 2 12

ENCLOSURE 2

PROCEDURES

1. DEFENSE ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

a. Figure 1 depicts the Defense Acquisition Management System.

Figure 1. The Defense Acquisition Management System.

IOCBA

Technology Development

Engineering and Manufacturing Development

Production & Deployment

Systems Acquisition

Operations & Support

C

Sustainment

The Materiel Development Decision precedes entry into any phase of the acquisition management system

Entrance criteria met before entering phase

Evolutionary Acquisition or Single Step to Full Capability

FRP

Decision Review

FOC

LRIP/IOT&EPost-

CDR A

Pre-Systems Acquisition

(Program Initiation)

Materiel Solution Analysis Materiel Development Decision

User Needs

Technology Opportunities & Resources

= Decision Point = Milestone Review = Decision Point if PDR is not conducted before Milestone B

Post-

PDR A

b. Consistent with this Instruction and Reference (b), the Program Manager (PM) and the MDA shall exercise discretion and prudent business judgment to structure a tailored, responsive, and innovative program.

c. Following the Materiel Development Decision, the MDA may authorize entry into the acquisition management system at any point consistent with phase-specific entrance criteria and statutory requirements. Progress through the acquisition management system depends on obtaining sufficient knowledge to continue to the next phase of development.

d. The tables in Enclosure 4 identify the statutory and regulatory information requirements for each milestone and decision point. Additional non-mandatory guidance on best practices, lessons learned, and expectations is available in the Defense Acquisition Guidebook (Reference (f)).

e. Procedures associated with Acquisitions of Services and with Defense Business Systems are described in Enclosures 9 and 11, respectively.

ENCLOSURE 2 13

2. EVOLUTIONARY ACQUISITION

a. Evolutionary acquisition is the preferred DoD strategy for rapid acquisition of mature technology for the user. An evolutionary approach delivers capability in increments, recognizing, up front, the need for future capability improvements. The objective is to balance needs and available capability with resources, and to put capability into the hands of the user quickly. The success of the strategy depends on phased definition of capability needs and system requirements, and the maturation of technologies that lead to disciplined development and production of systems that provide increasing capability over time. (See Figure 2.)

Figure 2. Requirements and Acquisition Process Flow.

b. Evolutionary acquisition requires collaboration among the user, tester, and developer. In this process, a needed operational capability is met over time by developing several increments, each dependent on available mature technology. Technology development preceding initiation of an increment shall continue until the required level of maturity is achieved, and prototypes of the system or key system elements are produced. Successive Technology Development Phases may be necessary to mature technology for multiple development increments (section 803 of Public Law (P.L.) 107-314 (Reference (g))).

c. Each increment is a militarily useful and supportable operational capability that can be developed, produced, deployed, and sustained. Each increment will have its own set of threshold and objective values set by the user. Block upgrades, pre-planned product improvement, and similar efforts that provide a significant increase in operational capability and meet an acquisition category threshold specified in this document shall be managed as separate increments under this Instruction.

CDD1Technology Development

AoA

DAB

EMD

Increment 1

Materiel Solution Analysi s

DAB

DAB

DAB

JROC JROC JROC

G ap

A na ly si s

ICD CPD1

JROC

CDD2

JROC

CBA

Technology Development

EMD

Increment 2

CPD2

DAB

C

DAB

JROC

CDD3

JROC

Technology Development

EMD

Increment 3 CPD3

DAB

C

B

B

Jo int Operating Concepts Joint Functio nal Concepts

DoD Strategic Guidance

DAB

A

DAB

A

MDD

Continuous Technology Development and Maturation

ENCLOSURE 2 14

3. USER NEEDS AND TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITIES

a. The capability needs and acquisition management systems shall use Joint Concepts, integrated architectures, and an analysis of doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF) in an integrated, collaborative process to define needed capabilities to guide the development of affordable systems. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the assistance of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), shall assess and provide advice regarding military capability needs for defense acquisition programs. The process through which the Chairman provides advice is described in Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3170.01 (Reference (h)). Representatives from multiple DoD communities shall assist in formulating broad, time-phased, operational goals, and describing requisite capabilities in the Initial Capabilities Document (ICD). They shall examine multiple concepts to optimize the way the Department of Defense provides these capabilities.

b. When the ICD demonstrates the need for a materiel solution, the JROC shall recommend that the MDA consider potential materiel solutions. The cognizant MDA is determined as described in Enclosure 3. The MDA, working with appropriate stakeholders, shall determine whether there is sufficient information to proceed with a Materiel Development Decision. If the MDA decides that additional analysis is required, a designated office shall prepare, and the MDA shall approve, study guidance to ensure that necessary information is available to support the decision.

c. Promising technologies shall be identified from all sources domestic and foreign, including government laboratories and centers, academia, and the commercial sector. In addition, PMs shall consider the use of technologies developed under the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, and give favorable consideration to successful SBIR technologies. The risk of introducing these technologies into the acquisition process shall be reduced; coordination, cooperation, and mutual understanding of technology issues shall be promoted. The conduct of Science and Technology (S&T) activities shall not preclude, and where practicable, shall facilitate future competition.

d. The DoD Enterprise Architecture shall underpin all information architecture development.

In accordance with DoD Directive 8000.01 (Reference (i)), each integrated solution architecture shall have three views: operational, systems, and technical. The standards used to form the technical views of integrated architectures shall be selected from those contained in the current approved version of the DoD IT Standards Registry (Reference (j)).

4. MATERIEL SOLUTION ANALYSIS PHASE

a. Purpose. The purpose of this phase is to assess potential materiel solutions and to satisfy the phase-specific entrance criteria for the next program milestone designated by the MDA.

b. Entrance Criteria. Entrance into this phase depends upon an approved ICD resulting from the analysis of current mission performance and an analysis of potential concepts across the DoD Components, international systems from allies, and cooperative opportunities.

ENCLOSURE 2 15

c. Phase Description

(1) The Materiel Solution Analysis Phase begins with the Materiel Development Decision review. The Materiel Development Decision review is the formal entry point into the acquisition process and shall be mandatory for all programs. Table 3 in Enclosure 4 identifies all regulatory requirements for the Materiel Development Decision review.

(2) Funding for this phase shall normally be limited to satisfaction of the Materiel Solution Analysis Phase objectives.

(3) At the Materiel Development Decision review, the Joint Staff shall present the JROC recommendations and the DoD Component shall present the ICD including: the preliminary concept of operations, a description of the needed capability, the operational risk, and the basis for determining that non-materiel approaches will not sufficiently mitigate the capability gap.

The Director, Program Analysis & Evaluation (DPA&E), (or DoD Component equivalent) shall propose study guidance for the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA).

(4) The MDA shall approve the AoA study guidance; determine the acquisition phase of entry; identify the initial review milestone; and designate the lead DoD Component(s). MDA decisions shall be documented in an Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM). The MDA’s decision to begin Materiel Solution Analysis DOES NOT mean that a new acquisition program has been initiated.

(5) Following approval of the study guidance, the lead DoD Component(s) shall prepare an AoA study plan to assess preliminary materiel solutions, identify key technologies, and estimate life-cycle costs. The purpose of the AoA is to assess the potential materiel solutions to satisfy the capability need documented in the approved ICD.

(6) The ICD and the AoA study guidance shall guide the AoA and Materiel Solution Analysis Phase activity. The AoA shall focus on identification and analysis of alternatives, measures of effectiveness, cost, schedule, concepts of operations, and overall risk. The AoA shall assess the critical technology elements (CTEs) associated with each proposed materiel solution, including technology maturity, integration risk, manufacturing feasibility, and, where necessary, technology maturation and demonstration needs. To achieve the best possible system solution, emphasis shall be placed on innovation and competition. Existing commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) functionality and solutions drawn from a diversified range of large and small businesses shall be considered.

(7) If the MDA determines that the initial review milestone specified at the Materiel Development Decision is inconsistent with the maturity of the preferred materiel solution, an alternative review milestone shall be designated.

(8) The Materiel Solution Analysis Phase ends when the AoA has been completed, materiel solution options for the capability need identified in the approved ICD have been recommended by the lead DoD Component conducting the AoA, and the phase-specific entrance criteria for the initial review milestone have been satisfied.

ENCLOSURE 2 16

5. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PHASE

a. Purpose. The purpose of this phase is to reduce technology risk, determine and mature the appropriate set of technologies to be integrated into a full system, and to demonstrate CTEs on prototypes. Technology Development is a continuous technology discovery and development process reflecting close collaboration between the S&T community, the user, and the system developer. It is an iterative process designed to assess the viability of technologies while simultaneously refining user requirements.

b. Entrance Criteria. Entrance into this phase depends on the completion of the AoA, a proposed materiel solution, and full funding for planned Technology Development Phase activity.

c. Phase Description

(1) At Milestone A, the MDA shall review the proposed materiel solution and the draft Technology Development Strategy (TDS). The Technology Development Phase begins when the MDA has approved a materiel solution and the TDS, and has documented the decision in an ADM. The tables in Enclosure 4 identify all statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to Milestone A.

(2) The MDA for an MDAP, without the authority to delegate, shall sign a certification memorandum for record prior to Milestone A approval (section 2366a of title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.) (Reference (k))). The memorandum shall include the statements in section 2366a of Reference (k) without modification. The ADM at Milestone A shall include the statement: “I have made the certifications required by section 2366a of title 10, United States Code.”

(3) If, during Technology Development, the cost estimate upon which the MDA based the Milestone A certification increases by 25 percent or more, the PM shall notify the MDA of the increase. The MDA shall again consult with the JROC on matters related to program requirements and the military need(s) for the system. The MDA shall determine whether the level of resources required to develop and procure the system remains consistent with the priority level assigned by the JROC. If not, the MDA may rescind the Milestone A approval if the MDA determines that such action is in the interest of national defense.

(4) This effort normally shall be funded only for the advanced development work.

Technology development for an MDAP shall not proceed without Milestone A approval. For business area capabilities, commercially available solutions shall be preferred. A favorable Milestone A decision DOES NOT mean that a new acquisition program has been initiated.

(5) At Milestone A, the DoD Component shall submit a cost estimate for the proposed solution(s) identified by the AoA. If requested by the MDA, the Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG) shall develop an independent cost assessment.

ENCLOSURE 2 17

(6) Final Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for the Technology Development Phase shall not be released, nor shall any action be taken that would commit the program to a particular contracting strategy for Technology Development, until the MDA has approved the TDS.

(7) The TDS shall document the following:

(a) The rationale for adopting an evolutionary strategy (the preferred approach) or using a single-step-to-full-capability strategy (e.g., for common supply items or COTS items).

For an evolutionary acquisition, the TDS shall include a preliminary description of how the materiel solution will be divided into acquisition increments based on mature technology and an appropriate limitation on the number of prototype units or engineering development models that may be produced in support of a Technology Development Phase;

(b) A preliminary acquisition strategy, including overall cost, schedule, and performance goals for the total research and development program;

(c) Specific cost, schedule, and performance goals, including exit criteria, for the Technology Development Phase;

(d) A description of the approach that will be used to ensure data assets will be made visible, accessible, and understandable to any potential user as early as possible (DoD Directive

8320.02 (Reference (l))).

(e) A list of known or probable Critical Program Information (CPI) and potential countermeasures such as anti-tamper in the preferred system concept and in the critical technologies and competitive prototypes to inform program protection (DoD Instruction 5200.39 (Reference (m))) and design integration during the Technology Development Phase.

(f) A time-phased workload assessment identifying the manpower and functional competency requirements for successful program execution and the associated staffing plan, including the roles of government and non-government personnel.

(g) A data management strategy (see Section 9 in Enclosure 12).

(h) A summary of the CAIG-approved Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) Plan(s) for the Technology Development Phase (see Section 3 in Enclosure 7).

(8) During Technology Development and succeeding acquisition phases, the PM shall give small business the maximum practical opportunity to participate. Where feasible, the PM shall leverage programs which employ people with disabilities.

(9) The TDS and associated funding shall provide for two or more competing teams producing prototypes of the system and/or key system elements prior to, or through, Milestone B. Prototype systems or appropriate component-level prototyping shall be employed to reduce technical risk, validate designs and cost estimates, evaluate manufacturing processes, and refine requirements. Information technology initiatives shall prototype subsets of overall functionality

ENCLOSURE 2 18

using one or more teams, with the intention of reducing enterprise architecture risks, prioritizing functionality, and facilitating process redesign.

d. Additional Phase Requirements

(1) Additional considerations apply for shipbuilding and AIS programs.

(a) The MDA may initiate shipbuilding programs at the beginning of Technology Development. The information required by the tables in Enclosure 4 shall support program initiation. The CAIG shall prepare a cost assessment in lieu of an independent cost estimate (ICE), and the DoD Component shall provide a preliminary assessment of the maturity of key technologies. CAIG cost assessments for other acquisition category (ACAT) I and IA programs shall be prepared at the MDA’s request.

(b) Before requesting a Milestone A decision for an AIS program, DoD Components shall affirmatively answer the following questions:

1. Does the acquisition support core/priority mission functions that need to be performed by the Federal Government?

2. Does the acquisition need to be undertaken by the DoD Component because no alternative private sector or governmental source can better support the function?

3. Does the acquisition support work processes that have been simplified or otherwise redesigned to reduce costs, improve effectiveness, and make maximum use of COTS technology?

(2) The ICD and the TDS shall guide, and systems engineering planning shall support, this effort. Multiple technology development demonstrations may be necessary before the user and developer agree that a proposed technology solution is affordable, militarily useful, and based on mature, demonstrated technology. Life-cycle sustainment of proposed technologies shall be planned. CPI shall be identified and shall inform the preparation of the Program Protection Plan (PPP).

(3) If an evolutionary strategy is used, the initial capability represents only partial fulfillment of the overall capability described in the ICD, and successive technology development efforts continue until all capabilities have been achieved. In an evolutionary acquisition, the identification and development of the technologies necessary for follow-on increments continue in parallel with the acquisition of preceding increments, allowing the mature technologies to more rapidly proceed into the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase. Each increment of an evolutionary acquisition program that includes a Milestone A shall have an MDA-approved TDS.

(4) The management and mitigation of technology and technology integration risk, which allows less costly and less time-consuming systems development, is a crucial part of overall program management and is especially relevant to meeting cost and schedule goals.

ENCLOSURE 2 19

Objective assessment of technology maturity and risk shall be a routine aspect of DoD acquisition. Technology developed in S&T or procured from industry or other sources shall have been demonstrated in a relevant environment or, preferably, in an operational environment to be considered mature enough to use for product development (see the “Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Deskbook” (Reference (n))). Technology readiness assessments, and where necessary, independent assessments, shall be conducted. If technology is not mature, the DoD Component shall use alternative technology that is mature and that can meet the user’s needs or engage the user in a dialog on appropriately modifying the requirements.

(5) PMs for all programs shall formulate a viable Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) strategy that includes a reliability growth program as an integral part of design and development. RAM shall be integrated within the Systems Engineering processes, documented in the program’s Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) and Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP), and assessed during technical reviews, test and evaluation (T&E), and Program Support Reviews (PSRs).

(6) When consistent with Technology Development Phase objectives, associated prototyping activity, and the MDA-approved TDS, the PM shall plan a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) before Milestone B. PDR planning shall be reflected in the TDS and shall be conducted for the candidate design(s) to establish the allocated baseline (hardware, software, human/support systems) and underlying architectures and to define a high-confidence design.

All system elements (hardware and software) shall be at a level of maturity commensurate with the PDR entrance and exit criteria. A successful PDR will inform requirements trades; improve cost estimation; and identify remaining design, integration, and manufacturing risks. The PDR shall be conducted at the system level and include user representatives and associated certification authorities. The PDR Report shall be provided to the MDA at Milestone B and include recommended requirements trades based upon an assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk.

(7) The project shall exit the Technology Development Phase when an affordable program or increment of militarily useful capability has been identified; the technology and manufacturing processes for that program or increment have been assessed and demonstrated in a relevant environment; manufacturing risks have been identified; a system or increment can be developed for production within a short timeframe (normally less than 5 years for weapon systems); or, when the MDA decides to terminate the effort. During Technology Development, the user shall prepare the Capability Development Document (CDD) to support initiation of the acquisition program or evolutionary increment, refine the integrated architecture, and clarify how the program will lead to joint warfighting capability. The CDD builds on the ICD and provides the detailed operational performance parameters necessary to complete design of the proposed system. A Milestone B decision follows the completion of Technology Development.

6. ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT (EMD) PHASE. (Statutes applicable to the Systems Development and Demonstration Phase shall be applicable to the EMD phase.)

ENCLOSURE 2 20

a. Purpose. The purpose of the EMD Phase is to develop a system or an increment of capability; complete full system integration (technology risk reduction occurs during Technology Development); develop an affordable and executable manufacturing process; ensure operational supportability with particular attention to minimizing the logistics footprint; implement human systems integration (HSI); design for producibility; ensure affordability; protect CPI by implementing appropriate techniques such as anti-tamper; and demonstrate system integration, interoperability, safety, and utility. The CDD, Acquisition Strategy, SEP, and Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) shall guide this effort.

b. Entrance Criteria. Entrance into this phase depends on technology maturity (including software), approved requirements, and full funding. Unless some other factor is overriding in its impact, the maturity of the technology shall determine the path to be followed.

c. Phase Description

(1) Before proposing a new acquisition program, the DoD Components shall affirmatively answer the questions at sub-paragraphs 5.d.(1)(b)1 through 5.d.(1)(b)3 of this enclosure.

(2) Prior to beginning EMD, users shall identify and the requirements authority shall approve a minimum set of key performance parameters (KPPs), included in the CDD, that shall guide the efforts of this phase. Consistent with paragraph 9.d. of this enclosure, these KPPs may be refined, with the approval of the requirements authority, as conditions warrant. The CDD defines the set of KPPs that will apply to each increment of EMD (or to the entire system in a single step to full capability). To maximize program trade space and focus test and evaluation, the MDA, PEO, and PM shall work closely with the requirements authority to minimize KPPs and limit total identified program requirements. Performance requirements that do not support the achievement of KPP thresholds shall be limited and considered a part of the engineering trade space during development. During OT&E, a clear distinction shall be made between performance values that do not meet threshold requirements in the user capabilities document and performance values that should be improved to provide enhanced operational capability in future upgrades.

(3) EMD begins at Milestone B, which is normally the initiation of an acquisition program. There shall be only one Milestone B per program or evolutionary increment. Each increment of an evolutionary acquisition shall have its own Milestone B unless the MDA determines that the increment will be initiated at Milestone C. At Milestone B, the MDA shall approve the Acquisition Strategy and the Acquisition Program Baseline (APB). The MDA decision shall be documented in an ADM. The tables in Enclosure 4 identify the statutory and regulatory requirements that shall be met at Milestone B.

(4) Final RFPs for the EMD Phase, or any succeeding acquisition phase, shall not be released, nor shall any action be taken that would commit the program to a particular contracting strategy, until the MDA has approved the Acquisition Strategy. The PM shall include language in the RFP advising offerors that (1) the government will not award a contract to an offeror whose proposal is based on CTEs that have not been demonstrated in a relevant environment, ENCLOSURE 2 21 and (2) that offerors will be required to specify the technology readiness level of the CTEs on which their proposal is based and to provide reports documenting how those CTEs have been demonstrated in a relevant environment.

(5) The MDA for an MDAP, without the authority to delegate, shall assess the program business case and sign a certification memorandum prior to Milestone B approval (section 2366b of Reference (k)). The memorandum shall include the statements in section 2366b of Reference

(k) without modification. If the program is initiated at a later date, i.e., Milestone C, a similar memorandum shall be prepared as a matter of policy. The ADM shall include the statement: “I have reviewed the program and the business case analysis and have made the certifications required, or executed a waiver of the applicability of one or more of the components of the certification required, as authorized by subsection 2366b(d) of title 10, United States Code.” The PM shall immediately notify the MDA of any program changes that alter the substantive basis of the MDA certification or otherwise cause the program to deviate significantly from the materiel presented to the MDA in support of such certification.

(6) EMD has two major efforts: Integrated System Design, and System Capability and Manufacturing Process Demonstration. Additionally, the MDA shall conduct a Post-PDR Assessment when consistent with the Acquisition Strategy, and a Post-Critical Design Review (CDR) Assessment to end Integrated System Design.

(a) Integrated System Design. This effort is intended to define system and system-of-systems functionality and interfaces, complete hardware and software detailed design, and reduce system-level risk. Integrated System Design shall include the establishment of the product baseline for all configuration items.

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

(c) Post-CDR Assessment. The MDA shall conduct a formal program assessment following system-level CDR. The system-level CDR provides an opportunity to assess design maturity as evidenced by measures such as: successful completion of subsystem CDRs; the percentage of hardware and software product build-to specifications and drawings completed and under configuration management; planned corrective actions to hardware/software deficiencies;

adequate developmental testing; an assessment of environment, safety and occupational health risks; a completed failure modes and effects analysis; the identification of key system characteristics; the maturity of critical manufacturing processes; and an estimate of system reliability based on demonstrated reliability rates.

ENCLOSURE 2 22

1. The PM shall provide a Post-CDR Report to the MDA that provides an overall assessment of design maturity and a summary of the system-level CDR results which shall include, but not be limited to:

a. The names, organizations, and areas of expertise of independent subject matter expert participants and CDR chair;

b. A description of the product baseline for the system and the percentage of build-to packages completed for this baseline;

c. A summary of the issues and actions identified at the review together with their closure plans;

d. An assessment of risk by the participants against the exit criteria for the EMD Phase; and

e. Identification of those issues/risks that could result in a breach to the program baseline or substantively impact cost, schedule, or performance.

2. The MDA shall review the Post-CDR Report and the PM’s resolution/ mitigation plans and determine whether additional action is necessary to satisfy EMD Phase exit criteria and to achieve the program outcomes specified in the APB. The results of the MDA’s Post-CDR Assessment shall be documented in an ADM.

3. Successful completion of the Post-CDR Assessment ends Integrated System Design and continues the EMD Phase into System Capability and Manufacturing Process Demonstration.

(d) System Capability and Manufacturing Process Demonstration. This effort is intended to demonstrate the ability of the system to operate in a useful way consistent with the approved KPPs and that system production can be supported by demonstrated manufacturing processes. The program shall enter System Capability and Manufacturing Process Demonstration upon completion of the Post-CDR Assessment and establishment of an initial product baseline. This effort shall end when the system meets approved requirements and is demonstrated in its intended environment using the selected production-representative article;

manufacturing processes have been effectively demonstrated in a pilot line environment;

industrial capabilities are reasonably available; and the system meets or exceeds exit criteria and Milestone C entrance requirements. Successful developmental test and evaluation (DT&E) to assess technical progress against critical technical parameters, early operational assessments, and,…