Front_Ver_54_June_15_2010_34x22.pdf

Trades

Trades

Trades

Trades

TradesTrades

Landfill

Integrated System Design

System Capability & Manufacturing Process Demonstration Low-Rate Initial Production

Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Life Cycle Management System

Full-Rate Production/Deployment

Engineering & Manufacturing Development Phase Operations & Support Phase

DoD Decision Support Systems Effective Interaction is Essential

Life Cycle Sustainment

Technology Development PhaseMateriel Solution Analysis Phase Production & Deployment Phase

Version 5.4 15 June 2010

Complete Analysis of Alternatives to assess potential materiel solutions to capability need, identify key technologies and estimate life cycle costs.

Consider commercial-off-the-shelf and solutions from both large and small business. Identify materiel solution to capability need.

Complete Technology Development Strategy.

Reduce technology risk, determine and mature appropriate set of technologies to integrate into full system, demonstrate critical technology elements on prototypes, and complete preliminary design. Identify an affordable program or increment of militarily useful capability, demonstrate technology in relevant environment, and identify and assess manufacturing risks. Provide for two or more competing teams producing prototypes of system and/or key system elements prior to or through Milestone B.

Develop a system or increment of capability; complete full system integration, develop affordable and executable manufacturing process;

ensure operational supportability; reduce logistics footprint; implement human systems integration; design for producibility; ensure affordability; protect critical program information; and demonstrate system integration, interoperability, safety, and utility.

Achieve operational capability that satisfies mission needs. Low-rate initial production (limited deployment for software intensive systems with no development hardware) and full-rate production (full deployment for software intensive systems). Deliver fully funded quantity of systems and supporting material and services for program or increment to users.

Execute support program that meets materiel readiness and operational support performance requirements and sustains system in most cost-effective manner.

Overlaps Production and Deployment Phase.

Disposal

Strategic Guidance

MS

B

MS

C

MS

A

Joint Capabilities Integration & Development System

VCJCS Oversight CJCSI 3170.01 series

Defense Acquisition

System USD(AT&L) Oversight

DoDD 5000.01

Planning, Programming, Budgeting & Execution Process

DEPSECDEF Oversight DoD 7000.14-R Following the Materiel Development Decision, the Milestone Decision Authority may authorize entry into the acquisition process at any point, consistent with phase-specific entrance criteria and statutory requirements

Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System - Acronyms CDD – Capability Development Document CPD – Capability Production Document DCR DOTMLPF Ch R d ti

IOC – Initial Operational Capability IT – Information Technology JP 3 0 J i t P bli ti 3 0 “J i t O ti ”

System Threat Assessment Force

Protection Survivability

KPP

System Threat Assessment Force

Protection Survivability

KPP

System Threat Assessment Force

Protection Survivability

KPP

Post- CDR ADecision Points/Milestones MDD FRP

DR IOC FOC

This chart is a classroom aid for Defense Acquisition University students. It provides a notional illustration of interfaces among three major decision support systems used to develop, produce and field a weapon system for national defense. Defense acquisition is a complex process with many more activities than shown here and many concurrent activities that cannot be displayed on a two-dimensional chart. Supporting information is on back of this chart. For more information, see the Defense Acquisition Portal (http://dap.dau.mil).

FDDR

For software intensive systemsCompliant

Solution

Supportability Requirements

Technical Standards &

Compliant Solution

Supportability Requirements

Technical Standards &

Compliant Solution

Supportability Requirements

Technical Standards &

E it

B C

Joint Capabilities Integration & Development

System (need-driven)

Joint Operations Concepts Concept of Operations

Operations Plans

Initiate Evolutionary Acquisition Strategy Evolutionary Acquisition Strategy

Joint Operations Concepts Concept of Operations

Technology Development Strategy AoA Report

DoD Enterprise Architecture & Solution Architecture

Technical Standards Profile

Threshold/objective tradeoffs – Revised Performance Attributes

Component/JROC Validation &

Approval KPPs

CDDDraft

CDD

KPPs

CPD

MS B

Cert

FRP

CE it

MS A

Cert

Non-materiel solutions

JROC/

Component

Validation and Approval

DCR

E it

Threshold/objective tradeoffs – Revised Performance Attributes

Threshold/objective tradeoffs – Revised Performance Attributes

A

Increment 2P-

CDRA

Capabilities-Based Assessment

DCR – DOTMLPF Change Recommendation DOTMLPF – Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, & Facilities FOC – Full Operational Capability ICD – Initial Capabilities Document

JP 3-0 – Joint Publication 3-0, “Joint Operations” JROC – Joint Requirements Oversight Council MUA – Military Utility Assessment KPP – Key Performance Parameter KSA – Key System Attribute

Validated and approved CDD & CPD for each increment of evolutionary acquisition

Selectively Applied System Training

KPP

Energy Efficiency

KPP

Joint Staff Review

J-1 – Joint manpower. J-2 – Intelligence/threat.

J-3 – Operational suitability, sufficiency, & supportability. J-4 – Facilities, sustainment, & energy efficiency. J-5 – Alignment with strategy & priorities.

J-6 – IT/NSS interoperability & supportability.

J-7 – Systems training. J-8 – Weapons safety.

Protection

KPP

KPP

Selectively Applied System Training

KPP

Energy Efficiency

KPP

Joint Staff Review

J-1 – Joint manpower. J-2 – Intelligence/threat.

J-3 – Operational suitability, sufficiency, & supportability. J-4 – Facilities, sustainment, & energy efficiency. J-5 – Alignment with strategy & priorities.

J-6 – IT/NSS interoperability & supportability.

J-7 – Systems training. J-8 – Weapons safety.

Joint Staff Review J-1 – Joint manpower. J-2 – Intelligence/threat.

J-3 – Operational suitability, sufficiency, & supportability. J-4 – Facilities, sustainment, & energy efficiency. J-5 – Alignment with strategy & priorities.

J-6 – IT/NSS interoperability & supportability.

J-7 – Systems training. J-8 – Weapons safety.

KPPs Traceable To ICD &

JP 3-0

Protection

KPP

KPPProtection

KPP

KPP

Selectively Applied System Training

KPP

Energy Efficiency

KPP

E it

(If program initiation, or if equiv to FDDR)

Clinger-Cohen Act (IT incl NSS)

- Compliance

- CIO Confirmation of Compliance

E it

Clinger-Cohen Act (IT incl NSS)

- Compliance

- CIO Confirmation of Compliance

Clinger-Cohen Act (IT incl NSS)

- Compliance

- CIO Confirmation of Compliance

Clinger-Cohen Act (IT incl NSS)

- Compliance

- CIO Confirmation of Compliance

Component/JROC Validation &

Approval

Component/JROC Validation &

Approval

Solution Architectures

Information Assurance

Net Centric Data & Services

Strategy

Standards & interfacesNet-Ready

KPP

Solution Architectures

Information Assurance

Net Centric Data & Services

Strategy

Standards & interfacesNet-Ready

KPP

Solution Architectures

Information Assurance

Net Centric Data & Services

Strategy

Standards & interfacesNet-Ready

KPP

Information Support

Plan

MUA/Final Demo Report for

Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations & other prototype projects

Information Support

Plan

MUA/Final Demo Report for

Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations & other prototype projects

Information Support

Plan

MUA/Final Demo Report for

Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations & other prototype projects

KPPs Traceable To ICD &

JP 3-0

KPPs Traceable To ICD &

JP 3-0

Materiel Availability & Operational Availability

Reliability

KSA

Ownership Cost

KSA

Availability

KPP

Materiel Availability & Operational Availability

Reliability

KSA

Ownership Cost

KSA

Availability

KPP

Materiel Availability & Operational Availability

Reliability

KSA

Ownership Cost

KSA

Availability

KPP

ICD

Joint Operations Concepts Concept of Operations

System Threat Assessment AoA (if updated)

DoD Enterprise Architecture & Solution Architecture

Information Support Plan Technical Standards Profile

Joint Operations Concepts Concept of Operations

System Threat Assessment AoA (if updated)

DoD Enterprise Architecture & Solution Architecture

Information Support Plan Technical Standards Profile

A

Oversight

Review

Exit Criteria

Exit Criteria

ADM

Exit

Criteria Met Exit

Criteria

ADM

Exit

Criteria

ADM

Contracting

Purpose of LRIP:

Complete manufacturing development Establish initial production base Ramp to production rate Produce systems for IOT&E

Study Contracts

AoAupdated as necessary

TLCSMTLCSM TLCSM

Total Life

Cycle Systems Management

MDADAB/

ITAB MDA

Exit Criteria

ADM

Exit

Criteria

Cost-Type Contract

Determination (if applicable)

ADM

B C

FRP

Exit Criteria

Met

APBPSR

Cert

ADM

AoA

AoA Study Guidance

AoA Study Plan

Exit Criteria

Met

APB

Final RFP cannot be released until TDS is approved

Post-CDR Report

P- CDRA Increment 3

Final RFP cannot be released until Acq Strategy is approved

Final RFP cannot be released until Acq Strategy is approved

Final RFP cannot be released until Acq Strategy is approved

AoAupdated as necessary AoAMAIS only

ADM – Acquisition Decision Memorandum AoA – Analysis of Alternatives APB – Acquisition Program Baseline CDR – Critical Design Review CBRN – Chemical, Biological, Radiological & Nuclear DAB – Defense Acquisition Board ECP – Engineering Change Proposal ESOH – Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health EVM – Earned Value Management FRPDR – Full Rate Production Decision Review FDDR – Full Deployment Decision Review IBR – Integrated Baseline Review ITAB – Information Technology Acquisition Board LRIP – Low Rate Initial Production

MAIS – Major Automated Information System MDA – Milestone Decision Authority MDD – Materiel Development Decision NSS – National Security Systems PDR – Preliminary Design Review P-CDRA – Post Critical Design Review Assessment P-PDRA – Post PDR Assessment PSR – Program Support Review RAM-C – Reliability, Availability, Maintainability & Cost

Rationale Report RFP – Request for Proposals RFI – Request for Information TRA – Technology Readiness Assessment TLCSM – Total Life Cycle Systems Management

Oversight & Review and Contracting Acronyms

ADM

Post-

PDR A

Required if PDR is after Milestone B

Exit Criteria

Met

PSR

PSR

TRA Exit

Criteria Met

APB

PSR

TRA

PDR Report

DAB/

ITAB MDA DAB/

ITAB MDA DAB/

ITAB MDA DAB/

ITAB MDA

Acquisition Strategy Acquisition Approach Source & Related Documents Capability Needs Top-Level Integrated Schedule Program Interdependency & Interoperability Summary International Cooperation Risk & Risk Management Technology Maturation Industrial Capability & Manufacturing Readiness Business Strategy

Resource Management Program Security Considerations Test & Evaluation Data Management Life-Cycle Sustainment Planning Life-Cycle Signature Support Plan CBRN Survivability Human Systems Integration

ESOH

Military Equipment Valuation & Accountability Corrosion Prevention & Control

Contract Management ECPs/Changes Contract Closeout

Acq Plan

Draft RFP

RFP &

Proposals

Source Selection

Plan

Source Selec on

Draft RFP

RFP &

Proposals

Source Selection

Plan

Source Selec on

Acquisition Approach Source & Related Documents Capability Needs Top-Level Integrated Schedule Program Interdependency & Interoperability Summary International Cooperation Risk & Risk Management Technology Maturation & Competitive Prototyping Industrial Capability & Manufacturing Capabilities

Business Strategy Resource Management Program Security Considerations Test Planning Data Management & Technical Data Rights Life-Cycle Sustainment Planning Life-Cycle Signature Support Plan CBRN Survivability

Technology Development Strategy (TDS) Acquisition Strategy Acquisition Approach Source & Related Documents Capability Needs Top-Level Integrated Schedule Program Interdependency & Interoperability Summary International Cooperation Risk & Risk Management Technology Maturation Industrial Capability & Manufacturing Readiness Business Strategy

Resource Management Program Security Considerations Test & Evaluation Data Management Life-Cycle Sustainment Planning Life-Cycle Signature Support Plan CBRN Survivability Human Systems Integration

ESOH

Military Equipment Valuation & Accountability Corrosion Prevention & Control

Acquisition Strategy Acquisition Approach Source & Related Documents Capability Needs Top-Level Integrated Schedule Program Interdependency & Interoperability Summary International Cooperation Risk & Risk Management Technology Maturation Industrial Capability & Manufacturing Readiness Business Strategy

Resource Management Program Security Considerations Test & Evaluation Data Management Life-Cycle Sustainment Planning Life-Cycle Signature Support Plan CBRN Survivability Human Systems Integration

ESOH

Corrosion Prevention & Control

Technology Development

Contract

Draft RFP

RFP &

Proposals

Source Selection

Plan

Source Selec on

PDR Report

Draft RFP Acq Plan

RFP &

Proposals

Source Selection

Plan

Source Selec on

Contract Management ECPs/Changes Contract Closeout

Engineering & Manufacturing

Development Contract

Acq Plan

Acq Plan

Contract Management ECPs/Changes Contract Closeout

LRIP

Contract Contract Management ECPs/Changes

Contract Closeout

Production Contract

Post-Production Software Support Contracts

Initial

RAM-C

Report

Defense Acquisition

Low-Rate Initial Production

Systems Prototypes

System Performance

Spec

Production Representative

Articles

Full-Rate Production

Systems

Major Products

Final Product Baseline

FOT&E

ICD

AoA Study Plan Exit Criteria Alternative Maintenance

& Sustainment Concepts

OUTPUTS

ICD & Draft CDD Approved Materiel Solution Exit Criteria Support & Maintenance Concepts & Technologies Systems Engineering Plan AoA Report

Most Acceptable

Recycle/Reuse

Disposal

Logistics/ Sustainment

Evaluate Product Support Capabilities

Performance-Based Agreements

Product Support Integrator/ Product Support Provider

BLRIP

Report to Congress

Post-CDR A

FRP

DRB

Demonstrate Product Support Capability Footprint Reduction Supply Chain Management Product Support Elements Finalize Product Support BCA

Preliminary System Spec Systems Engineering Plan T&E Strategy System Safety Analysis Support & Maintenance Concepts & Technologies Inputs to:

System Allocated Baseline PDR Report Test Reports

SEP TEMP PESHE PPP TRA

NEPA Compliance Schedule Risk Assessment LCSP Validated Systems Support & Maint Objectives & Requirements

Initial Product Baseline Test Reports

SEP TRA PESHE TEMP

NEPA Compliance Schedule Elements of Product Support Risk Assessment Life Cycle Sustainment Plan

Develop Initial Product Support Strategy Initiate Product Support BCA

(Define Ground Rules & Assumptions)

Performance-Based Logistics (PBL) Strategy (Preferred Product Support Approach)

Refine Supportability

Objectives/ Constraints

Pre-IOC and Post IOC Supportability Assessments

Post-Deployment Review

INPUTSINPUTSSTUPTUOSTUPNI OUTPUTS

C

Business Case Analysis

Initial Product Baseline (verified)

Define Supportability

Objectives

Prototypes

Product Support Plan Statutory/Regulatory Source of Support Legacy Considerations Conduct Product Support BCA

-Supply Support -Training -Maintenance -Support Data

-Manpower & personnel

Product Support ElementsSet Product Support

Strategy

Technical & Logistics Acronyms ASR – Alternative Systems Review AOTR – Assessment of Operational Test Readiness BCA – Business Case Analysis BLRIP – Beyond Low Rate Initial Production CDR – Critical Design Review CI Configuration Item

OA – Operational Assessment OTRR – Operational Test Readiness Review PBA – Performance-Based Agreement PESHE – Programmatic Environment, Safety & Occupational Health Evaluation PDR Preliminary Design Review

Sys Performance Spec Acquisition Strategy Exit Criteria

APB CDD STA ISP

SEP TEMP PESHE PPP

NEPA Compliance Schedule Risk Assessment

AMDD

Alternative Materiel

Solutions

Initial Product Baseline

Closeout

EVM

Surveillance

IBR

Materiel Solution

Closeout

EVM

Surveillance

IBR

Closeout

EVM

Surveillance

IBR

Closeout

EVM

Surveillance

IBR

Production Qualification Testing

Joint Interoperability

Full-Up System Level LFT&E

IOT&E

AOTR OTRR

as required

Sustainment Contracts

Product Support Package/PBL Implementation Product Support Elements Support and Cost Baseline Contract for Sustainment (organic & Commercial)

Supply Chain Management Revalidate BCA Refine Life Cycle Sustainment Plan

Continuous Tech Refreshment Obsolescence Management Configuration Control Data Management Monitor Performance & Adjust Product Support

Product Support/PBL Management Public-Private Partnering Supply Chain Management PBA Modifications Assessment of PSI/PSPs Revalidate PBA/BCA

Operations and Sustainment Peacetime Training Revalidate BCA

Joint Operations Crises Refine LCSP

System (event-driven) FCA

Technical Systems Engineering Test and Evaluation Supportability

Analyze/Assess Concepts Versus

Defined User Needs & Environmental Constraints

Decompose Concept Functional Definition into Component Concepts & Assessment Objectives

Trades Trades

Implement and Field

INPUTS

Service Use Data User Feedback Failure Reports Discrepancy Reports

SEP

System Safety Analysis Product Support Element Requirements

OUTPUTS

Integrated DT&E/OT&E/LFT&E

Demonstrate System to Specified User Needs and

Environmental Constraints o epo t T&E Strategy Technology Development Strategy System Safety Analysis

Analyze Deficiencies To Determine Corrective

Actions

OUTPUTS

Modify Configuration (Hardware/Software/Specs)

To Correct Deficiencies

Least Acceptable

Reprocessing

Disposal

Test Results Exit Criteria

APB CPD SEP TEMP

Product Support Element Requirements

PESHE

System Safety Analysis

INPUTS

LFTE

Report to Congress

Verify and Validate Production

Configuration puts to -draft CDD -AoA -TDS -IBR -Cost/Manpower Est.

-Product Support Strategy

ASR

System Safety Analysis Inputs to: -CDD -ISP -STA -IBR -Acq Strategy -Affordability Assessment -Cost/Manpower Est.

SVR PRR

System Safety Analysis Inputs to: -CPD -STA -ISP -IBR -Cost/Manpower Est.

Data for In-Service Review Input to CDD for next increment Modifications/upgrades to fielded systems SEP Test Reports System Safety Analysis Product Support Package

Product Baseline Test Reports

SEP PESHE TEMP

System Safety Analysis Inputs to: -IBR

- Cost/Manpower Est.

- Product Support Package

JITC Joint Interoperability Test Certification

PCA In-Service ReviewMonitor & Collect

Service Use & Supply Chain Performance Data

Analyze Data to:

Validate Failures &

Determine Root Causes

Assess Risk of Improved System

Interpret User Needs, Analyze Operational

Capabilities & Environmental Constraints

Verification Linkage

Validation Linkage

Verification Linkage

Verification Linkage

Verification Linkage

Validation Linkage

Verification Linkage

Verification Linkage

Verification Linkage

Verification/ Validation Linkage

Verification Linkage

Verification Linkage

ITR

Verification/ Validation Linkage

FMECA

FTA

LORA

RCM

CI – Configuration Item DT&E – Developmental Test & Evaluation EOA – Early Operational Assessment ESOH – Environment, Safety & Occupational Health FCA – Functional Configuration Audit FMECA – Failure Mode Effects & Criticality Analysis FOT&E – Follow-On Test & Evaluation FTA – Failure Tree Analysis IOT&E – Initial Operational Test & Evaluation ISR – In-Service Review ISP – Information Support Plan ITR – Initial Technical Review JITC – Joint Interoperability Test Command LFT&E – Live Fire Test & Evaluation LORA – Level of Repair Analysis MTA – Maintenance Task Analysis NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

PDR – Preliminary Design Review PCA – Physical Configuration Audit PRR – Production Readiness Review PPP – Program Protection Plan PSI – Product Support Integrator PSP – Product Support Provider RCM – Reliability Centered Maintenance RMS – Reliability, Maintainability & Supportability SEP – Systems Engineering Plan SFR – System Functional Review SRR – System Requirements Review STA – System Threat Assessment SVR – System Verification Review TEMP – Test & Evaluation Master Plan TDS – Technology Development Strategy TRA – Technology Readiness Assessment TRR – Test Readiness Review

Decompose Functional Definitions into Critical Component Definition &

Technologies Verification Plan

Validated Sys Support & Maint Objectives & Requirements Product Support Strategy System Safety Analysis

Demo & Validate System & Tech Maturity Versus Defined User Needs &

Environmental Constraints

SRR

Lighter blocks reflect technical efforts required if PDR is required after Milestone B.

Assess/Analyze Concept & Verify System Concept’s

Performance

Develop Concept Performance (& Constraints)

Definition & Verification Objectives

Decompose Concept Performance into

Functional Definition & Verification Objectives

Assess/Analyze System Concept

Versus Functional Capabilities

Assess/Analyze Enabling/Critical

Components Versus Capabilities

Interpret User Needs.

Analyze Operational

Capabilities & Environmental Constraints

Develop System Performance (& Constraints) Spec &

Enabling/Critical Tech & Prototypes Verification Plan

Demo System & Prototype Functionality Versus Plan

Develop Functional Definitions for Enabling/

Critical Tech/Prototypes & Associated Verification Plan

Demo Enabling/Critical Technology Components

Versus Plan

Demo/Model Integrated System Versus

Performance Spec

Interpret User Needs, Refine System

Performance Specs & Environmental Constraints

Interpret User Needs, Refine System

Performance Specs & Environmental Constraints

Evolve Functional Performance Specs into

System Allocated Baseline

PDR

Develop System Functional Specs & Verification Plan to Evolve System Functional

Baseline

Evolve Functional Performance Specs into

System Allocated Baseline

SFR

PDR

System DT&E, OT&E, LFT&E & OAs Verify System

Functionality & Constraints Compliance to Specs

Integrated DT&E, LFT&E & EOAs Verify Performance

Compliance to Specs

Individual CI Verification

DT&E

TRR

SFR

Develop System Functional Specs & Verification Plan to Evolve System Functional

Baseline

Joint Interoperability Certification Testing

Evolve CI Functional Specs into Product

(Build to) Documentation & Verification Plan

Financial Management

Actual Costs Engineering

Cost Estimation Methods

Parametric Analogy

PMO Budget Estimate

PMO POM Input

CARD – Cost Analysis Requirements Description CCE – Component Cost Estimate CCP – Component Cost Position ICE – Independent Cost Estimate MDAP – Major Defense Acquisition Program MAIS – Major Automated Information System PMO – Program Management Office RDT&E – Research, Development, Test & Evaluation

Cost Acronyms

Operations and Maintenance

Types of Funds RDT&E – Management & Support

RDT&E – Advanced Component Development and Prototypes RDT&E – Systems Development & DemonstrationRDT&E – Advanced Technology Development

Assessment Objectives

Develop Component Concepts, i.e., Enabling/Critical

Technologies, Constraints, & Cost/Risk Drivers

Design/Develop System Concepts, i.e., Enabling/Critical Technologies, Update Constraints, & Cost/Risk Drivers Process Change

- Operations/Maintenance Support Materiel Change

- Hardware/Product Support Package

Fabricate, Assemble, Code to “Build-to”

Documentation

Determine System Risk/

Hazard Severity

Develop Corrective

Action

Integrate and Test Corrective Action

MTA

LORA

LFT&E

Waiver

(if appropriate)

(with alternate LFT&E Plan)

Procurement

Technologies Verification Plan

CDR

CCE CCP

MDAP

CARD

MDAP/MAIS

ICE

MDAP

CCE

MDAP

CCP Affordability Assessment CARD

MDAP/MAIS

ICE

MDAP

CCE CCPCARD

MDAP/MAIS

CARD

MDAP/MAIS

ICE

MDAP

CCE CCP Affordability Assessment

Economic Analysis (MAIS) Manpower Estimate (MDAP) Manpower Estimate (MDAP)

TD Phase Fully Funded

Full Funding In FYDP

Full Funding In FYDP

Full Funding In FYDP

Capabilities

ICE

MDAP MDAP

Economic Analysis (MAIS) Manpower Estimate (MDAP)

MSA Phase Fully Funded

MDAP

Economic Analysis (MAIS)

& Verification Plan

Planning, Programming, Budgeting & Execution

Process

Military Departments and Defense Agencies

Decisions

White House

Office of the Secretary of Defense and Joint Staff

MBI

July rebmeceDrebmevoNrebmevoN- tsuguA

January February (1st Monday)

FYDP – Future Years Defense Program MBI – Major Budget Issues OMB – Office of Management and Budget

PMO – Program Management Office POM – Program Objectives Memorandum

Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Acronyms

Authors Chuck Cochrane and Brad Brown For a single copy of this chart, send a request to daupubs@dau.mil Send recommendations to improve the content of this chart to wallchart@dau.mil

(annual-calendar-driven)

Congressional Budget Process

Appropriation Committees

Authorization Committees

Authorization/ Appropriation Acts Passed

DoD Testimony DoD Appeals

OMB

Appropriated Funds To Support Contracts

Fiscal Guidance March

Fiscal Guidance April

POM/Budget Formulation

SECDEF Option

POM/Budget Submit

DoD BudgetIntegrated Program/Budget Review

President’s Budget to Congress

FYDP

updated

FYDP

updated

February – September

Budget Committees

Defense Planning & Programming Guidance

Issue Nominations/Disposition

National Strategy Documents (updated as necessary)

National Security Strategy

National Defense Strategy

National Military Strategy

Allocation

Apportionment

1. INTRODUCTION. The Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Life Cycle Management System Chart is a training aid for Defense Acquisition University (DAU) courses. It serves as a picto-rial roadmap of key activities in the systems acquisition processes. The chart illustrates the interaction of the three-key processes that must work in concert to deliver the capabilities required by the warfighters: the requirements process (Joint Capabilities Integration & Development System [JCIDS]); the acquisition process (Defense Acquisition System); and program and budget development (Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution [PPBE] process). These three major decision support systems are illustrated in the top left front of this chart. This chart is based on policies and guidance from the following federal and Department of Defense (DoD) documents and Web sites:

DoD Directive 5000.01. The Defense Acquisition System, May 12, 2003 DoD Instruction 5000.02. Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, Dec. 8, 2008 Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG). https://dag.dau.mil CJCS Instruction 3170.01G. Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, Mar 1, 2009 JCIDS Manual Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, July 31, 2009 CJCS Instruction 6212.01E. Interoperability of Information Technology and National Security Systems, Dec. 15, 2008 The following Internet sites provide additional information:

Acquisition Community Connection (ACC). https://acc.dau.mil. ACC provides informa-tion on acquisition, technology, and logistics processes. ACC has links to acquisition-related communities of practice, other special interest areas, and to the DAU Continuous Learning Center.

DAU Continuous Learning Center (CLC). http://clc.dau.mil. The CLC provides access to lessons for professional development and current information on new initiatives.

Defense Acquisition Portal, https://dap.dau.mil. One-stop source for acquisition information and tools

Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 09-027 - Implementation of the Weapon Systems Acquisi-tion Reform Act of 2009.

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI). http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/

2. ACQUISITION PROCESS. The acquisition process is structured by DoDI 5000.02 into discrete phases separated by major decision points (called milestones or decision reviews) with a number of key activities to provide the basis for comprehensive management and informed decision mak-ing. The number of phases and decision points are tailored to meet the specific needs of individual programs. This is called the “Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Life Cycle Management System” and is illustrated on the front of this chart.

The acquisition process begins with the identification of a capability need that requires a materiel solution. The process encompasses the activities of design, fabrication, test, manufacture, operations, and support. It may involve modifica-of core values. Dominant leadership roles in program management include strategy setting, consensus/team building, systems integration, and change management. For successful teams, factors such as empowerment, clear pur-pose, open communication, adequate resources, and a team-oriented behav-ioral environment are critical.

4. JOINT CAPABILITIES INTEGRATION AND

DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM (JCIDS). The procedures established in the JCIDS support the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council in identifying, assessing, and prioritizing joint military capability needs. These needs are reflected in a series of docu-ments that support the acquisition process (see figure 3):

Initial Capabilities Document (ICD). A document that describes the need for a materiel approach to a specific capability gap derived from an initial analysis of mate-riel approaches. The ICD defines the capability gap in terms of the functional area, the relevant range of military operations, desired effects, and time. It summarizes the results of the Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, and Facilities (DOTMLPF) analysis and describes why non-materiel changes alone are not adequate to fully provide the capability. The ICD supports the Materiel Development Decision and Milestone A.

Capability Development Document (CDD). A document that captures the information necessary to develop a proposed program, normally using an evolutionary acquisition strategy. The CDD outlines an affordable increment of militarily useful, logistically supportable and technically mature capability. The CDD supports program initiation at Milestone B.

Capability Production Document (CPD). A document that addresses the production elements specific to a single increment of an acquisition program. The CPD supports Milestone C.

Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA). CBA is the analysis part of JCIDS that defines capability gaps, capability needs, and approaches to provide those capa-bilities within a specified functional or operational area. Based on national defense policy and centered on a common joint warfighting construct, the analyses initiate the development of integrated, joint capabilities from a com-mon understanding of existing joint force operations, and DOTMLPF capa-bilities and deficiencies. See upper left front of chart.

DOTMLPF Change Recommendation (DCR). A document focusing on changes that are primarily non-materiel in nature, although there may be some associated materiel changes (additional numbers of existing commercial or non-developmental) required. DCRs are normally referred to as “non-materiel” solutions, while acquisition programs are referred to as “materiel” solutions.

Military Utility Assessment (MUA). Replaces the ICD for Joint Capability Technology Demonstra-tions (JCTD) or other approved prototype projects, and guides development of CDD and CPD for these efforts.

Interoperability. The policies for interoperability are found in CJCSI 3170.01 series, JCIDS, and CJCSI 6212.01 series, Interoerability of Infor-mation Technology (IT) and National Security Systems (NSS). The following are key aspects of this policy:

Global Information Grid (GIG). The globally interconnected, set of information capabili-ties, associated processes and personnel for collecting, processing, storing, disseminat-ing, and managing information on demand to warfighters, policy makers, and support personnel. The GIG includes all owned and leased communications and computing systems and services, software (including applications), data, security services, and other associated services necessary to achieve information superiority.

GIG Technical Guidance (GTG). GIG Technical Guidance (GTG) is an evolving web-enabled capability providing the technical guidance necessary for an interoperable and support able GIG built on net-centric principles.

Architecture Viewpoints and DoDAF-Described Models. An architecture viewpoint is a selected set of architectural data that has been organized to facilitate visualiza-tion in an understandable way. An Architectural Description can be visual-ized in a number of formats, such as dashboard, fusion, textual, composite, or graphics, which present data and derived information collected in the course of the development of an architectural Description. A view is only a presentation of a portion of the architectural data, in the sense that a photo-graph provides only one view of the object within the picture, not the entire representation of that object. Figure 4 provides a graphical representation of the architecture viewpoints in DoDAF V2.0. Architectural view/viewpoint requirements IAW DoDAF Ver. 2.0 for JCIDS documents will be specified in the next update of the CJCSI 6212.01 series.

Interoperability and Supportability Certification. I&S Certification verifies adherence to the Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter (NR-KPP) throughout the life cycle by analyzing requirements documents, ISPs, and testing plans for appropriate requirements characterization and execution of the five elements of the NR-KPP. The requirement for I&S Certification of IT and NSS capabili-ties for ACAT programs will be determined during the JCIDS process and will be updated prior to each milestone and reviewed prior to recertification every four years, or when significant changes occur throughout the operational life of a system. The Joint Staff, J-6 will perform I&S certification for JROC & JCB Interest and Joint Integration documents (CDD and CPD) and the associated Information Support Plan (ISP) or Tailored ISP. I&S certification authority is delegated to C/S/As for ACAT II and below programs of record without joint interface requirements (see CJCSI 6212.01 series).

Joint Interoperability Test Certification. Provided by the Joint Interoperability Test Com-mand upon completion of testing, valid for four years from the date of the certification or when subsequent program modifications change components of the NR-KPP or supportability aspects of the system (when materiel changes [e.g., hardware or software modifications, including firmware] and similar changes to interfacing systems affect interoperability; upon revocation of joint interoperability test certifications; non-materiel changes [i.e., DOTLPF] occur that may affect interoperability).

Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter (NR-KPP) The NR-KPP defines the performance attributes and creates the framework for identifying the information structure necessary to successfully enable the functional capabilities identified in the requirements documents. The NR-KPP is composed of five elements: compli-ant solution architectures, compliance with net-centric data and services strat-egy, compliance with applicable technical standards and interfaces through the GIG technical guidance, compliance with mandatory DoD IA require-ments, and DoD supportability requirements. Characterization and execution tions, and it ends with disposal/recycling/demilitarization. Major upgrade or modification programs may also follow the acquisition life cycle process.

The policies and principles that govern the operation of the defense acquisi-tion system are divided into five major categories as stated in DoDD 5000.01: 1.)

Flexibility—tailoring program strategies and oversight; 2.) Responsiveness— rapid integration of advanced technologies through evolutionary acquisition;

3.) Innovation—adoption of practices that reduce cost and cycle time; 4.)

Discipline—use of program baseline parameters as control objectives; and 5.)

Effective management—decentralization to the extent practicable.

DoD components first try to satisfy capability needs through non-materiel solutions such as changes in doctrine or tactics. If existing U.S. military systems or other on-hand materiel cannot be economically used or modified to meet the warfighter’s need, a materiel solution may be pursued according to the follow-ing hierarchy of alternatives:

Procurement (including modification) of commercially available domestic or international technologies, systems or equipment, or allied systems or equip-ment Additional production or modification of previously developed U.S. and/or allied military systems or equipment Cooperative development program with one or more allied nations New joint, DoD component, or government agency development program New DoD component-unique development program.

A list of program information requirements to ensure informed decision making is found in DoDI 5000.02, enclosure 4. The Milestone Decision Author-ity may tailor this information based on program needs, but normally may not omit documents required by statute or mandatory policy without a waiver (e.g., acquisition program baseline or initial capabilities document). Figure 1 is a simplified chart of information required at milestones and other decision reviews.

Other periodic reports:

Defense Acquisition Executive Summary (DAES) Report. ACAT I and IAM programs.

Quarterly. Also upon Program Objectives Memorandum (POM) and Budget Estimate Submission (BES). For ACAT I only—upon UCR breach.

Selected Acquisition Report (SAR). ACAT I only. Submitted at program initiation for ships, Milestone B, and annually thereafter. Quarterly SARs may be required on an exception basis (see Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Chapter 10).

Unit Cost Report (UCR). ACAT I only. Quarterly as part of the DAES Report.

Electronic Warfare (EW) Test and Evaluation Report. Annually for all EW programs on the OSD T&E oversight list.

Earned Value Management System (EVMS) Reports. See DoDI 5000.02, Table 5, ANS/EIA

748 and the Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG).

Contractor Cost Data Reports (CCDR). See DoDI 5000.02, Table 4.

Software Resources Data Report (SRDR). See DoDI 5000.02, Table 4.

Major Automated Information System Reports. See DoDI 5000.02, Table 2-1.

3. MANAGEMENT OF THE ACQUISITION

PROCESS. The person responsible for ensuring the acquisition management system activities result in fulfilling the warfighter’s need is the program manager (PM). The PM is also the single point of accountability for accomplishing program objectives for total life cycle systems management, including sustainment. The PM is responsible for the entire system life cycle (design to disposal) (Total Life Cycle System Management [TLCSM] is required by DoDD 5000.01), and must consider supportability, life cycle costs, perfor-mance, and schedule in making program decisions. Each defense acquisition program is assigned a PM in accordance with DoD and component policy. The primary program management activities follow:

Planning. One of the first planning activities is the development of an acquisi-tion strategy (see the Defense Acquisition Guidebook), an overarching plan that serves as a roadmap for program execution from program initiation through post-production support. It describes how the program will accomplish its objectives in terms of (among others) cost, schedule, performance, risk, and contracting activities.

ACAT I and IA programs normally provide information on the strategy ele-ments as noted in Figure 2. The PM may choose to develop the acquisition strategy as a standalone document or as part of a multipurpose document “(e.g., Air Force Life Cycle Management Plan). Each program’s acquisi-tion strategy is tailored to meet the specific needs and circumstances of the program.

There are two basic strategy approaches—evolutionary and single step to full capability. Evolutionary acquisition is the preferred DoD strategy for rapid acquisition of mature technology for the user. An evolutionary approach delivers capability in increments, anticipating the need for future capability improvements.

Organizing and Staffing. The establishment, organization, and staffing of the pro-gram office should be a direct outgrowth of a task analysis that supports the program’s acquisition strategy. As the program evolves, the program office organization and staffing should evolve to support the changing task require-ments and acquisition environment.

Controlling. The control system consists of standards against which progress can be measured, a feedback mechanism that provides information to a decision maker, and a means to make corrections either to the actions underway or to the standards. Examples of standards include the acquisition program base-line, exit criteria, program schedules, program budgets, specifications, plans, and test criteria. Examples of feedback mechanisms for program control, oversight, and risk management include the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, overarching integrated product team, Defense Acquisition Board, Information Technology Acquisition Board, integrated baseline review, tech-nical reviews, and developmental and operational test and evaluation.

Leading. Effective leadership is the key to program success. It involves develop-ing an organization’s mission, vision, and goals, and clearly articulating a set of these 5 elements must be in compliance with DoD policy (see CJCSI 6212.01 series).

5. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) &

NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEMS (NSS). Software components of defense systems should be tightly linked to and managed as an inherent part of the overall systems engineering processes. Software-specific considerations are:

Ensuring that software technologies and complex algorithms are matured prior to Milestone B.

Careful consideration of COTS capabilities and licensing. For COTS IT solu-tions, specific plans by phase are required. Additionally, use of the DoD Enter-prise Software Initiative and “SmartBUY” is required for commercial software purchases whenever appropriate.

Exploiting software reuse wherever feasible.

Selecting contractors with systems domain experience, successful past-perfor-mance, and mature development capabilities and processes.

Use of DoD standard data IAW DoDD 8320.02 and compliance with the DoD Net-Centric Data Strategy.

Early planning for transition to software support.

Designing extensible and modular software so as to better support incremen-tal life cycle product upgrades.

Evaluating programming languages used in the context of their life cycle costs, support risks, and interoperability.

Assessing information operations risks (see DoDD 3600.01) using techniques such as Program Support Reviews.

Emphasis on software security and assurance considerations throughout the life cycle, including certification of foreign nationals who work on key defense system software. Other detailed mandatory IA considerations required by life cycle phase include development of an IA strategy. Details of the DoD Infor-mation Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP), required to authorize operation of DoD information systems IAW statutory, federal, and DoD requirements can be found in DoDI 8510.01

Other IT & NSS Management Considerations. Defense systems must be inherently joint and network-centric; as such, IT is an inherent enabler of net-centricity. Addi-tionally, a number of legal and regulatory considerations apply to IT and NSS systems. These considerations include:

The GIG (mentioned earlier) (DoDD 8100.01) is the organizing and trans-forming construct for managing IT throughout the DoD.

The GIG Technical Guidance (GTG) contains a program questionnaire and compliance matrices/declaration tables that point to applicable GIG Enter-prise Service Profiles (GESPS) for use in the interoperability and support-ability certification process.

Enterprise and domain-specific architectures are key to achieving scalable and interoperable IT systems. Use of the DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF), which requires programs to document their architectures in a series of specially tailored “viewpoints” that are produced at varying levels of detail at various points in a program’s life cycle is mandatory.

Collections of standards that the DoD has selected as key to facilitating system interoperability have been collected into an online tool, the DoD IT Standards Registry (DISR). https://disronline.disa.mil The Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) applies to all federal IT and NSS acquisitions.

CIO confirmation of compliance is required at MS A, B, C, and FRPDR for all programs.

Management of Defense Business Systems. A defense business system is an information system, other than a NSS, operated by, for, or on behalf of the DoD, including financial systems, mixed systems, financial data feeder sys-tems, and IT and information assurance infrastructure. Review and certifica-tion of defense business systems modernizations with total modernization or development funding exceeding $1 million is overseen by the Defense Business Systems Management Committee and is described by enclosure 11 to DoDI 5000.02.

6. EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT (EVM).

A program management tool that integrates the work scope, schedule, and cost parameters of a program in a manner providing objective performance mea-surement and management. As work is performed, the corresponding budget value is “earned.” EVM directly supports nine management processes: organiz-ing, scheduling, work authorization, accounting, indirect management, manage-ment analysis, change incorporation, material management, and subcontract management.

Processes Associated with EVM

ANSI/EIA-748 EVMS Standard. Thirty-two management guidelines published in the American National Standards Institute/Electronic Industries Alliance Standard 748, Earned Value Management Systems (ANSI/EIA-748). The DoD formally adopted the guidelines in ANSI/EIA-748 in August 1999 for applica-tion to defense acquisition programs.

Integrated Baseline Reviews (IBR). Joint government/contractor reviews to assess the realism and accuracy of the integrated performance measurement baseline (work, schedule, and budget) and gain a mutual understanding of inherent risks.

EVMS Compliance. The continuing operation of the contractor’s EVMS in accor-dance with the guidelines in ANSI/EIA-748.

EVMS Validation. A formal determination by an independent party, normally DCMA, that a contractor’s EVMS meets the guidelines in ANSI/EIA-748.

EVMS Surveillance. A recurring process by an independent party, normally DCMA, assessing the continuing compliance of the contractor’s EVMS with ANSI/EIA-748 and the contractor’s written system documentation.

EVM Independent Variables

Actual Cost of Work Performed (ACWP or Actual Cost). The costs actually incurred and recorded in accomplishing work performed.

Budget at Completion (BAC or Authorized Work). The total authorized budget for accomplishing the program scope of work. BAC is a term that may also be applied to lower level budgets.

Budgeted Cost for Work Performed (BCWP or Earned Value). The value of completed work expressed in terms of the budget assigned to that work.

Budgeted Cost for Work Scheduled (BCWS or Planned Value).

The time-phased budget plan for work currently scheduled.

EVM Reporting—A common work-breakdown structure (WBS) that follows the DoD WBS Hand-book (MIL-HDBK-881) is required for all EVM-related reporting.

Contract Performance Report (CPR). A report, prepared by the contractor, containing contract cost and schedule performance information to identify problems early and forecast future performance.

(DI-MGMT-81466A)

Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). A time-based sched-ule containing the networked, detailed tasks necessary to ensure successful program execution.

(DI-MGMT-81650)

Contract Funds Status Report (CFSR). A report containing contract funding data. (DI-MGMT-81468)

7. CONTRACTING.

Acquisition Plan. A formal written document reflecting the specific actions necessary to execute the approach established in the approved acquisition strategy and guiding contractual implementation. (FAR Subpart

7.1 and DFARS Subpart 207.1) There is no DoD-level rule that precludes the PM from preparing a single document to satisfy both the requirement for an Acquisition Plan and an Acquisition Strategy (see DAG, part 2.4) Source Selection Plan (SSP). Explains the source selection process for a particular acquisition. Typically, the SSP consists of two parts. The first part describes the organization and responsibilities of the source selection team. The second part identifies the evaluation criteria and detailed procedures for proposal evalu-ation.

A Draft Request for Proposals (RFP) and Presolicitation Conferences. Used to ensure that the requirements are understood by industry. Open and honest feedback is essential.

Request for Proposals (RFP). Used in negotiated acquisitions to communicate the government’s requirements and to solicit proposals.

Requests for Information (RFI). May be used when the government does not pres-ently intend to award a contract, but wants to obtain price, delivery, and other market information or capabilities for planning purposes. Responses to these notices are not offers and cannot be accepted by the government to form a binding contract. There is no required format for RFIs.

Contract Management is the process of systematically planning, organizing, execut-ing, and controlling the mutually binding legal relationship obligating the seller to furnish supplies and/or services and the buyer to pay for them.

Contract. The formal written agreement between the government and industry.

See Figure 5 for the characteristics of the most common contract types. Figure 6 illustrates the most likely contract type for each phase of the acquisition process.

Performance-Based Acquisition (PBA). An acquisition structured around the results to be achieved as opposed to the manner by which the work is to be performed.

Statement of Work; Statement of Objectives; Performance Work Statement; System Specification;

Contract Data Requirement List. Documents contained in the solicitation to industry (RFP) that define contractual requirements:

Statement of Work (SOW) details the work the contractor will perform and, when necessary, specifies how the work is to be performed.

Statement of Objective (SOO). Performance-based broad objectives of the prod-uct/service. The SOO contains top-level objectives of the program and is usually one to two pages.