Requirements Executive Overview Workshop Defense Systems Management College

Requirements Executive Overview Workshop Defense Systems Management College Defense Acquisition University Fort Belvoir, Virginia Acquisition Policy Overview

Defense Acquisition System Overview • Governing policies and guidance • Decision chain and oversight • Defense Acquisition System (DAS): q Materiel Development Decision through the Milestone B Decision q Milestone B Decision through Operations & Support Requirements and acquisition community interactions discussed throughout 2

The Broad Policy Context Three Intersecting Processes = Big “A” Acquisition Effective Interaction Essential for Success Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) • DODD 5000. 01, May 03, Defense Acquisition Sys • DODI 5000. 02, Jan 15, Operation of Def Acq Sys • DODI 5000. 74, Jan 16, Def Acq of Services Defense Acquisition System (DAS) 3

Broad Acquisition Context Intersecting Processes = Big “A” Acquisition Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) Investment Trades? Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Cost Trades? Effective & Affordable? Technical, Schedule, Risk Trades? Defense Acquisition System (DAS) • DAS (5000. 02) Intersects both the • Req’ts (JCIDS) and PPBE systems*: – Affordability goals and caps set by users, in context of expected Service/Agency or mission portfolio constraints [& business case] – Decision point added for CDD validation [or Problem Statement] – Full program funding in FYDP required starting at MS A – Should Cost – opportunity capture can ease resource constraints – New at MS C: the MDA will consider any new validated threat environments that might affect op’l effectiveness; consult requirements authority to ensure capability reqmts are current. * Definitions from Do. DI 5000. 03 4

Major Do. D Decision Support Systems JCIDS Defense Acquisition System PPBE Requirements Management Program Management Contract Management Resource Management CJCSI 3170. 01 series JCIDS Manual DOD 5000 Series FAR DFARS DPG/POM/Budget Do. D 7000 Series Players User/Service Chief VCJCS/JROC PEO/CAE/DAE PCO/HCA/SPE DCMA PEO/Service HQ/OSD OMB/Congress Reviews JROC Milestones Business Clearance DMAG Capability Need Next Phase Contracts Funding/Resources Threat/Capability System Life Cycle R&D/Proc/O&S Contractor Performance Annual Funding & FYDP Rules Decisions Focus CJCS: Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff CJCSI: Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CAE: Component Acquisition Executive DAB: Defense Acquisition Board DMAG: Deputy’s Management Advisory Group DFARS: Defense FAR Supplement DCMA: Defense Contract Mgmt Agency DPG: Defense Planning Guidance FAR: Federal Acquisition Regulation FYDP: Future Years’ Defense Program HCA: Head of Contracting Activity JROC: Joint Requirements Oversight Council OMB: Office of Management & Budget OSD: Office of the Secretary of Defense PCO: Procuring Contracting Officer PEO: Program Executive Officer POM: Program Objectives Memorandum SPE: Senior Procurement Executive VCJS: Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff 5

JCIDS and DAS Linkages Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System ‒ Strategic Guidance ‒ Joint Operations Concepts ‒ CONOPS ‒ Defense Planning Scenarios ‒ Feedback from the field Guidance for Future Joint Warfighting Capabilities Non-Materiel Solutions * Requirements Managers ‒ Assess current capabilities ‒ Identify gaps ‒ Recommend non-materiel and/or materiel approaches ‒ Identify operational performance requirements ‒ Consider cooperative development and foreign sales attributes Operational Capabilities JCIDS Resources ‒ PPBE ‒ Congress Recommended Materiel Approaches * Non-materiel solutions may still require funding Acquisition ‒ Determine materiel solution ‒ Estimate cost & obtain funding ‒ Design, develop, and test ‒ Produce and field 6

Defense Acquisition System Requirements Process Drives Acquisition Process Initial Capabilities Document * • JCIDS Capabilities-Based Assessments (CBA) can result in materiel needs, documented in initial capabilities document (ICD) • Functional requirements for Business Systems originate from functional users, vetted by Investment Review Board (IRB) chaired by the DCMO • Technology opportunities can fuel inputs to these requirements processes Materiel Development Decision Materiel Solution Analysis Phase Requirements Authority Review of Ao. A Results Draft Capabilities Development Document * CONOPS/Op’l Mode Summary/ Msn Profile (CONOPS/(OMS/MP) also required Legend = Decision Point = Milestone Decision = Requirements Document = Requirements Authority Review A Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction Phase Capabilities Development Document * Dev. RFP Release Decision B Engineering & Manufacturing Development Phase Capability Production Document * C Production & Deployment Phase Operations & Support Phase * Or equivalent approved/validated requirements document, such as the Problem Statement for defense business systems. Disposal 7

Do. D Directive 5000. 01, May 2003 The Defense Acquisition System “The primary objective…is to acquire quality products that satisfy user needs with measurable improvements to mission capability and operational support, in a timely manner, and at a fair and reasonable price. ” 5 Overarching Policies • Flexibility • Responsiveness • Innovation • Discipline • Streamlined and Effective Management 8

Do. DI 5000. 02, 7 January 2015 Operation of the Defense Acquisition System • Emphasizes affordability, cost considerations-- integrates DAS with PPBE and JCIDS processes • Defines acquisition categories (ACAT) and associated oversight levels • Describes generic acquisition life cycle-milestones and phases are to be tailored to program needs • Statutory and regulatory compliance items covered in Enclosure 1 tables, by ACAT level and phase 9

Do. DI 5000. 74, 5 January 2016 Defense Acquisition of Services • Defines acquisition of contracted services as a command responsibility: Commanders are responsible for appropriate, efficient, effective services acquisition • Management structure defined—includes services categories and oversight levels • Authorizes Do. D Components to tailor procedures as appropriate for each acquisition of services • Implements data collection system (Federal Procurement Data System – Next Generation (FPDS-NG)) for info on each services purchase New instruction in 2016 --policy for managing all acquisitions of services 10

Defense Acquisition System – 2015 Do. DI 5000. 02, 7 Jan 2015 Materiel Development Decision (MDD) CDD Validation Development RFP Release A draft ICD CDD Materiel Solution Analysis (MSA) IOC B C CDD Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction (TMRR) FOC FRP Decision CPD Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) Production & Deployment (P&D) Operations & Support (O&S) • 5 Phases • 3 Milestone Decisions – A, B, C • 4 Other Decision Points: q Materiel Development Decision (MDD), “Mandatory” Entry q Capability Development Document (CDD) Validation Decision q Development RFP Release Decision q Full-Rate Production (FRP) Decision 11

Acquisition Approach Varies by Program • “Big Bang” approach: field full capability at once • Incremental approach: rapidly field initial increment; achieve full capability through subsequent increments q Balance requirements and available capability with resources & technologies--put operational capability in hands of the user quickly q CDD must indicate initial increment of capability and the subsequent increments to provide full capability q CPD required for each production increment (JCIDS Manual) • Hybrids: e. g. , field hardware at once, with initial software increment; add capability through software releases to achieve full capability For all approaches: collaboration among the user, tester, developer, and sustainer required 12

The Acquisition Chain of Authority Acquisition Category (FY 14 $) ACAT ID $480 M RDT&E or $2. 79 B Procurement or MDA Special Interest ACAT IA Defense Acquisition Executive USD(AT&L) DAE Defense Acquisition Board $520 M Life Cycle Cost or $165 M Total Program Cost or $40 M Program Cost in any single year or MDA Special Interest ACAT IC/IAC ACAT III No Fiscal Criteria [Does not meet criteria above. ] ACAT IV Used by Navy/USMC Advice to DAE OIPT Issue resolution Configuration Steering Boards $185 M RDT&E or $835 M Procurement or MDA designation • Makes ACAT ID and IAM Decisions • Signs Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) Component Acquisition Executive (Asst Secretary) CAE • Makes ACAT IC, IAC & II decisions • Signs ADM Component HQ Review Overarching IPTs (OIPTs) Working-Level IPTs (WIPTs) Issue resolution Program Executive Officer (Gen Officer/SES) Program Manager (Col/Lt. Col/Civilian Equiv) PEO • Makes ACAT III decisions • Signs ADM PM Note: Some PMs report directly to CAE Program Level IPTs assist the MDA in oversight & review 13

Sample Program Executive Officer (PEO) Organization PEO The senior RM’s entry point for program questions Aviation Deputy PEO Human Resources Technical Management Product Support Management Business Management PM PM Attack Helicopter PM Cargo Helicopter PM PM Unmanned Aircraft PM Utility Helicopters Aircraft Systems Armed Scout Helicopter Capability/Portfolio Perspective 14

Materiel Development Decision (MDD) Through the Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction (TMRR) Phase Defense Acquisition System

Pre-Materiel Development Decision (MDD) • ICD: Initial Capabilities Document • MDA: Milestone Decision Authority • MDD: Materiel Development Decision • SSA: Support to Strategic Analysis MDD • JCIDS CBA, or other study, determines warfighting capability requirements and capability gaps • Gaps requiring materiel solution approach documented in ICD that goes to a MDD • MDD results: MDA authorizes entry into the acquisition process 16

Materiel Development Decision (MDD) The decision that a new product is needed and to determine what follow-on activities are required based on maturity of technology and risk. This is the entry point into the acquisition process for all defense acquisition products.

Materiel Development Decision (MDD) Approval to Enter the Acquisition Process MDA Decisions: • Designates lead Component • Determines acquisition phase of entry • Documents decisions in an Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) (Ao. A Study Guidance and Ao. A Study Plan attached) Required Documentation: • Initial Capabilities Document (ICD)-- Problem Statement (Defense Business Systems (DBS) only) • Analysis of Alternatives (Ao. A) Study Guidance & Study Plan (per Encl 9, DODI 5000. 02) • Affordability Analysis • Initial Threat Environment Assessment • Market Research Results Validated ICD or Problem Statement reflects potential materiel solutions 18

MDD • Initial formal interface between JCIDS and the DAS processes • When an ICD recommends a materiel approach to resolve a warfighting capability gap, the JROC or Service ROC recommends the MDA convene a MDD Review • Requirements Manager (RM) provides: q A validated ICD, or equivalent* requirements document q Evidence of strong technical foundation; tentative affordability “goals” and inventory goals to scope the Ao. A and provide targets around which to consider alternatives q Conduct Market Research to inform the Ao. A (Market research training mandatory for both acquisition and requirements workforce) *Equivalent requirements document example: Operational Utility Assessment (OUA) of a successful technology demonstration. OUA content is prescribed by the JCIDS Manual 19

MDD • Director, CAPE (for MDAP/MAIS)* provides: q Analysis of Alternatives (Ao. A) Study Guidance (Encl 9 of Do. DI 5000. 02) • Lead Component provides: q The Ao. A Study Plan q A plan to staff and fund actions leading to the next decision point (usually Milestone A) • Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) provides: q Signed ADM documenting decisions * or Component equivalent for non-major programs 20

Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) / Defense Acquisition System (DAS) - 2015 CDD Validation ICD Strategic Joint Guidance Concepts MDD Capabilities - Based Assessment President Joint SECDEF Community CJCS JCIDS Draft CDD Materiel Solution Analysis Ao. A A Development RFP Release B CDD Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction FRP CPD Engineering & Manufacturing Development C Production & Deployment Operations & Support Sustainment TRL-6 Disposal DAS 21

The Materiel Solution Analysis (MSA) Phase answers: • Does the ICD or Problem Statement accurately reflect the capability gap? • Do we have the appropriate trades study information or market research to support requirements refinements? • Does the Ao. A guidance and plan drive toward a realistic analysis of alternatives to fill the stated capability gap? • Does it appear the capability gaps and the desired need date are realistically stated? BOTTOM LINE: Do the alternatives allow a down select decision to a viable solution?

Materiel Solution Analysis (MSA) Phase Purpose: • Conduct the analysis and other activities needed to choose the concept to be acquired • Begin translating validated capability gaps into system specific requirements including KPPs, KSAs, and APAs • Conduct planning to support a decision on the acquisition strategy Major Events: • Analysis of Alternatives reviews Guided by: ICD, MDD ADM, Ao. A Study Guidance, Ao. A Study Plan 23

MSA Phase Major Activities • Component Acquisition Executive selects a Program Manager (PM) • RM supports the Analyze alternative materiel solutions activities needed to choose the product concept • PM develops the acquisition strategy to mature technology and reduce risk • PM develops the functional strategies to support the capability development • PM and RM prepare a preliminary Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Cost (RAM-C) rationale report • RM develops draft CDD/ Problem Statement; including the CONOPs/OMS/MP/Use Cases 24

MSA Phase Complete Ao. A • Purpose: Identifies most promising alternative to address ICD capability gaps • Outcome: q Refined materiel approaches (Courses of Action) from ICD building on earlier JCIDS CBA q Uses the currently fielded system/legacy program (if there is one) as the baseline alternative (aka status quo) q Informs/informed by analysis (affordability, cost, sustainment considerations, threat projections, early systems engineering, and market research q Develops/evaluates/assesses system-level materiel alternatives in terms of: ü Engineering trade space, quantitative measures, and cost trades against each of the alternatives in terms of performance, schedule and risk ü Operational effectiveness and cost analysis of alternatives, employed IAW operational concepts and conditions to accomplish operational mission Answers: What is the best system-level alternative for the investment? 25

Analysis of Alternatives (Ao. A) Operational Effectiveness Analysis Analyze operational effectiveness contribution of each systemlevel alternative (COA) based on: • Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs): Measures of a unit or system ability to perform its operational missions (e. g. , probability of kill, tonnage delivered, probability of successful message delivery, loss exchange ratio, etc. ) • Measures of Performance (MOPs): System characteristics (e. g. , speed, reliability, bit error rate, etc. ) Note: MOEs and MOPs drive development of system-level CDD parameters (operational performance and support attributes) and associated KPPs and KSAs 26

Analysis of Alternatives (Ao. A) Cost Analysis • Generates projected life-cycle cost estimates (LCCE) - at least 20 years - for each system-level alternative (COA) • Quantifies resource impacts expected if the alternative materiel systems and forces gamed in the effectiveness analysis are acquired, operated, and maintained for the comparison period Note: LCCE includes research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), procurement, military construction, operations and maintenance costs, training and training products, and support costs 27

Analysis of Alternatives (Ao. A) Example What are the best system level alternatives for manned fixed wing aircraft with precision munitions to destroy point, area targets at extended ranges in roughly the same way? High Risk, High Priority Capability Gap CBA “Inability to destroy point, area targets at extended ranges” Materiel Approach from CBA (Documented in ICD) Manned fixed wing aircraft with precision munitions Ao. A System Level Alternatives (ranked) • A new, joint common Precision Guided Munition (PGM) (1) • A product improvement to the existing AGM-114 HELLFIRE air-to -ground missile (2) • A product improvement to the existing AGM-65 Maverick missile (3) • A product improvement to the existing Brimstone missile (British) (4) Selected Ao. A Alternative Drives Development of: Draft Capability Development Document (CDD) & Acquisition Strategy (AS) Ao. A Focus: Operational Effectiveness & Cost 28

MSA Phase Develop Acquisition Strategy (AS) • Purpose: Develop a strategy for demonstrating technical maturity in a relevant environment • Outcome: q An AS for entry into TMRR (Statutory for ACAT I, IA and II programs – NDAA 2016) q Ao. A results provide a basis for development of the Acquisition Strategy (AS) q The draft contract package for TMRR Phase completed ü Acquisition Plan (AP): Formal document that articulates specific contractual activities necessary to execute the approved AS ü Request for Proposal (RFP): Used to communicate government requirements to prospective contractors and solicit their proposals q All documents to support Milestone A developed Answers: What is the best acquisition approach to reduce technical risk in filling the capability gap? 29

Acquisition Strategy • Business and technical management approach to achieve program objectives within resource constraints q Consider opportunities for cooperative foreign sales, including defense exportability as well as interoperability • Framework for planning, directing, contracting, and managing an acquisition program to satisfy an approved warfighting materiel capability • Master schedule for research, development, test, production, fielding support and other essential program activities • Basis formulating functional plans and strategies PM e-Tool Kit, https: //pmtoolkit. dau. mil, provides details on required content of an acquisition strategy. 30

Acquisition Strategy Functional Plans & Strategies Product Support Strategy Contracting Strategy Security Strategies Test and Evaluation Strategy Technical Strategy Other * Strategies Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan Acquisition Plan Program Protection Plan Test and Evaluation Master Plan System Engineering Plan Other Plans Includes the RAM-C Report Program Management Documents *Other Strategies Include: International Involvement, Training, Industrial Preparedness, Environmental, Standardization, Interoperability, Affordability, and Non. Developmental Item Utilization 31

Requirements Manager’s Role in the MSA Phase • Liaison with Ao. A Study Team q Capture and explain key operational modes and mission profile for CONOPS/OMS/MP/ Use Case documentation q Evolve MOEs/MOPs for preferred alternative into KPPs q Assist with Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, Cost (RAM-C) goals q Help with understanding of affordability constraints and performance trades q Attend Ao. A Study Advisory Group (SAG) meetings • Lead development of sponsor-approved CDD/Problem Statement q Engage systems engineers to isolate risk/affordability drivers from Ao. A results q Use trade studies to inform adjustments to the CDD q Draft KPPs and other performance/supportability attributes q Stay tuned to technology maturity to meet requirements & reduce life cycle cost At Milestone A, the Sponsor-approved draft CDD reflects approved materiel solution 32

Milestone A Approves entry into the Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) Phase.

Milestone A Approval to Enter TMRR MDA Decisions: • Materiel solution, Acquisition Strategy (AS), affordability goals and exit criteria for next phase • Milestone A Determination (10 USC 2366 a) for MDAPs • Entry into the Technology Maturity and Risk Reduction (TMRR) phase • Release of the RFP and source selection for TMRR • Documents decisions in an Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) (Ao. A Study Guidance and Ao. A Study Plan attached) Required Documentation: • Ao. A Report, Acq Strategy, TEMP, SEP (incl RAM-C rationale), PPP, LCSP • Draft (sponsor-approved) CDD/Problem Statement; CONOPS/OMS/MP • Affordability goals • Full Funding Certification Memo Draft CDD or Problem Statement reflects approved materiel solution at Milestone A 34

Milestone A Review • Focuses on how to mature appropriate technology and reducing risks through demonstration • PM provides: q The approach for acquiring the preferred materiel solution including the Acquisition Strategy q Should Cost Targets q Required program documents: SEP, TEMP, PPP, LCSP, etc. ü (refer to Do. DI 5000. 02, Enclosure 1, Table 2) • RM provides: q A draft CDD or Problem Statement q Updated CONOPS and OMS/MP (or equivalent)* * Use Cases or Day in the Life scenarios 35

Milestone A Review • Lead Component provides: q Affordability analysis and goals q A Component Cost Estimate for the preferred solution q Evidence of a fully funded program in the FYDP • MDA provides: q Signed ADM q 10 USC 2366 a determination Approval to proceed with Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction (TMRR) Phase. Does NOT initiate an acquisition program 36

10 USC 2366 a Determinations at Milestone A MDAPs Only The MDA determines in writing that the Program: (1) satisfies an approved ICD (2) conducted appropriate market research (3) has identified any duplication of other programs & found it necessary and appropriate (4) has identified risks have been identified and has developed risk reduction plans (5) has addressed sustainment planning & identified core logistics capability requirements (6) has completed an adequate Ao. A (7) has submitted a cost estimate concurred with by the Director of CAPE & the level of resources is sufficient for successful program execution (8) has addressed any other considerations the MDA considers relevant 37

The Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction (TMRR) Phase answers: • Does the CDD or Problem Statement accurately reflect the capability requirement? • Do we have the appropriate trade study information or technology assessments to support requirements refinements? • Is the CSB functioning as a value added adjudication forum? • Did the PDR describe an allocated baseline that aligns with the expected capability required interfaces described in the CONOPS and OMS/MP? • Does it appear the capability development can meet the need date? • Does the program still appear affordable? BOTTOM LINE: Is the technology sufficiently mature and are the risks reduced enough to justify a new development program?

Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) Phase Purpose: • Reduce technology, engineering, integration and life cycle cost risk Major Events: • Design Reviews (only PDR is required) • Early assessments (EOAs and ILAs) • CDD Validation • Demonstrate critical technologies on Prototypes • Develop an acquisition strategy to support the decision to proceed into development, production and sustainment • Development RFP Release • Technology Readiness Assessment Guided by: Acq Strategy, MS A ADM, sponsor-approved draft CDD/Problem Statement and other program documents (PPP, SEP, LCSP, TEMP) 39

TMRR Phase Major Activities • PM reduces risk through competitive prototyping (req’d for MDAPs unless MDA approves waiver) • RM supports Preliminary Design Review(s) (PDR) to review the initial design • RM reviews planned and completed trade-studies: performance / supportability vs cost / schedule • • RM supports evaluating technology readiness for EMD PM and RM conduct an annual Configuration Steering Board (CSB) RM supports CDD Validation decision PM completes draft RFP review to support Development RFP Release decision 40

TMRR Phase Conduct Appropriate Prototyping • Purpose: Provides an opportunity to demonstrate areas of technical maturity, demonstrate other potential technologies, and reduce overall program risk • Outcome: q Risk reduced through prototypes at the system, subsystem or component level q Modeling and simulation conducted to support requirements and design understanding q Trade studies completed to support further understanding and decisions q Support/determine technology insertion strategy/plans q Demonstrate technology maturity in a relevant environment with minimal risk q Demonstrate manufacturing to the extent needed to verify that risk is at an acceptable level q Demonstrate the operational and suitability requirements of the draft CDD Answers: Was the technical risk reduced through the use of prototypes? 41

TMRR Phase Conduct PDR before Milestone B is mandatory for MDAPs (ACAT I). • Purpose: Provides all stakeholders an opportunity to understand confirm design decisions are consistent with the user’s performance needs • Outcome: q Demonstrate the design is complete and ready for detailed design q Assess whether design decisions are consistent with the user’s performance needs q Confirm potential design is affordable, producible, and supportable q The post-PDR assessment conducted and provided to the MDA at MS B q PDR conducted on each candidate (prototype) design Answers: Does the “Allocated Baseline” / preliminary design align with the stated requirements? 42

TMRR Phase Technology Assessment “Critical technologies” – those that may pose major technological risk during development, particularly during the Engineering and Manufacturing Development • Purpose: Evaluate science and technology solutions in a systematic metrics-based process to assess maturity and risks associated with critical technologies • Outcome: q Assess technology resources and maturity against the capability gap ü Technology transition programs may accelerate meeting the warfighter’s need ü Technology insertion occurs throughout the acquisition process – understand the risks ü Technology maturity (or lack there of) is a major cost driver q Technology Readiness Assessments (TRAs) support to the CDD/CPD process Answers: Are the appropriate technologies demonstrated to reduce overall risk and optimize capability success? 43

Technology Maturation Development and Insertion MDD A Materiel Solution Analysis C B Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction (1) Engineering & Manufacturing Development Production & Deployment Operations & Support (2) Warfighting Needs & R&D Objectives oversight panel Tech Base MDA DECISION Systems S&T oversight panel Adv Tech Dev Options STOP (1) Concepts for new systems. (2) Insert into ongoing systems development. • JCTD • Lab/field demo • Warfighting Experiments • Basic Research • Applied Research STOP Science & Technology (S&T) 44

Technologies That Changed Warfighting Push vs Pull? 45

Technology Maturation 17 Communities of Interest Defense Innovation Marketplace • • • Advanced Electronics Air Platforms Autonomy Biomedical ASBREM C 4 I Counter-IED Counter-WMD Cyber Electronics warfare • • Energy and Power Technologies Engineered Resilient Systems Ground and Sea Platforms Human Systems Materials and Manufacturing Processes Sensors Space Weapons Technologies http: //www. defenseinnovationmarketplace. mil/coi. html 46

Technology Maturation Early Evaluation • Fill Gaps Between S&T and Acquisition for COCOMs • Demonstrate Multi-Service, Joint and Coalition Capabilities ACTDs were Service Transition Instruments S&T JCTDs are COCOM S&T Transition Instruments Deliverables: • Concept of Operations Acquisition and Logistics • Operational Utility Assessment • Interim Capability “Leave Behind” • Business Case Rapid Fielding Office JCTDs are not acquisition programs; they transition solutions to COCOMs 47

Technology Maturation Key Transition / Fielding Programs ‘Notional’ Alignment with Funding, TRLs, & Acquisition Cycle Funds Research, Development, Test & Evaluation TRL 1 - 3 Pre-Concept TRL 4 TRL 5 Materiel Solution A Analysis Tech Demos for Irregular Warfare Procurement TRL 6 Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction TRL 7 TRL 8 Engineering & Manufacturing Development B C Production & Deployment O&M TRL 9 Sustainment & Maintenance Rapid Reaction Fund (RRF)* CCMD: Combatant Command TRL: Technology Readiness Level OCO: Overseas Contingency Operations PE: Program Element PE 0603826 D 8 Z Operational Experiments & Tech Integration for CCMD & Interagency Emerging Capabilities (EC) PE 0603699 D 8 Z CCMD, Joint, Coalition & Interagency Capability Needs Joint Capabilities Technology Demonstrations (JCTD) PE 0603648 D 8 Z “Gap-Filling” Technologies for OCO Quick Reaction Funds (QRF)* PE 0603826 D 8 Z Assess Mature Technology from Allies and Other Foreign Nations *RRF and QRF are projects funded by the same P. E. Foreign Comparative Testing (FCT) PE 0605130 D 8 Z 48

Requirements Manager’s Role to Optimize Technology Maturation • Be aware of ongoing technology efforts related to the capabilities being considered during a Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) • Ensure technology maturity is considered when developing CDD performance attributes • Leverage TRA results in the CDD • Work with PM on any planned technology transition or insertion to an ongoing program in development • Link required JCIDS documents for technology transition programs (e. g. , JCTDs) transitioning into the acquisition process 49

TMRR Phase Configuration Steering Boards • Purpose: Following CDD Validation, the Acquisition Executive of each Do. D Component will form and chair a CSB (Do. DI 5000. 02) • Outcome: q Conducted annually to review all requirements changes and significant technical configuration changes q Assure only changes that increase cost are approved with funds identified and schedule impacts addressed q The PM (with the PEO) have identified de-scoping options to reduce program cost or moderate requirements q CSB recommended de-scoping implementation options are provided to the capability requirements officials for final decisions Answers: Did the CSB process allow a balanced perspective regarding requirements, technical capability, and affordability? 50

TMRR Phase CDD Validation Decision • PM provides: q Updated cost vs. performance trade studies q Updated program documents: SEP, TEMP, PPP, LCSP, etc. , refer to Do. DI 5000. 02, Enclosure 1, Table 2 • DOT&E provides: q An assessment of the testability of requirements • RM provides: q A validated CDD q Updated CONOPS/OMS/MP (or use cases) Consider: Are the stated requirements informed by technology maturity and risk, sufficient to justify the need for a program? 51

TMRR Phase Development RFP Release Decision • PM provides: q The business approach and incentives to provide max value to gov’t and treat industry fairly q Confirms risk has been or will be adequately reduced prior to committing to EMD award (program structure, content, schedule executable within approved funding) q Assures inclusion of performance-based requirements [reflect validated CDD/Problem Statement & derived reqmts], data deliverables, source selection criteria q Updated program documents: SEP, TEMP, PPP, LCSP, etc. , refer to Do. DI 5000. 02, Enclosure 1, Table 2 • DOT&E provides: q Approval of the operational testing attributes of the TEMP Consider: Are the acquisition strategy and the desired contract actions aligned? 52

TMRR Phase Development RFP Release Decision • RM provides: q A validated CDD q Updated CONOPS/OMS/MP (or Use Cases) • Lead Component provides: q Affordability analysis and goals q A Component Cost Estimate q Evidence of a fully funded program in the FYDP • MDA approves: q The ADM authorizing final RFP release and source selection for EMD 53

TMRR Phase Program Documents • • • Acquisition Strategy Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) [KPPs from user requirements] Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) [RAM-C report attached] Test & Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) [includes COIs] Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) [addresses sustainment KPP and KSAs] • Program Protection Plan (PPP) [identifies critical technologies & Defense Exportability Features (DEF)] Do. DI 5000. 02, Enclosure 1, Table 2 provides more specific detail 54

Requirements Manager’s Role in the TMRR Phase • At MS A and program/technical reviews—provide insights on warfighter requirements • Lead efforts to mature/validate the CDD or update/refine the Problem Statement q Work with SE to assess impact of preliminary design trades on performance attributes q Consider requirements impacts relative to technology maturity, risk, and life cycle costs • Advise and support PM in development of required acquisition documents At Milestone B, the Sponsor-approved CDD reflects approved materiel solution 55

Milestone B Approves entry into the Engineering, Manufacturing and Development (EMD) Phase.

Milestone B Approval to Enter EMD MDA Approves: • Program Initiation, entry into Engineering & Manufacturing Development, with affordability caps • AS, ADM and Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) • Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) quantities (final decision), includes advance procurement • Event-based criteria for initiating production or making deployment decisions • Program Determination (10 USC 2366 b) Required Documentation: • Updates to Acquisition Strategy, TEMP, SEP, PPP, LCSP • Updated Cost Estimate • CDD/Problem Statement; OMS/MP • Full Funding Certification Memo Requires a Validated Capability Development Document (CDD) [or IRB-approved Problem Statement] 57

Milestone B Review • Normally formal program initiation with approval of the Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) • Referred to as a “Program of Record (POR)” - commits required investment resources to the program • PM provides: q The approach for acquiring the preferred materiel solution q Should Cost Targets q Updated required program documents: SEP, TEMP, PPP, LCSP, etc. , refer to Do. DI 5000. 02, Enclosure 1, Table 2 • RM provides: q A validated CCD 58

Milestone B Review • Lead Component provides: q Affordability analysis and goals q A Component Cost Estimate for the preferred solution q Evidence of a fully funded program in the FYDP • Director, CAPE (for MDAP/MAIS)* provides: q Independent Cost Estimate • MDA provides: q Signed ADM q Signed APB q 10 USC 2366 b certification/determination Approval to proceed Engineering, Manufacturing, and Development (EMD) Phase. Initiates an acquisition program * or Component equivalent for non-major programs 59

10 USC 2366 b Requirements at Milestone B MDAPs Only The MDA certifies that the Program: (1) Has conducted both a PDR & formal post-PDR assessment, and that the program demonstrates a high likelihood of accomplishing its intended mission (2) The technology in the program has been demonstrated in a relevant environment* * As determined by the MDA on the basis of an independent review & assessment by the ASD(R&E) in consultation with the DASD(DT&E) 60

10 USC 2366 b Requirements at Milestone B MDAPs Only (Cont. ) The MDA determines in writing that the Program: (a) is affordable when considering the ability of the Do. D to accomplish the program’s mission using alternative systems (b) has made appropriate trade-offs among cost, schedule, technical feasibility, & performance objectives to ensure that the program is affordable within the FYDP (c) reasonable cost and schedule estimates have been developed to execute , with the concurrence of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, the product development and production plan under the program (d) has funding available to execute the product development and production plan across the FYDP (e) has conducted appropriate market research prior to technology development to reduce duplication of existing technology and products (f) has completed an adequate Do. D level Ao. A (g) that the JROC has accomplished its duties with respect to including an analysis of the program’s operational requirements 61

This Afternoon; Beyond Milestone B The Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase answers: • Does the CDD or Problem Statement accurately reflect the capability gap? • Does the solution design fill the gap? • Can the materiel solution be produced? BOTTOM LINE: Does the design solution address/solve the capability gap?

QUESTIONS ?

BACK-UP INFORMATION

Configuration Steering Boards (CSB) Following CDD Validation, the Acquisition Executive of each Do. D Component will form and chair a CSB with broad executive membership. Do. DI 5000. 02 • Requirements fall under the cognizance of the CSB upon receipt of validated CDD • CSBs meet at least annually • The PM (with the PEO) identifies de-scoping options to reduce program cost or moderate requirements q Review all requirements changes and significant technical configuration changes q Changes that increase cost will not be approved unless funds identified and schedule impacts addressed • CSB recommends to the requirements validation authority which options should be implemented q The Chief of Staff of the Armed Force, in consultation with Secretary of the military department, approve of any proposed changes 65

MSA Phase Exit Level Knowledge Points • Ao. A provides recommended materiel solution(s) • Technical, Schedule and Program Risks documented • Acquisition Strategy • Affordability goals for use in next phase • Address any other exit criteria in MDD ADM 66

TMRR Phase Exit Level Knowledge Points • • • Affordable increment of militarily-useful capability identified CDD validated or updated Problem Statement approved Technology demonstrated in relevant environment Manufacturing risks identified Assessment of PDR results Met any other exit criteria in MS A ADM 67

MSA Phase Refine Initial Requirements • Purpose: Provides all stakeholders an opportunity to understand confirm design decisions are consistent with the user’s performance needs • Outcome: q Draft (Sponsor Approved) CDD or updated Problem Statement for Business Systems q Based on ICD and Ao. A results q Threats and KPPs, KSAs and APAs generated to guide development q CONOPS/OMS/MP or Use Cases developed to inform the PM and the contractor Answers: What requirements adjustment are necessary to optimize the desired outcomes of the capability gap? 68

TMRR Phase Plan for EMD Phase • Purpose: Plan for a capability consistent with the user’s performance and schedule needs • Outcome: q Updated (draft) required program documents q Preliminary LRIP quantity determined for MDAPs (minimum test articles for IOT&E) q Cost estimates developed/validated (Economic Analysis for MAIS programs) q Ensure Full Funding in FYDP (5 years) (affordability caps established) q Develop initial Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) q Prepare Milestone B Determination (10 USC 2366 b); submitted to Congress prior to Milestones B approval Answers: Is the technical maturity sufficient and risk sufficiently understood to move forward with a designated program development effort? 69

10 USC 2366 a Determinations at Milestone A MDAPs Only The MDA determines in writing, after consulting the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) on matters related to program requirements and military needs that: (1) the program fulfills an approved initial capabilities document; (2) the program has been developed in light of appropriate market research; (3) if the program duplicates a capability already provided by an existing system, the duplication provided by such program is necessary and appropriate; (4) with respect to any identified areas of risk, there is a plan to reduce the risk; (5) the planning for sustainment has been addressed and that a determination of applicability of core logistics capability requirements has been made (6) an analysis of alternatives has been performed consistent with the study guidance developed by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation; (7) a cost estimate for the program has been submitted, with the concurrence of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, and the level of resources required to develop, procure, and sustain the program is sufficient for successful program execution; and, (8) the program or subprogram meets any other considerations the milestone decision authority considers relevant. 70

10 USC 2366 b Requirements at Milestone B CERTIFICATIONS AND DETERMINATION REQUIRED. —A major defense acquisition program may not receive Milestone B approval until the milestone decision authority— (1) has received a preliminary design review and conducted a formal post-preliminary design review assessment, and certifies on the basis of such assessment that the program demonstrates a high likelihood of accomplishing its intended mission; (2) further certifies that the technology in the program has been demonstrated in a relevant environment, as determined by the milestone decision authority on the basis of an independent review and assessment by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, in consultation with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation; (3) determines in writing that— (A) the program is affordable when considering the ability of the Department of Defense to accomplish the program’s mission using alternative systems; (B) appropriate trade-offs among cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance objectives have been made to ensure that the program is affordable when considering the per unit cost and the total acquisition cost in the context of the total resources available during the period covered by the future-years defense program submitted during the fiscal year in which the certification is made; 71

10 USC 2366 b Requirements at Milestone B Cont. (C) reasonable cost and schedule estimates have been developed to execute, with the concurrence of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, the product development and production plan under the program; and (D) funding is available to execute the product development and production plan under the program, through the period covered by the future-years defense program submitted during the fiscal year in which the certification is made, consistent with the estimates described in subparagraph (C) for the program; (E) appropriate market research has been conducted prior to technology development to reduce duplication of existing technology and products; (F) the Department of Defense has completed an analysis of alternatives with respect to the program; (G) the Joint Requirements Oversight Council has accomplished its duties with respect to the program pursuant to section 181(b) of this title, including an analysis of the operational requirements for the program; 72

10 USC 2366 b Requirements at Milestone B Cont. (H) life-cycle sustainment planning, including corrosion prevention and mitigation planning, has identified and evaluated relevant sustainment costs throughout development, production, operation, sustainment, and disposal of the program, and any alternatives, and that such costs are reasonable and have been accurately estimated; (I) an estimate has been made of the requirements for core logistics capabilities and the associated sustaining workloads required to support such requirements; (J) there is a plan to mitigate and account for any costs in connection with any anticipated decertification of cryptographic systems and components during the production and procurement of the major defense acquisition program to be acquired; (K) the program complies with all relevant policies, regulations, and directives of the Department of Defense; (L) the Secretary of the military department concerned and the Chief of the armed force concerned concur in the trade-offs made in accordance with subparagraph (B); and (4) in the case of a space system, performs a cost benefit analysis for any new or follow-on satellite system using a dedicated ground control system instead of a shared ground control system, except that no cost benefit analysis is required to be performed under this paragraph for any Milestone B approval of a space system after December 31, 2019 73

Ten Steps Process to Program Initiation Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) or other study identifies capability gaps and potential non-materiel solutions and/or materiel approaches Initial Capabilities Document (ICD)/Problem Statement prepared. Requirements document validated. Materiel solution required? Approved ICD/Problem Statement sent to Milestone Decision Authority (MDA). Materiel Development Decision (MDD). ICD/Problem Statement approved? JROC on board? Preliminary CONOPS ready? MDA issues Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM). Analysis of Alternatives (Ao. A) conducted during Materiel Solution Analysis phase. Milestone A. Ao. A, cost estimate and Acquisition Strategy (AS) completed? MDA approves materiel solution and issues ADM. Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction (TMRR) Phase conducted based on Sponsor-level Capability Development Document (CDD)/Problem Statement. Requirements document validated prior to Development RFP Released Decision. Required at Milestone B. Do TMRR phase results justify new defense acquisition program? MDA issues ADM. New acquisition program initiated. 74

JCIDS AND ACQUISITION Getting The Front End Right is Key

JCIDS AND ACQUISITION Getting The Front End Right is Key

Technology Maturity Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) System Test, Launch & Operations System/Subsystem Development Technology Demonstration Technology Development Research to Prove Feasibility Basic Technology Research Actual system “flight proven” through successful mission operations Actual system completed and “flight qualified” through test and demonstration (Full-Rate Production Decision) System prototype demonstration in a operational environment (Milestone C) System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (Milestone B) Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment (Milestone A) Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-of-concept Technology concept and/or application formulated Basic principles observed and reported Public law requires TRL 6 for ACAT I at Milestone B 77

Technology & Manufacturing Readiness Levels (TRLs/MRLs) TRLs are a measure of technical maturity. MRLs are a measure of manufacturing readiness and risk. Milestone Decision Authorities consider TRLs and MRLs when assessing program risk. MDD A Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction FRP/FD C B Engineering & Manufacturing Development IOC Production & Deployment TRLs 1 -3 TRL 4 TRL 5 TRL 6 TRL 7 TRL 8 TRL 9 Analytical/ Experimental Critical Function/ Characteristic Proof of Concept Component And/or Breadboard Validation In a Laboratory Environment Component And/or Breadboard (Brassboard) Validation In a Relevant Environment System/ Subsystem Model or Prototype Demonstrated In a Relevant Environment System Prototype Demonstrated In an Operational Environment Actual System Completed Qualified Through Test and Demonstration Actual System “Mission Proven” Through Successful Operations MRLs 1 -3 MRL 4 Manufacturing Capability to produce Technology In Lab Feasibility Environment. Assessed. Manufacturing Risks Concepts Identified defined/ developed Manufacturing Cost Drivers Identified MRL 5 Capability to Produce Prototype Components Cost Model Constructed MRL 6 MRL 7 MRL 8 Capability to Produce Capability to Pilot Line Produce System/ Systems, Subsystems Capability Or Components Subsystem Demonstrated. in a Production Prototypes Ready for LRIP Representative Environment Detailed Cost Model Updated Engineering Analysis To System Level Cost Model Complete Unit Cost Reduction Validated Efforts Underway MRL 9 MRL 10 Low Rate Production Demonstrated. Capability In Place for FRP Full Rate Production Demonstrated. Lean Production Practices In Place LRIP Cost Goals Met Learning Curve Validated FRP Unit Cost Goals Met FOC Operations & Support Technology Readiness Levels Do. D TRA Guidance April 2011 Manufacturi ng Readiness Levels MRL Deskbook Oct 2012 Public law and Do. DI 5000. 02 require certification that the technology in the program has been demonstrated in a relevant environment [TRL 6] by Milestone B

TECHNOLOGY INSERTION CDD Validation Dev RFP Release FRP/FD Decision MDD A Materiel Solution Analysis C B Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction (1) (2) Warfighting Needs & R&D Objectives oversight panel Tech Base Production & Deployment (2) (3) S&T oversight panel Adv Tech Dev • JCTD • Lab/field demo • Warfighting Experiments STOP Operations & Support (3) (4) MDA DECISION Systems • Basic Research • Applied Research Engineering & Manufacturing Development Options STOP (1) Concepts for new systems. (2) Insert into ongoing systems development. (3) Upgrade system in production/out of production or fielded systems. (4) Improve sustainment, or for demilitarization/disposal.

Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) (Includes the Information Systems (IS) Variant • Most common starting point for new capability requirements • Summarizes results of a CBA, to include DOTm. LPF-P analysis • Documents one or more new capability requirements and associated capability gaps • Documents the intent to partially or wholly address capability gaps with a non-materiel solution, or combination of the two • IS ICD implements “IT Box” model allowing greater flexibility and faster responses from requirements validation processes • CBA: Capabilities-Based Assessment • DOTm. LPF-P: Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, Facilities, and Policy • IT: Information Technology 80

JROC TITLE 10 RESPONSIBILITIES 10 USC 181 – Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) Composition The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who is the chairman of the Council; An Army officer in the grade of general; A Navy officer in the grade of admiral; An Air Force officer in the grade of general; A Marine Corps officer in the grade of general; When directed by the chairman, the commander or deputy commander of any CCMD when matters related to the area of responsibility or functions of that command will be considered by the Council Advisors The following officials of the Department of Defense shall serve as advisors to the Council on matters within their authority and expertise; USD(AT&L) USD(C) USD(P) Director, CAPE Director, OT&E Such other civilian Officials of the Department of Defense as are designated by the Secretary of Defense. The Council shall seek and consider input from the commanders of the combatant commands in carrying out its mission Definition of Joint Military Requirement The term “joint military requirement” means a capability necessary to fulfill a gap in a core mission area of the Department of Defense. The term “core mission area” means a core mission of the Department of Defense identified under the most recent quadrennial roles and missions review. The core mission areas identified in the 2009 QRMR are: Homeland Defense and Civil Support (HD/CS); Deterrence Operations; Major Combat Operations (MCOs); Irregular Warfare; Military Support to Stabilization Security; Transition, and Reconstruction Operations; and Military Contribution to Cooperative Security Availability of Oversight Information to Congressional Defense Committees The Secretary of Defense shall ensue that, in the case of a recommendation by the Chairman to the Secretary that is approved by the Secretary, oversight information with respect to such recommendation that is produced as a result of the activities of the JROC is made available in a timely fashion to the congressional defense committees. The term “oversight information” means information and materials comprising analysis and justification that are prepared to support a recommendation that is made to, and approved by, the Secretary of Defense JROC Mission/Responsibilities Assist the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in: Identifying, assessing, and approving joint military requirements (including existing systems and equipment) to meet the national military strategy Identifying the core mission area associated with each requirement Establishing and assigning priority levels for joint military requirements In consultation with advisors to the JROC Ensuring that appropriate trade-offs are made among lifecycle cost, schedule, and performance objectives, and procurement quantity objectives in the establishment and approval of joint military requirements Reviewing the estimated level of resources required in the fulfillment of each joint military requirement and in ensuring that the total cost of such resources is consistent with the level of priority assigned in the fulfillment of each joint military requirement In consultation with the CCMDs and the USD(AT&L) Establishing an objective for the overall period of time within which an initial operational capability should be delivered to meet each joint military requirement Address other matters assigned to it by the President or Secretary of Defense Assist acquisition officials in identifying alternatives to any acquisition program that meet joint military requirements for the purposes of section 2366 a(b), section 2366 b(a), and section 2433(e)(2) Conduct periodic reviews of joint military requirements within a core mission area of the Department of Defense, in any such review of a core mission area, the officer or official assigned to lead the review shall have a deputy from a different military department

USD(AT&L) TITLE 10 RESPONSIBILITIES 10 USC 133 – The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) Duties Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics shall perform such duties and exercise such powers relating to acquisition as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, including— supervising Department of Defense acquisition; establishing policies for acquisition (including procurement of goods and services, research and development, developmental testing, and contract administration) for all elements of the Department of Defense; establishing policies for logistics, maintenance, and sustainment support for all elements of the Department of Defense; establishing policies of the Department of Defense for maintenance of the defense industrial base of the United States; and the authority to direct the Secretaries of the military departments and the heads of all other elements of the Department of Defense with regard to matters for which the Under Secretary has responsibility. The Under Secretary— is the senior procurement executive for the Department of Defense for the purposes of section 1702(c) of title 41; is the Defense Acquisition Executive for purposes of regulations and procedures of the Department providing for a Defense Acquisition Executive; and to the extent directed by the Secretary, exercises overall supervision of all personnel (civilian and military) in the Office of the Secretary of Defense with regard to matters for which the Under Secretary has responsibility, unless otherwise provided by law. The Under Secretary shall prescribe policies to ensure that audit and oversight of contractor activities are coordinated and carried out in a manner to prevent duplication by different elements of the Department. Such policies shall provide for coordination of the annual plans developed by each such element for the conduct of audit and oversight functions within each contracting activity. Precedence With regard to all matters for which he has responsibility by law or by direction of the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics takes precedence in the Department of Defense after the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense. With regard to all matters other than matters for which he has responsibility by law or by direction of the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary takes precedence in the Department of Defense after the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Secretaries of the military departments. The Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) – Chapter 10, Defense Acquisition Guidebook Mission & Composition Preparation Timeline The DAB is the Departments senior-level review forum for critical acquisition decisions concerning Acquisition Category (ACAT) ID and IAM programs. The DAB is composed of: Chair: USD(AT&L) Members: Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Secretaries of the Military Departments Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel & Readiness) Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence) Do. D Chief Information Officer Director, Operational Test & Evaluation Deputy Chief Management Officer (for Defense Business Systems only) Director, Acquisition Resources & Analysis (DAB Executive Secretary) (in business days) 45 days prior: Final documents submitted to OSD 40 days prior: DAB Planning Meeting (DPM) 30 days prior: Final document check to support the Overarching Integrated Product Team (OIPT) Review 20 Days prior: OIPT conducted 10 days prior: OIPT report submitted to USD(AT&L) 5 days prior: DAB Readiness Meeting (DRM) conducted 3 Days prior: Read-ahead submitted DAB Planning & Readiness Meetings (DPM & DRM) DPM: short informal meeting conducted by the Assistant Secretary of Defense ( Acquisition). Provides an opportunity to ensure that the OIPT Lead and the Component Acquisition Executive staff are prepared to adequately cover any concerns that the USDAT&L may have at the DAB review. DRM: informal meeting conducted by the Principal Deputy (USD(AT&L) or the USD(AT&L) to review the OIPT results to understand any remaining open issues that the DAB would have to consider and to review the proposed DAB presentation, including materials/data necessary to resolve any issues that would be presented to the DAB to support the decision. The DRM is not intended to be a decision meeting; however, in some cases, it may lead to a recommendation or decision to conduct a "paper DAB" review.

MILESTONE A INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS ALL PROGRAMS EXCEPT WHERE NOTED (SEE TABLE 2, DODI 5000. 02) • 2266 a Determinations (MDAP only) • Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) • Acquisition Strategy (see text of Do. DI 5000. 02 for additional requirements) − Benefit Analysis & Determination − Consideration of Technology Issues (MDAP & MAIS only) − Cooperative Opportunities − Industrial Base Capabilities Considerations − Intellectual Property Strategy − Market Research − Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer Program Technologies − Termination Liability Estimate (MDAP only) • Affordability Analysis • Analysis of Alternatives (Ao. A) Report • Capability Development Document (CDD) - Draft • Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) Compliance • Concept of Operations/Operational Mode Summary/ Mission Profile (CONOPS/OMS/MP) • Core Logistics Determination • Cost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD ) (MDAP & MAIS only) • Cybersecurity Strategy • Do. D Component Cost Estimate (CCE) (MDAP & MAIS only) Statutory Requirements in blue italics • Do. D Component Cost Position (CCP) (MDAP & MAIS only) • Economic Analysis (MAIS only) may combine w/Ao. A • Exit Criteria • Frequency Allocation Application • Full Funding Certification Memorandum (MDAP & MAIS only) • Independent Cost Estimate (MDAP & MAIS only) • Item Unique Identification Implementation Plan • Life-Cycle Mission Data Plan • Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan • Program Certification to the Defense Business Systems Management Committee (DBS only) • Program Protection Plan (PPP) • Replaced System Sustainment Plan (MDAP only) • Request for Proposal (RFP) • Should Cost Target • Spectrum Supportability Risk Assessment • System Threat Assessment Report (STAR) • Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) • Technology Targeting Risk Assessment • Test & Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) • DBS: Defense Business Systems • MAIS: Major Automated Information System • MDAP: Major Defense Acquisition Program

DEVELOPMENT RFP RELEASE INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS ALL PROGRAMS EXCEPT WHERE NOTED (SEE TABLE 2, DODI 5000. 02) • Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) • Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) • Acquisition Strategy (see text of Do. DI 5000. 02 for additional requirements) − Benefit Analysis & Determination − Consideration of Technology Issues (MDAP & MAIS only) − Contract Type Determination (MDAP only) − Industrial Base Capabilities Considerations − Intellectual Property Strategy − Market Research − Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer Program Technologies − Termination Liability Estimate (MDAP only) • Affordability Analysis • Analysis of Alternatives (Ao. A) Report • Bandwidth Requirements Review • Capability Development Document (CDD) - Validated • Concept of Operations/Operational Mode Summary/ Mission Profile (CONOPS/OMS/MP) • Core Logistics Determination/Core Logistics Sustaining Workloads Estimate (MDAP only) Statutory Requirements in blue italics • Cost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD) (MDAP & MAIS) • Cybersecurity Strategy • Development RFP Release Cost Assessment • Economic Analysis (MAIS only) may combine w/Ao. A • Exit Criteria • Information Support Plan • Item Unique Identification Implementation Plan • Life-Cycle Mission Data Plan • Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan • Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Quantity • Problem Statement (DBS only) • Program Protection Plan (PPP) • Request for Proposal (RFP) • Should Cost Target • System Threat Assessment Report (STAR) • Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) • Technology Readiness Assessment (MDAP only) • Test & Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) • DBS: Defense Business Systems Updated Information • MAIS: Major Automated Information System • MDAP: Major Defense Acquisition Program