Upload
caleb-palmer
View
226
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
New Acquisition Policyand Its Impact on Programs froma Systems Engineering Perspective
Systems Engineering SummitMarch 4, 2009
Sharon Vannucci
Assistant Deputy Director for SE Policy and Guidance
Systems and Software EngineeringOffice of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition and Technology)
2
DoDI 5000.02: 2003 vs. 2008
New Policy Directed by Congress
New or Revised Regulatory Policy
Impact on Programs and Systems Engineering – A Discussion
Topics
Backup (for hardcore policy wonks!): Statutory and Regulatory Information Milestone Requirements New/Revised Enclosures to DoDI 5000.02
3
IOC
Technology Development
Production & Deployment
Operations & Support
FRP DecisionReview
FOCMaterielSolutionAnalysisMateriel Development Decision
User Needs
Technology Opportunities & Resources
Defense Acquisition Management System - 2008
ProgramInitiation
IOCBConcept
RefinementSystem Development
& DemonstrationProduction &Deployment
Operations &Support
C
FRP DecisionReview
FOC
TechnologyDevelopment
ProgramInitiation
Design ReadinessReview
ConceptDecision
User Needs andTechnology Opportunities
BA C
A
Defense Acquisition Management Framework - 2003
Comparison of 2003 vs. 2008: Subtle, But Substantial Changes
Focus of major changes
Engineering & Manufacturing Development
Post-CDRAssessment
3
PDRPDR
or
Post PDRAssessment
4
Policy flowing from numerous new/revised sections of
Public Law since 2003 (some with multiple requirements)
Approved policy appearing in over 25 policy memos and
DoD responses to the GAO, IG, and Congress
Reference to ten updated or newly issued DoD publications
Consideration of over 700 Defense Acquisition Policy
Working Group (DAPWG) comments
Sources of Change
5
Operations & Support
In the beginning . . .
Incremental Development
A
Production & Deployment O&STechnology
Development
Engineering & Manuf Development
JCIDS Acquisition Process
B C
“Following the Materiel Development Decision (MDD), the MDA may authorize entry into the acquisition management system at any point consistent with phase-specific entrance criteria and statutory requirements.”
CDD CPD
User Needs
Joint Concepts
Capabilities - Based Assessment
OSD/JCS COCOM FCB
Strategic Guidance
MaterielSolutionAnalysisICD MDD
Technology Opportunities & Resources
A
6
IOCBA
Technology Opportunities & Resources
MaterielSolutionAnalysis
FRPDecisionReview
FOC
Materiel DevelopmentDecision
Changes to Decision Points
User Needs
Old (2003) New (2008) Change from 2003
Concept Decision (CD) Materiel Development Decision (MDD)
MDD required prior to entering the acquisition lifecycle at any point
Design Readiness Review (DRR)
Post-CDR Assessment MDA’s assessment of PM’s Post-CDR Report
PDR CDR
CDD CPD
ICD
AoA
Pre-Systems Acquisition Systems Acquisition Sustainment
Post-CDRAssessment
PDR
Technology Development
Production & Deployment
Operations & Support
Engineering and Manufacturing Development
Post-PDR Assessment MDA’s assessment of PM’s PDR Report (if PDR is after MS B)
N/A
C
or
Post-PDRAssessment
7
Changes to Phases
Old (2003) New (2008) Change from 2003
Concept Refinement (CR) Materiel Solution Analysis More robust AoA (result of changes to JCIDS)
Technology Development (TD) Competitive prototyping
Systems Development & Demonstration (SDD)
Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD)
More robust system engineering
IOCBA
Technology Opportunities & Resources
FOC
User Needs
CDD CPD
ICD
MaterielSolutionAnalysis
Technology Development
Production & Deployment
Operations & Support
Engineering and Manufacturing Development
FRPDecisionReview
Materiel DevelopmentDecision
Post CDRAssessment
PDR CDRAoA PDR
Pre-Systems Acquisition Systems Acquisition Sustainment
C
or
Post PDRAssessment
8
Mandated Milestone A for MDAPs
Mandates Milestone A approval prior to technology development for a major weapon system
Requires MDA Certification prior to Milestone A for MDAPs
Changed Milestone B Certification Requirements
Mandates reporting and notification of program cost changes
9
PDR Before Milestone B
• Planned in Technology Development Strategy (TDS)
• PDR Report provided to MDA at MS B• Includes recommended requirements
trades
B
Engineering & Manufacturing Development
C
TechnologyDevelopment
PDR CDR
CDD CPD
Post CDRAssessment
PDR
Preliminary Design Review
or
PDR After Milestone B
• Planned in Acquisition Strategy (AS)• PDR Report provided to MDA before the
Post-PDR Assessment• Reflects requirements trades• At Post-PDR Assessment, MDA considers
PDR Report; determines action(s) required to achieve APB objectives, and issues ADM
Post PDRAssessment
10
Engineering and Manufacturing Development
B C
PDR CDR
CDD CPD
Post-CDRAssessment
PDR
or
Integrated SystemDesign
System Capability andManufacturing Process
Demonstration
Old (2003) New (2008) Change from 2003
System Design Integrated System Design At CDR, PM assumes control of the initial product baseline for all Class 1 Configuration Items.
System Demonstration
System Capability and Manufacturing Process Demonstration
Manufacturing processes effectively demonstrated; production-representative article(s) demonstrated in intended environment; T&E assesses improvements to mission capability and operational support based on user needs.
Post PDRAssessment
11
Military Equipment Valuation (accounting for
military equipment)
MDA Certification at Milestones A & B
Cost type contract for EMD Phase requires written
determination by MDA
Lead Systems Integrator Restrictions
Replaced System Sustainment Plan
Configuration Steering Boards (CSBs)
New Policy Directed by Congress
12
New MAIS Reporting Requirements
“Time-Certain” IT Business Systems Development
Defense Business Systems Oversight
MDA assessment of compliance with chemical,
biological, radiological, and nuclear survivability
(CBRN) requirements at Milestones B and C
Data Management Strategy
New Policy Directed by CongressContinued…
13
Detailed Acquisition of Services Policy
Independent management reviews (Peer Reviews)
for supplies and services contracts
Interim Beyond-LRIP Report
DOT&E’s Role in Testing Force Protection
Equipment / Non-Lethal Weapons
Nunn-McCurdy breach / APB Revision Procedure
Cost of energy in AoA and resource estimate
New Policy Directed by CongressContinued…
14
New or Revised Regulatory Policy
Contract Incentives Strategy
Program Support Reviews (PSRs)
Integrated Developmental and Operational Test and Evaluation
Restricted use of performance requirements that do not support KPPs
Comparison with current mission capabilities during OT&E
Assessment of Operational Test Readiness (AOTR)
Detailed Systems Engineering Policy
RAM Strategy
15
New or Revised Regulatory PolicyContinued…
Contracting for Operational Support Services
Approval of Technology Development Strategy prior
to release of final RFP for TD Phase
Configuration Management policy
Approval of Acquisition Strategy prior to release of
final RFP for EMD or any succeeding phase
Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP)
Review and assessment of new or modified communications waveforms
Evolutionary Acquisition Revised
16
From two processes To one process
Evolutionary Acquisition
Capability is delivered in increments, recognizing up front need for future capability improvements.
Each increment:
depends on mature technology
is a militarily useful and supportable operational capability
Successive Technology Development Phases may be needed to mature technology for multiple increments.
Incremental Development: End-state is known; requirements met over time in several increments
Spiral Development: End-state is not known; requirements for increments dependent upon technology maturation and user feedback
No spirals!
17
Policy Enabling Systems EngineeringTechnical Reviews
Preliminary Design Review (PDR) – Required Before MS B: PDR Report to the MDA for MS B After MS B:
PDR Report to the MDA Post-PDR Assessment and ADM
Critical Design Review (CDR) – Required Post-CDR Report to the MDA Post-CDR Assessment and ADM
18
Preliminary Design Review
When consistent with Technology Development Phase objectives, associated prototyping activity, and the MDA approved TDS, the PM shall plan a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) before Milestone B. PDR planning shall be reflected in the TDS and shall be conducted for the candidate design(s) to establish the allocated baseline (hardware, software, human/support systems) and underlying architectures to define a high-confidence design. All system elements (hardware and software) shall be at a level of maturity commensurate with the PDR entrance and exit criteria. A successful PDR will inform requirements trades; improve cost estimation; and identify remaining design, integration, and manufacturing risks. The PDR shall be conducted at the system level and include user representatives and associated certification authorities. The PDR Report shall be provided to the MDA at Milestone B and include recommended requirements trades based upon an assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk.
OR
19
Preliminary Design Review
Post-PDR Assessment. If a PDR has not been conducted prior to Milestone B, the PM shall plan for a PDR as soon as feasible after program initiation. PDR planning shall be reflected in the Acquisition Strategy and conducted consistent with the policies specified in paragraph 5.d.(6). Following PDR, the PM shall plan and the MDA shall conduct a formal Post-PDR Assessment. The PDR report shall be provided to the MDA prior to the assessment and reflect any requirements trades based upon the PM’s assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk. The MDA will consider the results of the PDR and the PM’s assessment, and determine whether remedial action is necessary to achieve APB objectives. The results of the MDA's Post-PDR Assessment shall be documented in an ADM.
20
DAG* PDR Report Guidance
10.5.3. Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Report. The PDR Report shall be provided as a memorandum to the MDA.
1. When consistent with Technology Development Phase objectives, associated prototyping activity, and the MDA-approved TDS, the PM shall plan a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) before Milestone B. PDR planning shall be reflected in the TDS with details in the SEP and shall be conducted consistent with the policies specified in paragraph 5.d.(6). Additionally, the Report should address:
a. A comprehensive list of the systems engineering products that make up the allocated baseline (to include the preliminary design specifications for all configuration items) and that were subject to review;
b. A list of the participants in the review including the PDR chair, applicable technical authorities, independent subject matter experts, and other key stakeholders;
c. A summary of the Action Items from the review and their closure status/plan;
d. A risk assessment using the PDR risk assessment checklist (https://acc.dau.mil/TechRevChklst) or similar to determine readiness to commit to full detail design; and
e. A recommendation from the PDR as to the approval of the program's system allocated baseline to support detail design.
Note: Blue text is guidance, black is policy.* Defense Acquisition Guidebook
21
DAG PDR Report Guidance Continued…
The PDR Report shall be provided to the MDA at Milestone B and
include recommended requirements trades based upon an assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk.
2. If a PDR has not been conducted prior to Milestone B, the PM shall plan for a PDR as soon as feasible after program initiation. PDR planning shall be reflected in the Acquisition Strategy and conducted consistent with the policies specified in paragraph 5.d.(6).
3. For programs whose MDA is the USD(AT&L), the PDR Report should be a memorandum to the USD(AT&L) through the Director, Systems and Software Engineering and the OIPT lead.
Note: Blue text is guidance, black is policy.
22
DAG Post-PDR-A Guidance
10.5.4. Post-Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Assessment. When the system-level PDR is conducted after Milestone B, the PM shall plan and the MDA shall conduct a formal Post-PDR Assessment. The MDA shall conduct a formal program assessment and consider the results of the PDR and the PM’s assessment in the PDR Report, and determine whether remedial action is necessary to achieve APB objectives. The results of the MDA's Post-PDR Assessment shall be documented in an ADM. The Post-PDR assessment shall reflect any requirements trades based upon the PM’s assessment of cost, schedule, and performance risk.
Note: Blue text is guidance, black is policy.
23
Post-CDR Report
The PM shall provide a Post-CDR Report to the MDA that provides an overall assessment of design maturity and a summary of the system-level CDR results which shall include, but not be limited to:
a. The names, organizations, and areas of expertise of independent subject matter expert participants and CDR chair;b. A description of the product baseline for the system and the percentage of build-to packages completed for this baseline;c. A summary of the issues and actions identified at the review together with their closure plans;d. An assessment of risk by the participants against the exit criteria for the EMD Phase; ande. Identification of those issues/risks that could result in a breach to the program baseline or substantively impact cost, schedule, or performance.
The MDA shall review the Post-CDR Report and the PM's resolution/ mitigation plans and determine whether additional action is necessary to satisfy EMD Phase exit criteria and to achieve the program outcomes specified in the APB. The results of the MDA's Post-CDR Assessment shall be documented in an ADM.
Successful completion of the Post-CDR Assessment ends Integrated System Design and continues the EMD Phase into System Capability and Manufacturing Process Demonstration.
24
Post-CDR Assessment
Post-CDR Assessment. The MDA shall conduct a formal program assessment following system-level CDR. The system-level CDR provides an opportunity to assess design maturity as evidenced by measures such as: successful completion of subsystem CDRs; the percentage of hardware and software product build-to specifications and drawings completed and under configuration management; planned corrective actions to hardware/software deficiencies; adequate developmental testing; an assessment of environment, safety and occupational health risks; a completed failure modes and effects analysis; the identification of key system characteristics;, manufacturing feasibility, and the maturity of critical manufacturing processes; and an estimate of system reliability based on demonstrated reliability rates.
25
DAG Post-CDR-A Guidance
10.5.5. Post-Critical Design Review (CDR) Assessment. The MDA shall conduct a formal program assessment following system-level CDR.
1. The PM shall provide a Post-CDR Report as a memorandum to the MDA that provides an overall assessment of design maturity and a summary of the system-level CDR results which shall include, but not be limited to:
a. The names, organizations, and areas of expertise of independent subject matter expert participants and CDR chair;
b. A description of the product baseline for the system and the percentage of build-to packages completed for this baseline;
c. A summary of the issues and actions identified at the review together with their closure plans;
d. An assessment of risk by the participants against the exit criteria for the EMD Phase; and
e. Identification of those issues/risks that could result in a breach to the program baseline or substantively impact cost, schedule, or performance.
The CDR risk assessment checklist is designed as a technical review preparation tool, and should be used as the primary guide for assessing risk during the review. This checklist is available on the SE COP (https://acc.dau.mil/TechRevChklst).
Note: Blue text is guidance, black is policy.
26
DAG Post-CDR-A Guidance Continued…
2. For programs whose MDA is the USD(AT&L), the Post-CDR Report should be a memorandum to the USD(AT&L) through the Director, Systems and Software Engineering and the OIPT lead.
3. The MDA shall review the Post-CDR Report and the PM’s resolution/ mitigation plans and determine whether additional action is necessary to satisfy EMD Phase exit criteria and to achieve the program outcomes specified in the APB. The results of the MDA’s Post-CDR Assessment shall be documented in an ADM.
Note: Blue text is guidance, black is policy.
27
Codifies OSD SE Role in Program Oversight
Program Support Reviews (PSRs). PSRs are a means to inform an MDA and Program Office of the status of technical planning and management processes by identifying cost, schedule, and performance risk and recommendations to mitigate those risks. PSRs shall be conducted by cross-functional and cross-organizational teams appropriate to the program and situation. PSRs for ACAT ID and IAM programs shall be planned by the Director, Systems and Software Engineering (SSE) to support OIPT program reviews, at other times as directed by the USD(AT&L), and in response to requests from PMs.
Enclosure 6: The DUSD(A&T) shall conduct an independent Assessment of Operational Test Readiness (AOTR) for all ACAT ID and special interest programs designated by the USD(AT&L). Each AOTR shall consider the risks associated with the system’s ability to meet operational suitability and effectiveness goals. This assessment shall be based on capabilities demonstrated in DT&E and OAs and criteria described in the TEMP. Where feasible, the AOTR shall be performed in conjunction with the program's review and reporting activities as described in subparagraph 4.a.(1) of this Enclosure. The AOTR report shall be provided to the USD(AT&L), DOT&E, and CAE.
The CAE shall consider the results of the AOTR prior to making a determination of materiel system readiness for IOT&E.
28
Enclosures to DoDI 5000.02
1. References2. Procedures3. ACAT and MDA 4. Statutory and Regulatory Information and Milestone Requirements
Table 5. EVM Implementation PolicyTable 6. APB PolicyTable 7. Unique Decision Forums
5. IT Considerations6. Integrated T&E7. Resource Estimation8. Human Systems Integration9. Acquisition of Services10. Program Management11. Management of Defense Business Systems12. Systems Engineering
▀ New
Tables Updated,
More UserFriendly
29
New Systems Engineering Enclosure
Codifies three previous SE policy memoranda
Codifies a number of SE-related policies and statutes since 2003:
Environmental Safety and Occupational Health
Corrosion Prevention and Control
Modular Open Systems Approach
Data Management and Technical Data Rights
Item Unique Identification
Spectrum Supportability
Introduces new policy on Configuration Management
30
Other ImportantStatutory and Regulatory
Policy Changes
31
Other Major Policy ChangesContinued…
Acquisition of Services Replaces, and adds structure and discipline to,
former 5000.2 policy Implements Independent Management Reviews,
required by Sec. 808 of the ’08 NDAA, as “Peer Reviews”
Defines Senior Officials and Management Thresholds Requires: Performance-Based Requirements;
identifiable and measurable cost, schedule, and performance outcomes; a strategic, enterprise-wide approach for both planning and execution; and formal executive review before contract initiation
Assessment of Operational Test Readiness
Complements the DoD Component’s Operational Test Readiness Process
Considers the risks associated with the system’s ability to meet operational suitability and effectiveness goals
Based on capabilities demonstrated in DT&E and OA and TEMP criteria
Report provided to the USD(AT&L), DOT&E, and CAE
AIS ReportingFY ’09 NDAA §811 Establishes “pre-MAIS” reporting requirements No longer need to “Certify” CCA compliance to
Congress
FY ’07 NDAA §816 SAR-like and DAES-like reporting §816 (Nunn-McCurdy-like) Assessment and
Certification §811 Time-Certain IT Business System development
FY ’06 NDAA §806, MAIS Cancellation/Reduction in Scope: Notify
Congress before any MDA cancels or significantly reduces the scope of a MAIS program that has been fielded or has received Milestone C approval
APB Policy Clarifies when and on what basis the APB will be
updated Provides statutory basis for Nunn-McCurdy reporting
32
Other Major Policy ChangesContinued…
Changes to the Technology Development Strategy
Statutory requirement for Test Plan in TD Phase is now accomplished in T&E Strategy (TES)
Now requires a summary of the CAIG-approved Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) Plan(s) for the Technology Development phase
Data Rights PMs assess the long-term technical data needs of
their systems The assessment reflected in a Data Management
Strategy (included in the Acquisition Strategy) Addresses the merits of including a priced contract
option for the future delivery of technical data Considers the contractor’s responsibility to verify
any assertion of restricted use and release of data
Enhanced Focus on Manufacturing Readiness
Fully-Burdened Cost of Energy The Analysis of Alternatives considers — Alternative ways to improve the energy efficiency of
DoD tactical systems with end items that create a demand for energy
The fully burdened cost of delivered energy shall be used in trade-off analyses conducted for all DoD tactical systems with end items that create a demand for energy
Incentives PM required to describe how incentives will be used
to achieve required cost, schedule, and performance outcomes
Captured in Acquisition Strategy Institutionalizes current incentive fee policy
Institutionalizes Program Management Agreements (PMAs)
33
Other Major Policy ChangesContinued…
Lead Systems Integrator MDA ensures that the LSI does not have, nor is
expected to acquire, a financial interest in development or construction
PM stresses appropriate checks and balances; insists the government performs inherently governmental functions
Milestone RequirementsFY’07/’08/’09 NDAAs Mandate Milestone A approval prior to technology
development for an MDAP Require MDA Certification prior to Milestone A for
MDAPs with Technology Development Phase efforts Mandate reporting and notification of program
cost changes Changed Milestone B Certification Requirements
FY’06 NDAA Requires MDA Certification prior to Milestone B for
MDAPs
MDA Determination of Contract Type Consistent with level of program risk: fixed price or
cost contract Cost-type only upon written determination that (1) the
program is so complex and technically challenging that it would not be practicable to reduce program risk to a level that would permit the use of a fixed-price contract; and, (2) the complexity and technical challenge of the program is not the result of a failure to meet the requirements of the MDA Milestone B Certification
Modified “Enclosure 3” Tables Now Enclosure 4 Clarifies Applicability by program type and ACAT
New Challenges Addresses Waveform, Electromagnetic Spectrum, and
Life-Cycle Signature Management Requires early consideration of Data Assets, Critical
Program Information, and the workforce mix
34
Other Major Policy ChangesContinued…
New Enclosure 11, Management of Defense Business Systems
Describes the Defense Business Systems Management Committee (DBSMC) Certification Approval Process
DBSMC Certification Approval required for all defense business systems funded over $1,000,000
Investment Review Boards (IRB) assess programs and advise the DBSMC
Enclosure details the business process supporting IRB and DBSMC activity
New Enclosure 12, Systems Engineering Requires the Systems Engineering Plan and
Technical Reviews Also covers—
Corrosion Control Configuration Management
Pre-Award “Peer Reviews”
Recognizes Unique Decision Forums for Space, Missile Defense, and Joint Intelligence
Performance-Based Life-Cycle Product Support (PBL)
Document performance and sustainment requirements in performance agreements specifying objective outcomes, measures, resource commitments, and stakeholder responsibilities
Program Support Reviews On-site review of program information before each
milestone and release of the RFP Assesses technical planning and management
processes Assists in identifying and mitigating
cost/schedule/performance risk Informs decision making
Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM)
Requires a strategy that includes a reliability growth program
RAM integrated with Systems Engineering processes; assessed during technical reviews, T&E, and Program Support Reviews (PSRs)
35
Other Major Policy ChangesContinued…
Replaced-System Sustainment Plan DoD Component plan to sustain the system
being replaced if the capability provided by the existing system remains necessary and relevant during fielding of and transition to the new system
The plan must provide for the budgeting to sustain the existing system until the new system assumes the majority of mission responsibility
Requests for Proposal Technology Development Strategy or Acquisition
Strategy must be approved before release
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
Directs consideration of SBIR technologies
Updated EVM Policy Cost/Incentive Contracts: At PM’s discretion, based
on cost-benefit analysis Firm Fixed-Price Contracts: Limited. Requires MDA
approval based on a business case analysis
Workforce Considerations Manpower mix Inherently governmental PM tenure PM / PEO shall be experienced and certified
36
Implications for Systems Engineering
37
CBAJoint Concepts
MS CMS B
Strategic Guidance
MS A
ICD TechnologyDevelopment CDD
Engineering and Manufacturing
DevelopmentCPD
Production and Deployment O&S
MDD
Materiel Solution Analysis
CDR
Increased Focus on Early Acquisition
Materiel Development
Decision (MDD)
Full Rate ProductionDecision Review
JCIDS Process
Competing prototypes
before MS B
PDR and a PDR report to the MDA if pre-MS B or PDR and Post-PDR report and assessment if post-MS B
Early Acquisition
What are the implications of these changes for programs? How can systems engineering enable the program during this early phase?
PDR or PDR
38
Full Rate ProductionDecision Review
CBAJoint Concepts
MS CMS B
Strategic Guidance
MS A
ICD TechnologyDevelopment
CDDEngineering and Manufacturing
DevelopmentCPD
Production and Deployment O&S
New Opportunities for Systems Engineering –Starting Programs Right
MDD
Materiel Solution
Analysis
Pre-MDD “SE Touch Points” Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) Analysis of Alternatives study plan
Pre-Milestone A “SE Touch Points” Systems Engineering Plan
Technology Development Strategy
Test and Evaluation Strategy
Analysis of Alternatives
CDRPDR
* PDR – Preliminary Design Review * CDR – Critical Design Review * MDA - Milestone Decision Authority
What’s relevant: Mandatory Materiel Development Decision Mandatory Milestone A for all “major weapon systems” Mandatory PDR* and CDR* with reports to the MDA*
JCIDS Process
PDR
OR
39
Full RateProductionDecisionReview
CBAJoint Concepts
MS CMS B
Strategic Guidance
MS A
ICD TechnologyDevelopment
CDDEngineering and Manufacturing
Development and Demonstration
CPDProduction and
Deployment O&S
New Opportunities for Independent Reviews
MDD
Materiel Solution
Analysis
* PDR – Preliminary Design Review * CDR – Critical Design Review * OTRR – Operational Test Readiness Review
What’s relevant: Mandatory Milestone A for all “major weapon systems” MS B after system-level PDR* and a PDR Report to the MDA EMDD with Post-CDR* Report and MDA Assessment PSR and AOTR in policy
OTRRPotential Independent Technical Reviews - PSRs and AOTRs
Program Support Reviews (PSRs) All ACAT ID and IAM To inform the MDA on technical planning and management processes thru risk identification and mitigation recommendations To support OIPT program reviews and others as requested by the MDA Non-advocate reviews requested by the PM
Assessments of Operational Test Readiness (AOTRs) All ACAT ID and special interest programs To inform the MDA, DOTE, & CAE of risk of a system failing to meet operational suitability and effectiveness goals To support CAE determination of materiel readiness for IOT&E
40
New Challenges for Programs
PM skill-sets after MDD and prior to MS A Increased importance of the Technology
Development Strategy (TDS) at MS A PM skill-set and PM organization for TD phase Funding implications (shifting resources from
EMD to TD) Possible contracting strategies – constraints,
competitive prototyping, data rights, etc. Early engagement with industry Tailoring the process to specific domains
and/or complexity Others?
41
New Challenges for SEPs
Explicit technical planning for the Technology Development phase at Milestone A including: Technology maturation Competitive prototyping Manufacturing maturity Critical Program Information in design Item Unique Identification (IUID)
Mandatory system-level PDR with rationale for its placement before or after Milestone B PDR Report to the MDA either side of MS B Post-PDR Assessment by the MDA with ADM if after MS B
Mandatory system-level CDR Post-CDR Report to and Assessment by the MDA followed by an
ADM
IUID Implementation Plan as SEP Annex at Milestones B and C
42
Why is this hard?
Programs have very little experience with current pre-Milestone B SE activities – makes it difficult to know what to ‘adjust’ given changes.
The current DAG guidance is voluminous – online resource with over 500 printed pages of information without hotlinks.
PMOs have limited understanding about interdependencies within the this Guidance.
For SE to be an effective enabler, Systems Engineers need to understand the activities, products, and their integration with the program, particularly in the unfamiliar realm of pre-Milestone B.
43
CBAJoint Concepts
MS CMS B
Strategic Guidance
MS A
ICD TechnologyDevelopment
Engineering and Manufacturing
DevelopmentO&S
MDD
Materiel Solution Analysis
CDRPDR
Review of Policy Changes
Mandatory Materiel Development Decision (MDD) Mandatory competing prototypes before MS B Mandatory PDR and a report to the MDA (“the sliding PDR”) [PDR Report to MDA if before MS B; formal PDR Assessment by MDA if after MS B]
Configuration Steering Boards at Component level to review all requirements changes
Renewed emphasis on manufacturing during system development: Re-titles SDD phase to EMD with two sub phases: Integrated System Design and System Capability and Manufacturing Process Demonstration Establishes consideration of manufacturing maturity at key decision points
Mandatory system-level CDR with an initial product baseline and followed by a Post-CDR Report to the MDA Post-CDR Assessment by the MDA between EMD sub phases
Full Rate ProductionDecision Review
JCIDS Process
PDR
Production and Deployment
CPDCDD
or
44
CompletedDesign
ProgramInitiation
Make acquisition decisions when you have solid evidence and acceptable risk
Un
ce
rta
inty
Agreement to pursue a material solution
Materiel Solution Analysis Technology Development
Selection of a
proposed materiel solution
System Level Specs
Preliminary Design
AoA
BusinessDecisions
EngineeringSupport
ProposedMateriel Solution
MaterielSolutionAnalysis
Technology Maturation
and Prototyping
MDD MS A
MS B
PDR
CDR
In Conclusion . . .
PDROR
P-PDRAssessment
P-CDRAssessment
45
SE Planning for Milestone A and Technology Development Phase
Documents / activities / data requiring technical input from the Systems Engineer BEFORE Milestone A:
Analysis of AlternativesTechnology Development Strategy
Critical Program Information Technology maturation plans Competitive Prototyping plans Net-Centric Data Strategy Market Research Data Management Strategy
Component Cost EstimateSystems Engineering PlanTest and Evaluation Plan
The Systems Engineer’s Challenge: Where to find the data!?
47
Backup
48
Material Solution AnalysisMDD MS A
Materiel Solution Analysis
ConductAoA
Initial userassessment of capability
needs
ICD
StudyEfforts
Engineering Analysis of Potential
Systems Solution(s)
SEP
TDS
JCIDS
AoA
Guidance
AoAPlan
AoAReport
TES
Technical Planning for TD
MaterialSolution Options
ProgramPlanningFor TD
ProgramOffice
Grey Areas depending on PMO SE input
Typically executed by PMO SE Staff
Typically executed by Industry
Delivered Product
Informs
Leads to
Key SE input
Major Review
Grey Areas depending on PMO SE input
Typically executed by PMO SE Staff
Typically executed by Industry
Delivered Product
Informs
Leads to
Key SE input
Major Review
49
MSA Starting & Closing Conditions
JROC Approved ICD Understanding of capability gaps
Successful MDD Agreement by MDA to proceed
MDA Approved AoA Guidance Direction for initial scoping of
solution
MDD MS AMateriel Solution Analysis
ConductAoA
Initial userassessment of capability
needs
ICD
StudyEfforts
Engineering Analysis of PotentialSystems
Solution(s)
SEP
TDS
JCIDS
AoAGuidance
AoAPlan
AoAReport
TES
Technical Planning for TD
MaterialSolution Options
ProgramPlanningFor TD
ProgramOffice
MDD MS AMateriel Solution Analysis
ConductAoA
Initial userassessment of capability
needs
ICD
StudyEfforts
Engineering Analysis of PotentialSystems
Solution(s)
SEP
TDS
JCIDS
AoAGuidance
AoAPlan
AoAReport
TES
Technical Planning for TD
MaterialSolution Options
ProgramPlanningFor TD
ProgramOffice
Technology Development Strategy (TDS) Understanding of risks
– technology, design, manufacturing, security, etc.
Plans for competitive prototyping and initial design (to PDR)
Plans for SE and T&E for technology development
Materiel SolutionAnalysis
(MSA)
Starting Conditions
Closing Conditions
50
MSA – Materiel Development Decision
MDD MS AMateriel Solution Analysis
ConductAoA
Initial userassessment of capability
needs
ICD
StudyEfforts
Engineering Analysis of PotentialSystems
Solution(s)
SEP
TDS
JCIDS
AoAGuidance
AoAPlan
AoAReport
TES
Technical Planning for TD
MaterialSolution Options
ProgramPlanningFor TD
ProgramOffice
Materiel Development Decision
New in 5000.02
Provides early visibility to MDA and opportunity for better upfront guidance
51
MSA – Analysis of Alternatives
MDD MS A
Materiel Solution Analysis
ConductAoA
Initial userassessment of capability
needs
ICD
StudyEfforts
Engineering Analysis of PotentialSystems
Solution(s)
SEP
TDS
JCIDS
AoAGuidance
AoAPlan
AoAReport
TES
Technical Planning for TD
MaterialSolution Options
ProgramPlanningFor TD
ProgramOffice
No major changes in 5000.02
Increased visibility at MDD
Recommends important considerations be addressed at the outset in AoA Guidance
Risk is that if driving issues are not addressed in the AoA they will cost more in time and funds when identified later in the process
52
MSA – Engineering AnalysisMDD MS A
Materiel Solution Analysis
ConductAoA
Initial userassessment of capability
needs
ICD
StudyEfforts
Engineering Analysis of PotentialSystems
Solution(s)
SEP
TDS
JCIDS
AoAGuidance
AoAPlan
AoAReport
TES
Technical Planning for TD
MaterialSolution Options
ProgramPlanningFor TD
ProgramOffice
Early engineering analysis by ‘emerging program office’ Based on results of the AoA, translated into option(s) for acquisition
Provides technical basis for planning for next steps including the best technical approach for the TD phase
• Includes assessment of technical risks including technology maturity, design, assurance, integration, manufacturing
Provides technical foundation for MS A products and decisions
53
MSA – Material Solution Options
MDD MS A
Materiel Solution Analysis
ConductAoA
Initial userassessment of capability
needs
ICD
StudyEfforts
Engineering Analysis of PotentialSystems
Solution(s)
SEP
TDS
JCIDS
AoAGuidance
AoAPlan
AoAReport
TES
Technical Planning for TD
MaterialSolution Options
ProgramPlanningFor TD
ProgramOffice
Recommended solution or solution set Reviewed by stakeholders Provides scoping for planning for next phase
54
MSA – Planning for TD Phase
ConductAoA
MDD MS A
Materiel Solution AnalysisInitial user
assessment of capability
needs
ICD
StudyEfforts
Engineering Analysis of PotentialSystems
Solution(s)
SEP
TDS
JCIDS
AoAGuidance
AoAPlan
AoAReport
TES
Technical Planning for TD
MaterialSolution Options
ProgramPlanningFor TD
ProgramOffice
Evolutionary vs. single step approach (programmatic and technical)
Acquisition increments’ objectives Total R&D program cost, schedule,
performance goals TD Phase risk reduction/ technology
maturation objectives
Competitive prototyping and PDR plans
TD Phase-specific cost, schedule, performance goals and exit criteria
Contract strategy and RFP preparation
Program Office organization, responsibilities, and time-phased workload assessment
55
MSA –Planning for TD Phase Continued…
ConductAoA
MDD MS A
Materiel Solution AnalysisInitial user
assessment of capability
needs
ICD
StudyEfforts
Engineering Analysis of PotentialSystems
Solution(s)
SEP
TDS
JCIDS
AoAGuidance
AoAPlan
AoAReport
TES
Technical Planning for TD
MaterialSolution Options
ProgramPlanningFor TD
ProgramOffice
Major products Technology Development Strategy (TDS)
• Plan for the TD phase Systems Engineering Plan (SEP)
• Plan for engineering for TD activities T&E Strategy
• Test plans and criteria for TD and long lead time test elements
56
MSA – PM QuestionsMDD MS A
Materiel Solution Analysis
ConductAoA
Initial userassessment of capability
needs
ICD
StudyEfforts
Engineering Analysis of PotentialSystems
Solution(s)
SEP
TDS
JCIDS
AoAGuidance
AoAPlan
AoAReport
TES
Technical Planning for TD
MaterialSolution Options
ProgramPlanningFor TD
ProgramOffice
Increased importance of AoA? When is Program Office formation? Role of industry? Coordination with S&T community? Who vets the PMO assessments in the TDS?
57
Technology Development
Prototypingfor design feasibility
MS A MS BTechnology DevelopmentCDD
CTE Risk
Reduction SRR(s) PDR(s)
UpdatedSEP
SRD
Draft RFPfor InitialSystem Dev
JCIDS
FinalSEPISP
PDR Report
User assessment of capability needs
ASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateRFP**
CTEPrototyping
*
TEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
SFR(s)
Sponsor Approved
Execute TechMaturation
UpdateSEP
Preliminary Design***
TechnologyReadiness
InitialTRA
TRA
Engineering OversightEngineering Analysis
CDD
FinalUpdateInitialASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateSEP
58
TD Starting & Closing Conditions
Milestone A decisionSelected materiel solution(s)Clear direction in ADM including funding matched to TD plan (in approved TDS)
Cost, schedule, solution(s) maturity objectives
Cost certification Approved Technology
Development Strategy (TDS) TD phase acquisition strategy and RFPs
Detailed phase implementation plan with resources
Approved Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) and T&E Strategy (TES)Technical management and implementation plan
Testing objectives and criteria
Knowledge-based decision on establishing a program of record including cost, schedule, and performance based on: Approved CDD and systems
requirements Demonstrated mature
solution(s) technologies Initial end-item design
maturity (if PDR before B) EMD phase full funding
EMD plan and objectives (AS) based on acceptable level of risk to Sponsor, CAE, and PM
Supporting programmatic, technical, and test planning for EMD execution
Technology Development
(TD)
Starting Conditions
Closing Conditions
Prototypingfor design feasibility
MS A MS BTechnology DevelopmentCDD
CTE Risk
ReductionSRR(s) PDR(s)
UpdatedSEP
SRD
Draft RFPfor InitialSystem Dev
JCIDS
FinalSEPISP
PDR Report
User assessment of capability needs
ASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateRFP**
CTEPrototyping
*
TEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
SFR(s)
Sponsor Approved
Execute TechMaturation
UpdateSEP
Preliminary Design***
TechnologyReadiness
InitialTRA
TRA
Engineering OversightEngineering Analysis
CDD
FinalUpdateInitialASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateSEP
Prototypingfor design feasibility
MS A MS BTechnology DevelopmentCDD
CTE Risk
ReductionSRR(s) PDR(s)
UpdatedSEP
SRD
Draft RFPfor InitialSystem Dev
JCIDS
FinalSEPISP
PDR Report
User assessment of capability needs
ASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateRFP**
CTEPrototyping
*
TEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
SFR(s)
Sponsor Approved
Execute TechMaturation
UpdateSEP
Preliminary Design***
TechnologyReadiness
InitialTRA
TRA
Engineering OversightEngineering Analysis
CDD
FinalUpdateInitialASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateSEP
59
TD – Major Thrusts
Technology Maturation
Initial End Item Design
Prototypingfor design feasibility
MS A MS BTechnology DevelopmentCDD
CTE Risk
ReductionSRR(s) PDR(s)
UpdatedSEP
SRD
Draft RFPfor InitialSystem Dev
JCIDS
FinalSEPISP
PDR Report
User assessment of capability needs
ASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateRFP**
CTEPrototyping
*
TEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
SFR(s)
Sponsor Approved
Execute TechMaturation
UpdateSEP
Preliminary Design***
TechnologyReadiness
InitialTRA
TRA
Engineering OversightEngineering Analysis
CDD
FinalUpdateInitialASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateSEP
Prototypingfor design feasibility
MS A MS BTechnology DevelopmentCDD
CTE Risk
ReductionSRR(s) PDR(s)
UpdatedSEP
SRD
Draft RFPfor InitialSystem Dev
JCIDS
FinalSEPISP
PDR Report
User assessment of capability needs
ASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateRFP**
CTEPrototyping
*
TEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
SFR(s)
Sponsor Approved
Execute TechMaturation
UpdateSEP
Preliminary Design***
TechnologyReadiness
InitialTRA
TRA
Engineering OversightEngineering Analysis
CDD
FinalUpdateInitialASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateSEP
60
TD – Technology Maturity
Implementation based on MS A products
TDS identified CTE and provided technology risk reduction plans
SEP defined how risk reduction and prototypes will be technically managed and reviewed
TES provided T&E criteria for evaluation of technology risk reduction and prototype efforts
Reviews TDS assessment of technology maturity and its identified Critical Technology Elements CTEs
Confirms/ revises CTEs functional and performance baselines; the ”as is” and required
Matures CTEs in relevant environments Competitive prototypes or other
technology risk reduction activities Uses RFPs/ task orders with industry
and government labs/ agencies
Prototypingfor design feasibility
MS A MS BTechnology DevelopmentCDD
CTE Risk
ReductionSRR(s) PDR(s)
UpdatedSEP
SRD
Draft RFPfor InitialSystem Dev
JCIDS
FinalSEPISP
PDR Report
User assessment of capability needs
ASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateRFP**
CTEPrototyping
*
TEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
SFR(s)
Sponsor Approved
Execute TechMaturation
UpdateSEP
Preliminary Design***
TechnologyReadiness
InitialTRA
TRA
Engineering OversightEngineering Analysis
CDD
FinalUpdateInitialASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateSEP
Prototypingfor design feasibility
MS A MS BTechnology DevelopmentCDD
CTE Risk
ReductionSRR(s) PDR(s)
UpdatedSEP
SRD
Draft RFPfor InitialSystem Dev
JCIDS
FinalSEPISP
PDR Report
User assessment of capability needs
ASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateRFP**
CTEPrototyping
*
TEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
SFR(s)
Sponsor Approved
Execute TechMaturation
UpdateSEP
Preliminary Design***
TechnologyReadiness
InitialTRA
TRA
Engineering OversightEngineering Analysis
CDD
FinalUpdateInitialASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateSEP
61
TD – Engineering Analysis
Develops technical baseline for CARD and program estimate (Certification requirement)
Results… Drive the technical aspects of program:
Systems Requirement Document, SEP and TEMP
Provide the technical foundation for draft Acquisition Strategy, Initial end-item RFP, cost estimates, and APB
Assesses CTE/ prototyping results against required requirements
Refines system requirements based on technology maturation results
Collaborates with Users to balance CDD requirements with solutions’ technology maturity
Prototypingfor design feasibility
MS A MS BTechnology DevelopmentCDD
CTE Risk
ReductionSRR(s) PDR(s)
UpdatedSEP
SRD
Draft RFPfor InitialSystem Dev
JCIDS
FinalSEPISP
PDR Report
User assessment of capability needs
ASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateRFP**
CTEPrototyping
*
TEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
SFR(s)
Sponsor Approved
Execute TechMaturation
UpdateSEP
Preliminary Design***
TechnologyReadiness
InitialTRA
TRA
Engineering OversightEngineering Analysis
CDD
FinalUpdateInitialASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateSEP
Prototypingfor design feasibility
MS A MS BTechnology DevelopmentCDD
CTE Risk
ReductionSRR(s) PDR(s)
UpdatedSEP
SRD
Draft RFPfor InitialSystem Dev
JCIDS
FinalSEPISP
PDR Report
User assessment of capability needs
ASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateRFP**
CTEPrototyping
*
TEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
SFR(s)
Sponsor Approved
Execute TechMaturation
UpdateSEP
Preliminary Design***
TechnologyReadiness
InitialTRA
TRA
Engineering OversightEngineering Analysis
CDD
FinalUpdateInitialASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateSEP
62
TD – Interim Products
Interim products provide basis for initial end item design Sponsor-approved CDD Updated TEMP Initial Acquisition Strategy and cost estimates Preliminary APB Preliminary program total ownership costs and plan for
evolutionary acquisition increments
Prototypingfor design feasibility
MS A MS BTechnology DevelopmentCDD
CTE Risk
ReductionSRR(s) PDR(s)
UpdatedSEP
SRD
Draft RFPfor InitialSystem Dev
JCIDS
FinalSEPISP
PDR Report
User assessment of capability needs
ASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateRFP**
CTEPrototyping
*
TEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
SFR(s)
Sponsor Approved
Execute TechMaturation
UpdateSEP
Preliminary Design***
TechnologyReadiness
InitialTRA
TRA
Engineering OversightEngineering Analysis
CDD
FinalUpdateInitialASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateSEP
Prototypingfor design feasibility
MS A MS BTechnology DevelopmentCDD
CTE Risk
ReductionSRR(s) PDR(s)
UpdatedSEP
SRD
Draft RFPfor InitialSystem Dev
JCIDS
FinalSEPISP
PDR Report
User assessment of capability needs
ASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateRFP**
CTEPrototyping
*
TEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
SFR(s)
Sponsor Approved
Execute TechMaturation
UpdateSEP
Preliminary Design***
TechnologyReadiness
InitialTRA
TRA
Engineering OversightEngineering Analysis
CDD
FinalUpdateInitialASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateSEP
63
TD – Initial End Item Design(s)
Multiple design competitors including prototypes (as required)
Technical reviews’ products per SEP (e.g.: requirements tradeoffs, trade
studies, design alternatives, and prototyping results)
Greater understanding of achievable system performance
Risk reduction via HW and SW design maturation (engineering and manufacturing)
Engineering oversight and insight via IPTs
Interaction with user community and stakeholders to ensure shared understanding of technical feasibility
Prototypingfor design feasibility
MS A MS BTechnology DevelopmentCDD
CTE Risk
ReductionSRR(s) PDR(s)
UpdatedSEP
SRD
Draft RFPfor InitialSystem Dev
JCIDS
FinalSEPISP
PDR Report
User assessment of capability needs
ASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateRFP**
CTEPrototyping
*
TEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
SFR(s)
Sponsor Approved
Execute TechMaturation
UpdateSEP
Preliminary Design***
TechnologyReadiness
InitialTRA
TRA
Engineering OversightEngineering Analysis
CDD
FinalUpdateInitialASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateSEP
Prototypingfor design feasibility
MS A MS BTechnology DevelopmentCDD
CTE Risk
ReductionSRR(s) PDR(s)
UpdatedSEP
SRD
Draft RFPfor InitialSystem Dev
JCIDS
FinalSEPISP
PDR Report
User assessment of capability needs
ASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateRFP**
CTEPrototyping
*
TEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
SFR(s)
Sponsor Approved
Execute TechMaturation
UpdateSEP
Preliminary Design***
TechnologyReadiness
InitialTRA
TRA
Engineering OversightEngineering Analysis
CDD
FinalUpdateInitialASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateSEP
64
TD – Products
PDR Report to MDA (new in 5000.02) PM Assessment Final CDD reflecting a feasible, affordable
increment of development Acquisition Strategy, next increment’s APB &
CARD, and full funding requirement
Business Case Analysis EMD RFP or post PDR
contract(s) execution Technical plans: SEP, TEMP,
Information Support Plan (ISP), etc.
Design results inform final Milestone B products:
Prototypingfor design feasibility
MS A MS BTechnology DevelopmentCDD
CTE Risk
ReductionSRR(s) PDR(s)
UpdatedSEP
SRD
Draft RFPfor InitialSystem Dev
JCIDS
FinalSEPISP
PDR Report
User assessment of capability needs
ASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateRFP**
CTEPrototyping
*
TEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
SFR(s)
Sponsor Approved
Execute TechMaturation
UpdateSEP
Preliminary Design***
TechnologyReadiness
InitialTRA
TRA
Engineering OversightEngineering Analysis
CDD
FinalUpdateInitialASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateSEP
Prototypingfor design feasibility
MS A MS BTechnology DevelopmentCDD
CTE Risk
ReductionSRR(s) PDR(s)
UpdatedSEP
SRD
Draft RFPfor InitialSystem Dev
JCIDS
FinalSEPISP
PDR Report
User assessment of capability needs
ASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateRFP**
CTEPrototyping
*
TEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
SFR(s)
Sponsor Approved
Execute TechMaturation
UpdateSEP
Preliminary Design***
TechnologyReadiness
InitialTRA
TRA
Engineering OversightEngineering Analysis
CDD
FinalUpdateInitialASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateSEP
65
TD – PM Questions
Role of industry in TD? Relationship to JCIDS? PDR before B
Impact of time delay between PDR and MS B? Contracting implications for EMD? What requirements are in the RFP for initial designs? Timing and basis for Source Selection?
Prototypingfor design feasibility
MS A MS BTechnology DevelopmentCDD
CTE Risk
ReductionSRR(s) PDR(s)
UpdatedSEP
SRD
Draft RFPfor InitialSystem Dev
JCIDS
FinalSEPISP
PDR Report
User assessment of capability needs
ASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateRFP**
CTEPrototyping
*
TEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
SFR(s)
Sponsor Approved
Execute TechMaturation
UpdateSEP
Preliminary Design***
TechnologyReadiness
InitialTRA
TRA
Engineering OversightEngineering Analysis
CDD
FinalUpdateInitialASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateSEP
Prototypingfor design feasibility
MS A MS BTechnology DevelopmentCDD
CTE Risk
ReductionSRR(s) PDR(s)
UpdatedSEP
SRD
Draft RFPfor InitialSystem Dev
JCIDS
FinalSEPISP
PDR Report
User assessment of capability needs
ASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateRFP**
CTEPrototyping
*
TEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
SFR(s)
Sponsor Approved
Execute TechMaturation
UpdateSEP
Preliminary Design***
TechnologyReadiness
InitialTRA
TRA
Engineering OversightEngineering Analysis
CDD
FinalUpdateInitialASTEMPCARD/ICECCEAPB
UpdateSEP
66
Requirement CommentReference
Data ManagementStrategy
10 USC 2320
Military Equipment Program Valuation
PL 101-576 &Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards, No 6
WhenRequired
MS A, B, C, & FRPDR
MS C &FRPDR (orequivalent)
Part of TDS or Acq Strategy
Part of AcquisitionStrategy
Enclosure 4, Table 2-1
Statutory Requirements Added For MDAPs & MAISStatutory Requirements Added For MDAPs & MAIS
Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)
10 USC 2366aTitle 40, Sec III
MS A, B, C, &Program Initiation for Ships
Updated as necessary at MS B and C
67
Requirement CommentReference
MDA Program Certification
10 USC 2366 a & b
WhenRequired
MS A & B MS C (if program initiation)
Nunn-McCurdy Assessment and Certification
10 USC 2433 When Service Secretary reports an increase in cost that equals or exceeds the critical cost threshold
Increase of 25% over “current” PAUC or APUC APB values; Increase of 50% over “original” PAUC or APUC APB values
Replaced System Sustainment Plan
10 USC 2437 MS B; ProgramInitiation for Ships
Requires cost estimate at MS A
Statutory Requirements Added For MDAPs OnlyStatutory Requirements Added For MDAPs Only
Enclosure 4, Table 2-1
68
Requirement CommentReferenceWhen
Required
Notification of a Significant Change to the Defense Committees
10 USC 2445c NLT 45 days after receiving MAIS Quarterly Report indicating a Significant Change
Schedule change of more than 6 mos, but less than 1 year; increase in development cost or life cycle cost of at least 15% but less than 25%; or significant adverse change in expected performance
Assessment and certification of a Critical Change to the Defense Committees
10 USC 2445c NLT 60 days after receiving a MAIS Quarterly Report indicating a Critical Change
Failed to achieve IOC w/in 5 years after funds were first obligated; schedule change of 1 yr or more; increase in dev cost or life cycle cost of 25% or more; or a change in expected performance that undermines ability of sys to perform anticipated functions
Enclosure 4, Table 2-1
Statutory Requirements Added For MAIS OnlyStatutory Requirements Added For MAIS Only
DoD CIO Confirmation of CCA Compliance
Sec 811, PL 106-398
MS A, B, C, & Full Deployment Decision Review
MS C if program initiation or equiv to Full Deployment Decision Review
69
Requirement CommentReference
Notice of MAIS Cancellation or Significant Reduction in Scope
Sec 806, PL 109-163
WhenRequired
60 days prior to MDA decision to cancel or significantly reduce scope of fielded or post-MS C MAIS program
MAIS Annual Report to Congress
10 USC 2445b Annually, after first occurrence of any of the following events: MDA designation, MS A or MS B
MAIS Quarterly Report 10 USC 2445c Quarterly following initial submission of a MAIS Annual Report
DBSMC Certification for Business Systems Modernization
10 USC 2222 Prior to obligation of funds
See Encl. 11, DoDI 5000.02
Enclosure 4, Table 2-1
Statutory Requirements Added For MAIS Only, Statutory Requirements Added For MAIS Only, continued…continued…
Due 45 days after the President’s Budget is submitted to Congress
70
Statutory Requirements Added For ACAT II and Below ProgramsStatutory Requirements Added For ACAT II and Below Programs (unless otherwise noted)(unless otherwise noted)
Requirement CommentReference
Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) – all IT including NSS
40 USC Subtitle III
WhenRequired
MS A, B, & C
Data ManagementStrategy (ACAT II only)
10 USC 2320
Military Equipment Program Valuation
PL 101-576 &Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards, No 6
MS B, C, & FRPDR
MS C &FRPDR (orequivalent)
Part of AcqStrategy
Part of AcquisitionStrategy
LRIP Quantities (ACAT II only)
10 USC 2400 MS B
Enclosure 4, Table 2-2
Updated as necessary at MS B and C
71
Regulatory Requirements Added/Revised For All ProgramsRegulatory Requirements Added/Revised For All Programs(unless otherwise noted)(unless otherwise noted)
Requirement CommentReference When Required
Corrosion Prevention Control Plan
DoDI 5000.67 MS B & C Part of Acq Strategy for ACAT I only
Life Cycle Sustainment Plan
DoDI 5000.02 MS B, C, & FRPDR
Part of Acq Strategy
Acquisition InfoAssurance Strategy
DoDI 8580.1 MS A, B, C, & FRPDR or FDDR
All ITincluding NSS
Life-Cycle Signature Support Plan
DoDD 5250.01 MS A, B, & C
Enclosure 4, Table 3
Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)
DoDI 5000.02 MS A, B, & C FDDR for AIS
Updated as necessary at MS B and C
AoA Study Guidance DoDI 5000.02 MDD
Component Cost Estimate
DoDI 5000.02 MDAP: MS A & B & FRPDR MAIS: whenever an EA is required
Mandatory for MAIS; optional for MDAP
Updated as necessary for MS C
72
Regulatory Requirements Added/Revised For All ProgramsRegulatory Requirements Added/Revised For All Programs(unless otherwise noted)(unless otherwise noted)
Requirement CommentReferenceWhen
Required
Post-Critical Design Review (CDR) Report
DoDI 5000.02 Post-CDRAssessment & ADM
Systems Engineering Plan (SEP)
DoDI 5000.02 MS A, B, & C
DoDI 5000.02 MS A, B, & CIUID Implementation Plan
Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Report
DoDI 5000.02 MS B afterSystem-levelPDR
Enclosure 4, Table 3
Net-Centric Data Strategy
DoDD 8320.02 MS A, B, C, &PI for Ships
May be after MS B – requires a Post-PDR Assessment & ADM
After system-level CDR
Annex to the SEP atMS B and C
Summarized in TDA; detailed in the ISP
73
Requirement CommentReference
System Threat Assessment Report (STAR)
DoDI 5000.02DoDD 5105.21DIA Dir. 5000.200DIA Inst. 5000.002
WhenRequired
Program Deviation Report
DoDI 5000.02 Immediately upon a program deviation
Systems Threat Assessment (STA)
MS B & C
DoDI 5000.02 MS ATest and Evaluation Strategy (TES)
MS B & C &Program Initiation for Ships
ACAT I and all DOT&E Oversight List Programs
DoDI 5000.02DoDD 5105.21DIA Dir. 5000.200DIA Inst. 5000.002
ACAT II
Regulatory Requirements Added/Revised For All ProgramsRegulatory Requirements Added/Revised For All Programs(unless otherwise noted)(unless otherwise noted)
Enclosure 4, Table 3
APB breaches
Spectrum Supportability Determination
DoDD 4650.1 MS B & C
74
Enclosure 5: IT Considerations . . . changes
“Title 40/CCA” replaces term CCA. Subtitle III of Title 40, US Code was formerly known as Division E of the Clinger-Cohen Act
Table 8 slightly modified for readability:
Added:
Investment Review Board (IRB) role as “OIPT” for MAIS and MDAP business systems
Time-Certain Acquisition of IT Business Systems (No MS A approval unless can achieve IOC within 5 years)
Defense Business System Management Committee (DBSMC) Certification for business systems with modernization funding over $1 million – prior to any milestone or FRP approval
DoD CIO notification to Congress 60 days before any MDA cancels or significantly reduces size of MAIS fielded or post-MC C MAIS program
Revised: Eliminated requirement for DoD CIO certification of CCA compliance.
75
Enclosure 6: Test and Evaluation . . . changes
PM, in concert with user and test community, must provide safety releases to developmental and operational testers prior to any test using personnel
Systems that provide capabilities for joint missions must be tested in joint operational environment
Embedded instrumentation must be developed to facilitate training, logistics support, and combat data collection
Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC), “regardless of ACAT” will provide interoperability test certification memoranda to J-6
At test readiness reviews, PM must ensure impact of all deviations and waivers is considered in decision to proceed to next phase of testing
76
Enclosure 6: Test and Evaluation . . . changesContinued…
OUSD(AT&L), Director, Systems Software and Engineering, will conduct an independent Assessment of Operational Test Readiness (AOTR) for ACAT ID and special interest programs designated by USD(AT&L). CAE will consider AOTR prior to making determination of materiel readiness for IOT&E
OSD T&E Oversight List categories: developmental testing, operational testing, or live fire testing. Programs on list designated for OT or live fire testing will be considered same as MDAPs or “covered programs” and subject to all provisions of Title 10, US Code, and DoDI 5000.02
Force protection equipment (including non-lethal weapons) will be identified as a separate category on OSD T&E Oversight List
77
Enclosure 7: Resource Estimation . . . changes
PMs must use Cost and Software Data Reporting System to report data on contractor costs and resource usage
CARD must reflect program definition achieved during TD phase, be in sync with other program documents, and if PDR is before MS B, the final CARD at MS B must reflect results of the PDR
Fully burdened cost of delivered energy must be used in trade-off analyses for all tactical systems with end items that create a demand for energy
Following areas of assessment added to AoA:
Alternative ways to improve the energy efficiency of DoD tactical systems consistent with mission and cost effectiveness
Appropriate system training to ensure that training is provided with the system
78
Enclosure 8: Human Systems Integration . . . changes
Mix of military, DoD civilian, and contractor support to operate, maintain, and support (including training) a system must be determined based on Manpower Mix Criteria and reported in the Manpower Estimate
Economic analyses to support workforce mix decisions must use tools that account for all variable and fixed costs, compensation and non-compensation costs, current and deferred benefits, cash, and in-kind benefits
Details on Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (ESOH) moved to new Enclosure 12, Systems Engineering
79
Enclosure 9: Acquisition of Services . . . changes
Planning for acquisition of services must consider: Requirements development and management Acquisition planning Solicitation and contract award Risk management Contract tracking and oversight Performance evaluation
Special procedures for IT services that cost over $500M, all services that cost over $1B, and special interest programs designated by ASD(NII), USD(AT&L), or their designees: Senior officials/decision authorities must be notified prior to
issuing final solicitation (briefing or written) ASD(NII)/DoD CIO notifies USD(AT&L) of any proposed
acquisition of IT services over $1B Review by ASD(NII)/USD(AT&L) initiates review of acquisition
strategy – final RFPs cannot be released until approval
80
Enclosure 9: Acquisition of Services . . . changes Continued…
Policy extended to services acquired after program achieves Full Operational Capability (FOC), if those services were not subject to previous milestones
Policy does not apply to R&D activities or services that are approved as part of an acquisition program managed IAW DoDI 5000.02
Senior Officials and decision authorities may apply policy to R&D services at their discretion
SAEs are Senior Officials for acquisition of services
USD(AT&L) is Senior Official for acquisition of services for Components outside of military departments – he may delegate decision authority to commanders/ directors of these components
Independent management reviews (Peer Reviews) required for contracts of $1B or more
81
Acquisition of Services Categories (Table 9)
All dollars in FY 2006 constant year dollars
Category Threshold Decision Authority
Acquisitions > $1B
IT Acquisitions > $500M
Special Interest
Services Category I
Services Category II
Services Category III
Any services acquisition with total estimated cost of $1B or more
USD(AT&L)or designee
IT services with total estimated cost of $500M or more
ASD(NII)/DoD CIO or as designated
Designated by USD(AT&L), ASD(NII)/ DoD CIO, or any Military Department Senior Official
Services estimated to cost $250M or more
Services estimated to cost $10M or more, but less than $250M
Services estimated to cost more than simplified acquisition threshold, but less than $10M
USD(AT&L) orSenior Officials
Senior Officials or as designated
Senior Officials or as designated
Senior Officials or as designated
Enclosure 9: Enclosure 9: Acquisition of Services . . . changes of Services . . . changes Continued…Continued…
82
Enclosure 10: Program Management . . . changes 10: Program Management . . . changes
Requires PMs for ACAT II and other significant non-major programs to be assigned for not less that 3 years
Program Management Agreements (PMAs) implemented to establish “contract” between PM and acquisition and resource officials
Provides that waivers for PM/PEO experience and certifications “should be strictly avoided”
Provides for USD(AT&L) waiver for PEOs to assume other command responsibilities
Adds US-ratified materiel international standardization agreements to consideration for international cooperative programs
83
Enclosure 11: Management of Business Systems (New) 11: Management of Business Systems (New)
Applies to “defense business system” modernizations with total modernization or development funding exceeding $1 million
Defines Defense Business System as an information system, other than a national security system, operated by, for, or on behalf of DoD, including financial management systems, mixed systems, financial data feeder systems, and IT and information assurance infrastructure
Defense Business Systems support activities such as acquisition, financial management, logistics, strategic planning and budgeting, installations and environment, and human resource management
84
Enclosure 11: Management of Business Systems (New) Continued…
Funds cannot be expended until the Defense Business System Management Committee (DBSMC) approves Investment Review Board Certification (IRB) that the system:
Is in compliance with the enterprise architecture; or
Is necessary to achieve a critical national security capability or address a critical requirement in an area such as safety or security; or
Is necessary to prevent a significant adverse impact on a project that is needed to achieve an essential capability
85
Program Manager
(PM)
ComponentPre-CertificationAuthority (PCA)
Investment Review
Board (IRB)
Defense BusinessSystems ManagementCommittee (DBSMC)
MilestoneDecision
Authority (MDA)
CertificationAuthority
(CA)
Business Systems Certification and Approval Process
1. PM completes economic viability review & other plans/analysis as requested by the PCA2. PCA Validates info from PM, forwards certification request to appropriate IRB3. IRB reviews request, IRB chair recommends appropriate approval authority sign
certification memo and request DBSMC approval4. CA sends signed certification memo to DBSMC for approval5. DBSMC Chair approves certification and sends decision to the PM through the PCA6. PM requests MDA conduct milestone review
1 2
3
4
5
65
Enclosure 11: Management of Business Systems (New) Continued…
86
Enclosure 12: Systems Engineering (New)
Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) required at each milestone
MDA is approval authority for the SEP
For programs where USD(AT&L) is MDA and for programs on the DT-only portion of OSD T&E Oversight List, SEPs must be submitted to Director, Systems and Software Engineering 30 days prior to DAB/ITAB review
PEOs must have lead systems engineer – oversees SE across PEO’s portfolio; reviews SEPs; assesses performance of subordinate systems engineers with PEO and PMs
Event-driven technical reviews required – with SMEs independent of program, unless waived by the MDA
Requires configuration management to establish and control product attributes and the technical baseline; at completion of the system-level CDR, PM assumes control of the initial product baseline for all Class 1 configuration changes
Spectrum Supportability determination required
87
Enclosure 12: Systems Engineering (New)Continued…
ESOH risk management required to be integrated with overall SE process; Programmatic ESOH Evaluation (PESHE) required of all programs regardless of ACAT
NEPA and EO 12114 (Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions) analyses required of PM, approved by CAE
Addresses PM support of Mishap Accident Investigations
Requires Corrosion Prevention Control Plan for ACAT I programs at MS B and C
Requires PMs to employ a modular open systems approach to design
Data Management Strategy (DMS) required to assess long-term technical data needs of the system – included in Acquisition Strategy