1. INTRODUCTION.
The Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics Life Cycle Management Framework Chart is a training aid for
Defense Acquisition University (DAU) courses. It serves as a pictorial roadmap
of key activities in the systems acquisition processes. The chart illustrates the
interaction of the three major decision support systems—Capabilities
Development (Joint Capabilities Integration & Development System (JCIDS)),
Acquisition Management (Defense Acquisition System), and the Planning,
Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process. This chart is based on
policies and guidance from the following Department of Defense (DoD)
documents and Web sites:
DoD Directive 5000.1.
The Defense Acquisition System, May 12, 2003
DoD Instruction 5000.2.
Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, May 12, 2003
Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG).
http://akss.dau.mil/dag.
CJCS Instruction 3170.01E.
Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System,
May 11, 2005
CJCS Manual 3170.01B.
Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Develop-
ment System, May 11, 2005
CJCS Instruction 6212.01C.
Interoperability of Information Technology and National
Security Systems, November 20, 2003
The following Internet sites provide additional information:
Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Knowledge Sharing System (AKSS).
http://akss.dau.mil
. The AKSS provides links to mandatory and discretionary
information and best practices for defense acquisition.
Acquisition Community Connection (ACC).
http://acc.dau.mil
ACC provides informa-
tion on acquisition, technology and logistics processes. ACC has links to
acquisition-related Communities of Practice, other special interest areas, and
to the DAU Continuous Learning Center.
DAU Continuous Learning Center (CLC).
http://clc.dau.mil
. The CLC provides access to
lessons for professional development and current information on new
initiatives.
Defense Acquisition Policy Center.
http://akss.dau.mil/dapc/index.html
. The acquisition
policy center provides a tutorial, a multi-media JCIDS presentation, and copies
of the latest Service DoD 5000 and CJCS 3170 policy documents.
2. ACQUISITION PROCESS.
The acquisition process is structured by
DoDI 5000.2 into discrete phases separated by major decision points (called
milestones or decision reviews) with a number of key activities to provide the
basis for comprehensive management and informed decision making. The
number of phases and decision points are tailored to meet the specific needs
of individual programs. This is called the “Defense Acquisition Management
Framework” and is illustrated on the front of this chart.
The acquisition process begins with the identification of a capability need
that requires a materiel solution. The process encompasses the activities of
design, fabrication, test, manufacture, operations and support. It may involve
modifications, and it ends with disposal/recycling/demilitarization. Major
upgrade or modification programs may also follow the acquisition life cycle
process.
The policies and principles that govern the operation of the defense acquisi-
tion system are divided into five major categories as stated in DoDD 5000.1: 1)
Flexibility—tailoring program strategies and oversight, 2) Responsiveness—
rapid integration of advanced technologies through evolutionary acquisition,
3) Innovation—adoption of practices that reduce cost and cycle time, 4)
Discipline—use of program baseline parameters as control objectives, and 5)
Effective Management—decentralization to the extent practicable.
DoD Components first try to satisfy capability needs through non-materiel
solutions such as changes in doctrine or tactics. If existing U.S. military
systems or other on-hand materiel cannot be economically used or modified
to meet the warfighter’s need, a materiel solution may be pursued according
to the following hierarchy of alternatives:
• Procurement (including modification) of commercially available domestic or
international technologies, systems or equipment, or allied systems or
equipment
• Additional production or modification of previously developed U.S. and/or
allied military systems or equipment
• Cooperative development program with one or more allied nations
• New joint, DoD Component, or Government Agency development program
• New DoD Component-unique development program.
A list of program information requirements to ensure informed decision making
is found in Enclosure 3, DoDI 5000.2. The Milestone Decision Authority may
tailor this information based on program needs, but normally may not omit
documents required by statute or mandatory policy without a waiver (e.g.,
Acquisition Program Baseline or Initial Capabilities Document). Figure 1 is a
simplified chart of information required at milestones and other decision
reviews.
Other periodic reports:
Defense Acquisition Executive Summary (DAES) Report.
ACAT I and IAM programs.
Quarterly. Also upon POM and BES submission. For ACAT I only—upon
UCR breach.
Selected Acquisition Report (SAR).
ACAT I only. Submitted at Program Initiation
for Ships, Milestone B, and annually thereafter. End of quarter following
Milestone C, Full-Rate Production Decision Review (FRPDR), and for a
baseline breach.
Unit Cost Report (UCR).
ACAT I only. Quarterly as part of the Defense Acquisi-
tion Executive Summary (DAES) report.
Electronic Warfare (EW) Test and Evaluation Report.
Annually for all EW programs
on the OSD T&E Oversight List.
Program Deviation Report.
ACAT I and IAM only. Immediately upon determina-
tion of a potential baseline breach using the format provided in the DAES
report.
Earned Value Management System (EVMS)
reports. See ANS/EIA748, and the
Defense Acquisition Guidebook.
Contractor Cost Data Reports (CCDR).
See DoDI 5000.2, encl. 3.
Software Resources Data Report (SRDR).
See DoDI 5000.2, encl. 3.
3. MANAGEMENT OF THE ACQUISITION PROCESS.
The person responsible for ensuring the acquisition management framework
activities result in fulfilling the warfighter’s need is the Program Manager (PM).
The PM is also the single point of accountability for accomplishing program
objectives for Total Life Cycle Systems Management, including sustainment.
The PM is responsible for the entire system life cycle (design to disposal) and
must consider supportability, life cycle costs, performance, and schedule in
making program decisions. Each defense acquisition program is assigned a PM
in accordance with DoD and Component policy. The primary program
management activities follow:
Planning.
One of the first planning activities is the development of an acquisi-
tion strategy (see the Defense Acquisition Guidebook), an overarching plan that
serves as a roadmap for program execution from program initiation through
post-production support. It describes how the program will accomplish its
objectives in terms of (among others) cost, schedule, performance, risk, and
contracting activities.
• ACAT I and IA Programs normally provide information on the strategy
elements as noted in Figure 2. The PM may choose to develop the acquisi-
tion strategy as a stand-alone document or as part of a multipurpose
document (e.g., an Army Modified Integrated Program Summary, a Navy
Master Acquisition Program Plan, or an Air Force Single Acquisition
Management Plan). Each program’s acquisition strategy is tailored to meet
the specific needs and circumstances of the program.
• There are two basic strategy approaches — Evolutionary and Single Step to
Full Capability. Evolutionary is the preferred approach and delivers an
initial capability with the explicit intent of delivering future improved
capability. The two approaches to achieve evolutionary acquisition are
Spiral Development and Incremental Development.
Organizing and Staffing.
The establishment, organization, and staffing of the
program office should be a direct outgrowth of a task analysis that supports
the program’s acquisition strategy. As the program evolves, the program
office organization and staffing should evolve to support the changing task
requirements and acquisition environment.
Controlling.
The control system consists of standards against which progress
can be measured, a feedback mechanism that provides information to a
decision maker, and a means to make corrections either to the actions
underway or to the standards. Examples of standards include the Acquisi-
tion Program Baseline, exit criteria, program schedules, program budgets,
specifications, plans and test criteria. Examples of feedback mechanisms for
program control, oversight, and risk management include the Joint Require-
ments Oversight Council, Overarching Integrated Product Team, Defense
Acquisition Board, Information Technology Acquisition Board, Defense
Space Acquisition Board, Integrated Baseline Review, technical reviews, and
developmental and operational test and evaluation.
Leading.
Effective leadership is the key to program success. It involves devel-
oping an organization’s mission, vision, and goals, and clearly articulating a
set of core values. Dominant Leadership roles in program management
include strategy setting, consensus/team building, systems integration, and
change management. For successful teams, factors such as empowerment,
clear purpose, open communication, adequate resources, and a team-
oriented behavioral environment are critical.
4. JOINT CAPABILITIES INTEGRATION AND
DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM (JCIDS). JCIDS replaced the Requirements
Generation System (RGS) in 2003.
JCIDS is one of the three principal decision
support processes for transforming the military forces according to the future
DoD vision. The procedures established in the JCIDS support the Chairman,
Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council in identify-
ing, assessing and prioritizing joint military capability needs. These needs are
reflected in a series of documents that support the acquisition process:
• Initial Capabilities Document (ICD).
A document that describes the need for a
materiel approach to a specific capability gap derived from an initial
analysis of materiel approaches. The ICD defines the capability gap in
terms of the functional area, the relevant range of military operations,
desired effects and time. It summarizes the results of the Doctrine, Organi-
zation, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel and
Facilities (DOTMLPF) analysis and describes why non-materiel changes
alone are not adequate to fully provide the capability. The ICD supports the
Concept Decision and Milestone A.
• Capability Development Document (CDD)
. A document that captures the
information necessary to develop a proposed program, normally using an
evolutionary acquisition strategy. The CDD outlines an affordable incre-
ment of militarily useful, logistically supportable and technically mature
capability. The CDD supports program initiation at Milestone B.
• Capability Production Document (CPD).
A document that addresses the
production elements specific to a single increment of an acquisition
program. The CPD supports Milestone C.
• Joint Capability Document (JCD).
The JCD identifies a set of capabilities that
supports a defined mission area as identified in the Family of Joint Future
Concepts, concept of operations (CONOPS) or Unified Command Plan –
assigned missions. The JCD will be used as a baseline for one or more
initial capabilities documents or joint DOTMLPF change recommenda-
tions, but cannot be used for the development of capability development or
capability production documents.
JCIDS Analyses.
The JCIDS analysis process is a four-step methodology that
defines capability gaps, capability needs and approaches to provide those
capabilities within a specified functional or operational area. Based on
national defense policy and centered on a common joint warfighting con-
struct, the analyses initiate the development of integrated, joint capabilities
from a common understanding of existing joint force operations and
DOTMLPF capabilities and deficiencies. See upper left front of chart. The
different types of JCIDS analyses are defined in Figure 4.
DOTMLPF Change Recommendation (DCR).
A document which focuses on
changes that are primarily non-materiel in nature, although there
may be some associated materiel changes (additional numbers
of existing commercial or non-developmental) required.
DCRs are normally referred to as “non-materiel” solu-
tions, while acquisition programs are referred to as
“materiel” solutions.
Military Utility Assessment (MUA).
Replaces the ICD for
an ACTD or ATD, and guides development of
CDD and CPD for these efforts.
Interoperability.
The policies for interoperability
are found in CJCSI 3170.01E, JCIDS, and
CJCSI 6212.01C, Interoperability of
Information Technology (IT) and
National Security Systems (NSS). The
following are key aspects of this
policy:
• Global Information Grid
(GIG).
The globally
interconnected, end-to-
end set of information
capabilities associated
processes and personnel
for collecting, processing,
storing, disseminating, and
managing information on demand to warfighters, policy makers, and
support personnel. The GIG includes all owned and leased communica-
tions and computing systems and services, software, data, security serv-
ices, and other associated services necessary to achieve information
superiority.
• Information Exchange Requirements (IERs)
characterize the information
exchanges to be performed by the proposed system(s). For CDDs, top-level
IERs are those information exchanges that are between systems of combat-
ant command/
Service/agency, allied, and coalition partners. For CPDs, top-level IERs are
those information exchanges that are external to the system with other
commands/Services/agencies, allied, and coalition systems. IERs identify
who exchanges what information with whom, why the information is
necessary, and how the exchange must occur.
• Integrated Architectures
have multiple views or perspectives (Operational
View, Systems View, and Technical Standards View) that facilitate integra-
tion and promote interoperability across family-of-systems and system-of-
systems and compatibility among related architectures. The linkages
among the views of an integrated architecture are illustrated by Figure 5.
The operational architecture
view is a description of the tasks and activities,
operational elements, and information flows required to accomplish or
support a warfighting function.
The systems architecture view
is a description, including graphics, of systems and
interconnections providing for, or supporting, warfighting functions.
The technical standards architecture view
is the minimal set of rules
governing the arrangement, interaction, and interdependence of
system parts or elements, whose purpose is to ensure that a
conforming system satisfies a specified set of requirements.
J-6 Interoperability and Supportability Certification.
The Joint
Staff, J-6 will certify interoperability and supportability
requirements for JCIDS documents (CDD and CPD),
and the Information Support Plan (ISP), regardless of
ACAT level, for conformance with joint IT and NSS
policy and doctrine and interoperability stan-
dards.
• J-6 Supportability Certification.
The J-6
certifies to OASD(NII) that programs,
regardless of ACAT, adequately address
IT and NSS infrastructure require-
ments. This includes availability
of bandwidth and spectrum
support, funding and person-
nel, and identifying dependen-
cies and interface requirements
between systems. As part of
the review process, J-6 requests
supportability assessments from
DISA and DoD agencies.
• J-6 Interoperability System Validation v
alidates the DISA/Joint Interoperability
Test Command (JITC) interoperability system test certification, which is based
upon a joint-certified NR-KPP, approved in the CDD and CPD. Validation
occurs after receipt and analysis of the JITC interoperability system test
certification.
Levels of Information System Interoperability (LISI)
is a model used to gain a figure
of interoperability between systems. Within LISI, systems are evaluated by
their use, application, sharing, and/or exchange of common procedures,
software applications, infrastructure, and data. The resultant value indicates
interoperable maturity levels: Isolated (0), Connected (1), Functional (2),
Domain (3), and Enterprise (4).
Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter (NR-KPP)
assesses information needs,
timeliness, assurance, and net-ready attributes required for both the technical
exchange of information and the end-to-end operational effectiveness of that
exchange. NR-KPP consists of verifiable performance measures and associ-
ated metrics required to evaluate the timely, accurate, and complete exchange
and use of information to satisfy information needs for a given capability. The
NR-KPP is comprised of the following elements: 1. Compliance with the Net-
Centric Operations and Warfare (NCOW) Reference Model (RM), 2. Compli-
ance with applicable GIG Key Interface Profiles (KIPs), 3. Verification of
compliance with DoD information assurance requirements, and 4. Alignment
with supporting integrated architecture products required to assess informa-
tion exchange and use for a given capability.
5. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) & NATIONAL
SECURITY SYSTEMS (NSS).
Software components of defense
systems should be tightly linked to and managed as an inherent part of the
overall systems engineering processes. Software-specific considerations are:
• Ensuring that software technologies and complex algorithms are matured
prior to Milestone B.
• Careful consideration of COTS capabilities & licensing. For COTS IT solu-
tions, specific plans by phase are required. Additionally, use of the DoD
Enterprise Software Initiative and “SmartBUY” is required for commercial
software purchases whenever appropriate.
• Exploiting software reuse wherever feasible.
• Selecting contractors with systems domain experience, successful past-
performance, and mature development capabilities and processes.
• Use of DoD standard data IAW DoDD 8320.1 and compliance with the DoD
Net-Centric Data Strategy.
• Early planning for transition to software support.
• Designing extensible and modular software so as to better support incremen-
tal life cycle product upgrades
• Evaluating programming languages used in the context of their life cycle
costs, support risks, and interoperability.
• Describing, as part of the Acquisition Strategy, the use of independent expert
reviews for all ACAT I thru ACAT III software-intensive programs after MS B
and prior to Critical Design Review (CDR).
• Emphasis on Information Assurance (IA) considerations throughout the life
cycle including certification of foreign nationals who work on key defense
system software. Other detailed mandatory IAconsiderations required by life
cycle phase include development of an IA Strategy. Details of the DoD IT
Security Certification & Accreditation Process (DITSCAP) can be found in
DoD S-3600.1, DoDD 8500.1, DoDI 8580.1, and DoDI 5200.40.
• Other IT & NSS Management Considerations. Defense systems must be
inherently joint and network-centric; as such, IT is an inherent enabler of
net-centricity. Additionally a number of legal and regulatory considerations
apply to IT and NSS systems. These considerations include:
• The GIG (mentioned earlier) [DoDD 8100.1] is the organizing and trans-
forming construct for managing IT throughout the DoD.
• A Net-Centric Operations and Warfare Reference Model (NCOW RM) plus
an associated NCOW checklist provide the means to formally assess a
program’s transition to a net-centric, GIG-compliant architecture and is one
element of the Net-Ready KPP.
• Enterprise and domain-specific architectures are key to achieving scalable
and interoperable IT systems. Use of the DoD Architecture Framework
(DoDAF), which requires programs to document their architectures in a
series of specially formatted “views” (operational, systems, and technical),
produced at various points in a program’s life cycle is mandatory.
• Collections of standards that the DoD has selected as key to facilitating
system interoperability have been collected into an online tool, the DoD IT
Standards Registry (DISR), which has subsumed the Joint Technical Archi-
tecture (JTA).
• The Business Modernization Management Program (BMMP) and certifica-
tion of compliance with its associated Business Enterprise Architecture
(BEA) is legally required for some categories of IT systems.
• AoAs for MAIS typically focus on economic alternatives and are not
scenario-driven as for weapons systems. Details can be found in the Defense
Acquisition Guidebook.
• The Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) applies to all federal IT and NSS acquisitions.
5000-series processes are inherently CCA-compliant. Formal certification of
compliance by MS phase is required for all programs including formal
notification to Congress IAW Public Law 108-87. Additionally, PMs are
responsible for entering key parameters of their projects into the DoD IT
Registry, an online reporting system.
• A special Software Resources Data Report (SRDR) is required for high-cost
ACAT I and IA programs. CARD tailoring is typically required for MAIS as
well.
• For IT systems, modular contracting IAW FAR 39.103 should be applied to
the maximum extent possible.
• A Post-Implementation Review (PIR), equivalent to Post Deployment
Performance Review (PDPR), is required to assess how well actual program
results have met established performance objectives for any acquisition
program.
• For Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems, an online Enterprise
Integration Toolkit (EIT) (
http://www.eitoolkit.com
) contains templates, a
tailored acquisition life cycle, best practices, and collections of reusable
artifacts applicable to ERP development, and is recommended for use by
ERP projects.
6. EARNED VALUE.
The use of an integrated management system to
coordinate work scope, schedule, and cost goals, and objectively measure
demonstrated progress toward those goals. (see ANSI/EIA-748)
Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS).
Management standards that are used
to evaluate an organization’s integrated management systems. Some of the
elements of EVMS include:
Cost Performance Report (CPR).
An objective summary of contract status that
includes the following:
•
Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled (BCWS).
Value of work scheduled in
budget terms.
•
Budgeted Cost of Work Performed (BCWP).
Value of work completed
in budget terms.
•
Actual Cost of Work Performed (ACWP).
Cost of work completed.
Cost/Schedule Status Report (C/SSR).
A reasonably objective, but less detailed,
summary of contract status in terms of BCWS, BCWP, and ACWP.
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS).
A product-oriented family tree composed of
hardware, software, services, and data, which comprise the entire work effort
under a program. See MIL-HDBK-881.
Integrated Baseline Review (IBR).
A joint Government/Contractor assessment of
the performance measurement baseline (PMB). The IBR is led by the Govern-
ment PM within six months of contract award.
7. CONTRACTING.
Acquisition Plan.
A formal written document reflecting the specific actions
necessary to execute the approach established in the approved acquisition
strategy and guiding contractual implementation. (FAR Subpart 7.1 and
DFARS Subpart 207.1)
Source Selection Plan (SSP).
Explains the source selection process for a particular
acquisition. Typically, the SSP consists of two parts. The first part describes
the organization and responsibilities of the source selection team. The second
part identifies the evaluation criteria and detailed procedures for proposal
evaluation.
A Draft Request for Proposal (RFP) and Pre-solicitation Conferences.
Used to ensure
that the requirements are understood by industry. Open and honest feedback
is essential.
Request for Proposal (RFP).
Used in negotiated
acquisitions to communicate the govern-
ment’s requirements and to solicit proposals.
Request for Information (RFI).
May be used when
the Government does not presently intend to
award a contract, but wants to obtain price,
delivery, and other market information or
capabilities for planning purposes. Responses
to these notices are not offers and cannot be
accepted by the Government to form a
binding contract. There is no required format for RFIs.
Contract Management
is the process of systematically planning, organizing,
executing, and controlling the mutually binding legal relationship obligating
the seller to furnish supplies and/or services and the buyer to pay for them.
Contract.
The formal written agreement between the government and industry.
See Figure 6 for the characteristics of the most common contract types. Figure
7 illustrates the most likely contract type for each phase of the acquisition
process.
Performance Based Contracting
describes the work requirements in terms of
outcomes (what the contractor must accomplish) rather than inputs or
processes the contractor must provide. Performance-based requirements get
the Government out of the “how to” business and into the “what we need” or
system output business.
Statement of Work (SOW); Statement of Objectives (SOO); Performance Work
Statement (PWS) System Specification; Contract Data Requirement List (CDRL)
.
Documents contained in the solicitation to industry (RFP) that define contrac-
tual requirements:
Statement of Work (SOW)
details the work the contractor will perform and,
when necessary, specifies how the work is to be performed.
Statement of Objective (SOO)
Performance-based broad objectives of the
product/service. The SOO contains top-level objectives of the program and
is usually one to two pages. The contractor is tasked in the RFP to provide
a Performance Work Statement (PWS) or a Statement of Work (SOW) in
response to the SOO.
Performance Work Statement (PWS)
specifies what outcomes the Government
wants but does not dictate
HOW
the work will be performed. This allows
the contractor to use innovation in the design, development, and manufac-
turing of the product. DoD prefers the use of a PWS over an SOW.
System Specification
sets forth the technical performance requirements the
system must achieve (what the system will do).
Contract Data Requirement List (CDRL), DD Form 1423
is a requirement identified
in the solicitation and imposed in a contract that lists contract data require-
ments that are authorized for a specific acquisition.
Cost Type Contract.
A family of cost-reimbursement type contracts, where the
government pays the cost (subject to specified limitations) and the contractor
provides “best efforts.” This type may provide for payment of a fee that may
consist of an award fee, incentive fee, or fixed fee, or combinations of the three
fee types. The government assumes most of the cost risk in this type of
contract.
Engineering Change Proposal (ECP).
A formal document used to make engineering
changes to configuration management baselines. ECPs are implemented by
contract modification(s).
Fixed Price Type Contract: Firm Fixed Price (FFP) or Fixed Price Incentive Firm (FPI(F)).
A family of fixed-price type contracts where the government pays a price that
is subject to specified provisions, and the contractor delivers a product or
service. This type may provide for payment of incentives or other sharing
arrangements. The contractor bears most of the cost risk in this type of
contract.
8. COST ESTIMATING AND FUNDING.
Government Budget Plan
. The generic title for an internal government document
that plans the long-range budgeting strategy for the life of a given program.
Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) Process.
The PPBE Process
is a time-driven resource allocation process to request funding for all opera-
tions, including weapon system development and acquisition. It is essential to
convert each program’s event-driven acquisi-
tion strategy and phasing into the PPBE Process
calendar-driven funding profiles to assure the
appropriate amount and type of funds are
available to execute the desired program.
Planning.
In the first year of a new President’s
administration, a National Security Strategy
(NSS) is issued. A Quadrennial Defense Report
(QDR) is due concurrently with the President’s
budget to Congress in the 2nd year of a new
administration. The Strategic Planning Guid-
ance (SPG) and Joint Programming Guidance (JPG)—established in “on-
years” (even-numbered calendar years)—set forth broad policy objectives and
military strategy, and provide programming guidance for the Program
Objectives Memorandum (POM). In “off-years” (odd-numbered calendar
years), the SPG and JPG are issued at the discretion of the SECDEF.
Programming.
The POM, developed by DoD Components, and Program Deci-
sion Memoranda (PDM), issued by OSD, are the keystone documents com-
pleted in this phase. The POM provides strategies for Components to meet
DoD objectives outlined in the JPG. The POM is reviewed by staff officers of
the Secretary of Defense, the Commanders of the Unified Commands, and the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. The reviews highlight major program issues and alterna-
tives. The Deputy Secretary of Defense reviews the POM issues and decides
on the appropriate course of action. The decisions are documented in the
PDM(s). In odd (i.e., off) years, the Director, PA&E will provide guidance for
program adjustments in lieu of a complete POM.
Budgeting.
The Budget Estimate Submission (BES) reflects the first one or two
years of the POM. The BES is reviewed by the Under Secretary of Defense
Comptroller, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for execution
feasibility. Funding changes that are due to execution issues are identified in
Program Budget Decisions (PBDs). The updated BES is forwarded to OMB
and incorporated into the President’s Budget. The President’s Budget is due
to Congress no later than the first Monday in February. In odd (i.e., off) years,
the USD (Comptroller) will provide guidance to the previous on-year budget
baseline in lieu of a complete BES.
Execution Review.
Concurrent with the preparation of the POM/BES, “execu-
tion” reviews take place in which the DoD evaluates actual output against
planned performance and adjusts resources as appropriate.
Enactment
. The process that the Congress uses to develop and pass the Autho-
rization and Appropriations Bills. In the enactment process, the DoD has an
opportunity to work with the Congress and defend the President’s Budget.
Funding Appropriation Types:
• RDT&E Budget Activities:
1. Basic Research
includes all efforts and experimentation directed toward
increasing fundamental knowledge and understanding in those fields of
the physical, engineering, environmental, and life sciences related to long-
term national security needs.
2. Applied Research
translates promising basic research into solutions for
broadly defined military needs, short of development projects. This type of
effort may vary from systematic mission-directed research, which is
beyond that in Budget Activity 1, to sophisticated breadboard hardware,
study, programming, and planning efforts that establish the initial feasibil-
ity and practicality of proposed solutions to technological challenges. These
funds are normally applied during Concept Refinement.
3. Advanced Technology Development
includes all efforts that have moved into
the development and integration of hardware for field experiments and
tests. The results of this type of effort are proof of technological feasibility
and assessment of operability and producibility rather than the develop-
ment of hardware for service use. These funds are normally applied during
Technology Development.
4. Advanced Component Development & Prototypes
includes all efforts necessary
to evaluate integrated technologies in as realistic an operating environment
as possible to assess the performance or cost reduction potential of
advanced technology. These funds are normally applied during Technol-
ogy Development, but could be applied throughout the life cycle.
5. System Development & Demonstration
includes those projects in System
Development & Demonstration but not yet approved for low-rate initial
production at MS C. These funds are normally applied during the System
Development and Demonstration Phase of the life cycle.
6. RDT&E Management Support
includes test and other types of R&D support.
These funds are used to support development efforts throughout the life
cycle.
7. Operational Systems Development
includes modifications and upgrades to
operational systems.
• Procurement
is used to finance investment items, and should cover all costs
integral and necessary to deliver a useful end item intended for operational
use or inventory.
• Military Construction (MILCON)
funds the cost of major construction projects
such as facilities. Project costs include architecture and engineering services,
construction design, real property acquisition costs, and land acquisition costs
necessary to complete the construction project.
• Military Personnel (MILPERS)
funds the costs of salaries and compensation for
active military and National Guard personnel as well as personnel-related
expenses such as costs associated with permanent change of duty station
(PCS), training in conjunction with PCS moves, subsistence, temporary
lodging, bonuses, and retired pay accrual.
• Operations and Maintenance (O&M) f
inances those things that derive benefits
for a limited period of time, i.e., expenses, rather than investments. Examples
are Headquarters operations, civilian salaries, travel, fuel, minor construction
projects of $500K or less, expenses of operational military forces, training and
education, recruiting, depot maintenance, purchases from Defense Working
Capital Funds, and base operations support.
Cost Estimating
is a realistic appraisal of the level of cost most likely to be
realized. Types of cost estimating are analogy, parametric, engineering, and
extrapolation-from-actual-costs.
• Analogy
is used early in the acquisition life cycle. A one-to-one comparison of
an existing system similar to the system you are designing;
• Parametric
uses statistical analysis from a number of similar systems and
their relationship to your system.
• Engineering.
A bottoms-up estimate using the detailed WBS structure to price
out components discrete components, such as material, design hours, labor,
etc.;
• Extrapolation-from-actual-costs.
Method used late in the acquisition life cycle
after actual cost data are available from the same system at an earlier time.
Life Cycle Cost (LCC)
is the total cost to the government of acquisition and
ownership of the system over its full life time. It includes the cost of develop-
ment, acquisition, support, and (where applicable) disposal. The USD (AT&L)
has defined Defense System Total Ownership Cost (TOC) as Life Cycle Cost.
9. TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES.
Systems Engineering.
An interdisciplinary approach encompassing the entire
technical effort to evolve and verify an integrated and total life cycle balanced
set of system, people, and process solutions that satisfy customer needs.
Systems engineering is the integrating mechanism across the technical efforts
related to the development, manufacturing, verification, deployment, opera-
tions, support, disposal of, and user training for systems and their life cycle
processes. Systems engineering develops technical information to support the
program management decision-making process. For example, systems engi-
neers manage and control the definition and management of the system
configuration and the translation of the system definition into work breakdown
structures.
Configuration Management (CM) Baselines:
• Functional Baseline.
The technical portion of the program requirements (system
performance specification) that provides the basis for contracting and control-
ling the system design. It is normally established by the government at
System Functional Review (SFR).
• Allocated Baseline
defines the performance requirements for each configura-
tion item of the system (item performance specifications). The contractor
normally establishes this early in the process [not later than the Preliminary
Design Review (PDR)]. Government control is typically deferred until
System Verification Review (SVR).
• Product Baseline
is established by the detailed design documentation for each
configurations item (item detail specifications). It includes the process and
materials baseline (process and materials specifications). Government control
depends on program requirements but, if established, is typically done at
Physical Configuration Audit (PCA).
Technical Management Plans:
• Systems Engineering Plan (SEP)
(required at each milestone) is a comprehensive,
living document that defines the program’s systems engineering activities,
addressing both government and contractor technical activities and responsi-
bilities.
• Integrated Master Plan (IMP)
(optional) is an event-driven plan that defines a
program’s major tasks and activities and lays out the necessary conditions to
complete them.
• Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)
(optional) is a time-based planning tool that
used a calendar or detailed schedule to demonstrate how work efforts will
support tasks and events, often integrated with an IMP.
Reviews and Audits.
(These are tailored to the program’s acquisition strategy.)
• Initial Technical Review (ITR).
A multi-disciplined technical review to support a
program’s initial POM submission.
• Alternative Systems Review (ARS).
A technical review that demonstrates the
preferred concept is cost effective, affordable, operationally effective and
suitable, and can be developed to provide a timely solution to a need at an
acceptable level of risk.
• System Functional Review (SFR).
A formal review of the conceptual design of
the system to establish its capability to satisfy requirements. It establishes the
functional baseline.
• System Requirements Review (SRR).
A formal, system-level review conducted
to ensure that system requirements have been completely and properly
identified and that a mutual understanding between the government and
contractor exists.
• Software Specification Review (SSR).
A formal review of requirements and
interface specifications for computer software configuration items.
• Preliminary Design Review (PDR).
A formal review that confirms the prelimi-
nary design logically follows the SFR findings and meets the requirements. It
normally results in approval to begin detailed design.
• CDR.
A formal review conducted to evaluate the completeness of the design
and its interfaces.
• Test Readiness Review (TRR).
A formal review of contractors’ readiness to
begin testing on both hardware and software configuration items.
• Operational Test Readiness Review (OTRR).
A formal review to establish readi-
ness for Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E). Mandatory for
programs on the OSD T&E Oversight List.
• Functional Configuration Audit (FCA).
A formal review conducted to verify that
all subsystems can perform all of their required design functions in accor-
dance with their functional and allocated configuration baselines.
• System Verification Review (SVR).
A formal review conducted to verify that the
actual item (which represents the production configuration) complies with the
performance specification.
• Physical Configuration Audit (PCA).
A formal audit that establishes the product
baseline as reflected in an early production configuration item.
• Physical Configuration Review (PCR).
A formal technical review that verifies the
product baseline as reflected in the early production configuration of an item,
including specifications and the Technical Data Package.
• Production Readiness Review (PRR).
A formal examination of a program to
determine if the design is ready for production, production engineering
problems have been resolved, and the producer has accomplished adequate
planning for the production phase.
• In-Service Review (ISR).
A formal technical review that is to characterize in-
Service technical and operational health of the deployed system by providing
an assessment of risk, readiness, technical status, and trends in a measurable
form that will substantiate in-Service support and budget priorities.
• Pre-Initial Operational Capability (IOC) Supportability Review (SR).
A formal
review to confirm design maturity, determine status of correction of deficien-
cies identified during Operational Test, and certify that product support
integrators/providers plan to meet warfighter requirements.
• System/Product Definition.
This is the natural result of the capabilities-driven
JCIDS and the common thread (or area of common interest) among all
acquisition functional disciplines.
Test and Evaluation (T&E)
is a process by which a system or components are
compared against capability needs and specifications through testing. The
results are evaluated to assess progress of design, performance, supportability,
etc.
• Beyond Low Rate Initial Production (BLRIP) Report.
Completed by the Director,
Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) to assess the IOT&E for MDAPs
prior to the FRP Decision Review (or, before proceeding beyond LRIP—hence
the name of the report). Acopy is provided to the Under Secretary of Defense,
(AT&L) and to the Congressional Defense Committees.
• Combined Developmental and Operational Testing (DT/OT).
Combining DT and
OT is encouraged to achieve time and cost savings. The combined approach
must not compromise either DT or OT objectives. Afinal independent phase
of IOT&E is required for ACAT I and II and other programs on the OSD T&E
Oversight List prior to the FRP decision.
• Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E).
A technical test conducted to provide
data on the achievability of critical system performance parameters. This
testing is performed on components, subsystems, and system-level configura-
tions of hardware and software.
• Evaluation Strategy.
A description of how the capabilities in the ICD will be
evaluated once the system is developed. The evaluation strategy will evolve
into the TEMP, which is first due at Milestone B.
• Follow-On OT&E (FOT&E).
OT&E needed during and after the production phase
to refine estimates from the IOT&E, to evaluate system changes, and to
reevaluate the system as it continues to mature in the field. FOT&E may
evaluate system performance against new threats or in new environments.
• IOT&E.
All OT&E that is conducted on production or production representa-
tive articles to support a Full-Rate Production decision. It is conducted to
provide a valid estimate of expected system operational effectiveness and
suitability for ACAT I and II programs and other programs on the OSD T&E
Oversight List.
• Live Fire T&E.
A test process to evaluate the vulnerability and/or lethality
aspects of conventional missiles, munitions, or weapon systems. LFT&E is
required by law (Title 10 U.S.C. §2366) for covered systems, major munitions
programs, missile programs, or product improvements to covered systems
major munitions programs, or missile programs, before they can proceed
beyond LRIP. A covered system is a system that DOT&E has determined to be
ACAT I or ACAT II program, user occupied and designed to provide protec-
tion to occupants; or a conventional munitions or missile program; or, a mod
to a covered system that is likely to significantly affect the survivability or
lethality of the system.
• Live Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT&E) Report.
Completed by DOT&E for covered
systems, that have been subjected to a full-up live fire test prior to FRP
Decision Review. Usually included in DOT&E report of IOT&E (BLRIP
report) when sent to Congress.
• Modification T&E.
Testing done after FRP Decision Review to evaluate modifi-
cations/upgrades/improvements to an in-production or fielded system.
• Operational Assessment (OA).
An evaluation of operational effectiveness and
suitability made by an independent operational test agency, with user
support as required, on other than production systems. An OA conducted
prior to Milestone B, or after Milestone B during System Integration, is called
an Early Operational Assessment (EOA).
• Production Acceptance T&E (PAT&E).
T&E of production items to demonstrate
that items procured fulfill the requirements and specifications of the procur-
ing contract or agreements.
• Production Qualification T&E (PQT&E).
A technical test conducted to ensure the
effectiveness of the manufacturing process, equipment, and procedures.
These tests are conducted on a number of samples taken at random from the
first production lot and are repeated if the design or process is changed
significantly.
• Qualification Testing.
Testing that verifies the contractor’s design and manufac-
turing process and provides a performance parameter baseline for subsequent
tests. (Best Practice)
• Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP).
The testing strategy in the TEMP for
ACAT I and IA programs shall focus on the overall structure, major elements,
and objectives of the test and evaluation program that are consistent with the
acquisition strategy.
• Vulnerability T&E.
Testing a system or component to determine if it suffers
definite degradation as a result of having been subjected to a certain level of
effects in an unnatural, hostile environment. A subset of survivability.
Manufacturing
(also called Production) is the conversion of raw materials into
products and/or components through a series of manufacturing procedures
and processes. Manufacturing Management is the technique of planning,
organizing, directing, controlling, and integrating the use of people, money,
materials, equipment, and facilities to accomplish the manufacturing task
economically.
An Acquisition Strategy outlines the approach to obtaining a certain
amount of a product or system, within a planned timeframe and funding. The
desired product or system has to be manufactured/produced, to a quality
level that provides confidence the system will perform as advertised. The
Production Strategy is the approach to obtaining the total quantity of the
system, at some rate, for some cost, and must match up with the Acquisition
Strategy.
The role of manufacturing during the pre-production period is to influence
the design of the subsystems and systems, and to prepare for production.
Once production has been authorized, the role of manufacturing is to execute
the manufacturing plan. The overall objective of Manufacturing is to provide
a uniform, defect-free product with consistent performance, and a lower cost
in terms of both time and money.
• Design Producibility.
A measure of the relative ease of manufacturing a
product design. Emphasis is on simplicity of design and reduction in
opportunities for variation during fabrication, assembly, integration and
testing of components, processes, and procedures.
• The Manufacturing Plan
is a formal description of a method for employing the
facilities, tooling, and personnel resources to produce the design. The manu-
facturing plan must ensure that the items produced reflect the design intent,
the processes are repeatable, and process improvements are constantly
pursued.
• Industrial Capability Assessment (ICA).
A legal requirement (10 U.S.C. 2440) at
each milestone to analyze the industrial capability to design, develop,
produce, support, and (if appropriate) restart the program.
• The “5Ms” are: Manpower, Materials, Machinery, Methods, and Measurement.
These are five major elements of all manufacturing and production efforts,
and are referred to during resource requirements risk identification and
management.
• Variation Control.
Identification of key process and product characteristics, and
reduction/elimination of significant differences from the nominal values of
those characteristics –so that those differences would not cause unacceptable
degradation in product cost, quality, delivery schedule, or performance.
• Process Proofing.
Demonstration of the required manufacturing capability, in a
realistic, production-representative facility.
• Lean.
A fundamental way of thinking, intended to enable flexibility and waste
reduction— in order to reduce costs, cycle time, and defective products— by
focusing on those actions which will provide value to the end-item customer
• e-Mfg
. The use of the Internet and all other electronic means to manage the
entire manufacturing enterprise.
10. LIFE CYCLE LOGISTICS (LCL)
is the planning, development,
implementation, and management of a comprehensive, affordable, and effective
systems support strategy, within TLCSM. Life cycle logistics encompasses the
entire system’s life cycle including acquisition (design, develop, test, produce
and deploy), sustainment (operations and support), and disposal. The principal
goals/objectives of acquisition logisticians are to:
1.
Influence product design for affordable System Operational Effectiveness
(SOE).
2.
Design and develop the support system utilizing Performance Based
Logistics (PBL).
3.
Acquire and concurrently deploy the supportable system, including
support infrastructure.
4.
Maintain/improve readiness, improve affordability, and minimize logistics
footprint.
Acquisition Logistics
. DoD decision makers must integrate acquisition and
logistics to ensure a superior product support process by focusing on afford-
able system operational effectiveness as a key design and performance factor,
and emphasizing life cycle logistics considerations in the systems engineering
process.
Performance Based Logistics (PBL)
is the purchase of support as an integrated,
affordable, performance package designed to optimize system readiness and
meet performance goals for a weapon system through long-term support
arrangements with clear lines of authority and responsibility. PBL is DoD’s
preferred approach for product support implementation.
The Product Support Strategy (PSS)
is part of the acquisition strategy, and
addresses life cycle sustainment and continuous improvement of product
affordability, reliability, and supportability, while sustaining readiness. It
ensures that system support and life cycle affordability considerations are
addressed and documented.
The Product Support Integrator (PSI)
is an organic or private sector organization
that is selected to serve as the single point of accountability for integrating all
sources of support necessary to meet the agreed-to support/performance
metrics.
Performance-Based Agreements (PBAs)
establish a negotiated baseline of perform-
ance, and corresponding support necessary to achieve that performance,
whether provided by commercial or organic support providers. PBAs with
users specify the level of operational support and performance required by
users.
Supportability Analyses
are a set of analytical tools used as an integral part of the
systems engineering process. These tools help determine how to most cost
effectively support the system throughout the life cycle and form the basis for
design requirements stated in the system performance specification and
Product Support Management Plan.
Reliability, Maintainability, and Supportability (RMS
) are key components of system
operational effectiveness.
The Product Support Package
identifies support requirements based upon the
inherent reliability and maintainability of the system. This total system
Product Support Package identifies the support elements that make up the
PBL package. Continuous assessment of in-Service system performance will
identify needs for system improvements to enhance reliability, slow obsoles-
cence, and reduce/minimize corrosion or other LCL characteristics. This
package details requirements for the following elements:
• Supply Support (spare/repair parts)
• Maintenance Planning
• Test/Support Equipment
• Technical Documentation/IETM
• Manpower & Training/CBT
• Facilities/PHS&T
• Design Interface/Computing Support
Pre-Deployment Evaluations
of the system must demonstrate supportability, and
life cycle affordability, as entrance criteria for the Production and Deployment
Phase.
Post Deployment Evaluations
of the system, beginning with the Pre-IOC SR, verify
whether the fielded system meets thresholds and objectives for cost, perform-
ance, and support parameters, and support continuous improvement.
Key Acquisition Documents
that reflect support inputs include the Initial Capabili-
ties Document (ICD), Analysis of Alternatives Plan, Capability Development
Document (CDD), Capability Production Document (CPD), Test and Evalua-
tion Master Plan (TEMP), Acquisition Program Baseline (APB), and the
contract.
Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
Life Cycle Management Framework
Figure 1. Information for Milestone/Decision Reviews
(See DoDI 5000.2, CJCSI 3170.01D and CJCSI 6212.01C)
1. Summarized in Acquisition Strategy
2. OSD T&E oversight programs only
3. MDAP: A, B, C; MAIS: A, B, FRPDR
4. Milestone C if program initiation
7. Milestone C if equivalent to FRP
8. Milestone C if no milestone B
9. MAIS whenever an economic
analysis is required
5. Program initiation for ships
6. Validated by DIA for ACAT ID; AIS use
capstone InfoOps sys threat
assessment decision
Information CD A B DRR C FR
Acquisition Decision Memorandum
5
X X X X X X
Acquisition Program Baseline
5
X X X
Acquisition Strategy
5
(see Figure 2) X X X
Affordability Assessment X X
Analysis of Alternatives
3&5
(AOA) X X X X
AOA Plan X
Benefit Analysis & Determination
1&8
(bundled acquisitions) X
Beyond LRIP Report
2
X
Capabilities Development Document (CDD)
5
X
Capabilities Production Document (CPD) X
Certification of Compliance with Clinger-Cohen
7
X X X X
Certification of Compliance with BEA
7
(FM MAIS only) X X X X
Clinger-Cohen Act Compliance
5&7
(MS-A, MAIS only) X X X X
Competition Analysis
1&8
(depot-level maintenance rule) X
Compliance with Strategic Plan X
Component Cost Analysis
5&9
(MAIS; optional MDAP) X X
Consideration of Technology Issues X X X
Cooperative Opportunities
1
X X
Core Logistics/Source of Repair Analysis
1&8
X
Cost Analysis Requirements Description
5&9
(MDAP & MAIS)
X X X
Economic Analysis (MAIS)
7
(may be combined w/AoA at MS-A) X X X
Exit Criteria
5
X X X X X
Industrial Capabilities
1
(n/a MAIS) X X
Independent Cost & Manpower Estimate
7
(MDAPs; n/a MAIS) X X X
Independent Technology Assessment (ACAT ID only) (DDR&E Option) X X
Information Support Plan
1&5
X X
Initial Capabilities Document (ICD)
4&5
X X X X
J-6 Interoperability & Supportability Certification X X
J-6 Interoperability & Supportability Validation X
Live Fire T&E Waiver
2
(covered systems) (n/a MAIS) X
Live Fire T&E Report2 (covered systems) (n/a MAIS) X
LRIP Quantities (n/a AIS) X
Market Research X X
Operational Test Agency Report of OT&E Results X X X
Post Deployment Performance Review X
Program Protection Plan
1
X X
PgmEnviron, Safety & Ocup Health
5
(w/NEPA schedule) X X X
Registration of Msn Critical & Msn Essential Info Sys
5&7
X X X
Spectrum Certification Compliance
8
X X
System Threat Assessment
5&6
X X
Systems Engineering Plan X X X X
Technology Development Strategy X X X
Technology Readiness Assessment
5
X X
Test & Evaluation Master Plan (T&E Strategy only due at MS A) X X X X
• Program Structure
• Acquisition Approach
• Capability Needs
• Test & Evaluation
• Risk Management
• Resource Management
—Funding Under an
Evolutionary Acq Strategy
—Advance Procurement
• System Engineering Plan
• Interoperability
—Information Interoperability
—Other-than Information
Interoperability
• Information Technology
• Research & Technology
Protection
—Protection of Critical
Information
—Anti-Tamper Measures
• Information Assurance
• Product Support Strategy
• Human Systems Integration
• Environmental Safety, and
Occupational Health
• Modular Open Systems
Approach
• Business Considerations
—Competition
◆
Fostering a Competitive
Environment
–Competition Advocates
–Ensuring Future
Competition for
Defense Products
◆
Building Competition Into
Individual Acq Strategies
–Applying Competition
to Acquisition Phases
–Applying Competition
to Evolutionary Acq
–Competition and
Source of Support
–Industry Involvement
◆
Potential Obstacles to
Competition
–Exclusive Teaming
Arrangement
–Sub-Tier Competition
◆
Potential Sources
–Market Research
–Commercial and Non-
Developmental Items
–Dual-Use Technologies
–Use of Commercial
Plants
–Industrial Capability
◆
Small Business
Innovative Research
(SBIR) Technologies
—International Cooperation
◆
International
Cooperative Strategy
◆
International
Interoperability
◆
International Cooperation
Compliance
◆
Testing Required for
Foreign Military Sales
—Contract Approach
◆
Performance-Based
Business Strategy
◆
Modular Contracting
◆
Contract Bundling
◆
Major Contract(s)
Planned
◆
Multi-Year Contracting
◆
Contract Type
◆
Contract Incentives
◆
Integrated Contract
Performance
Management
◆
Special Contract Terms
and Conditions
◆
Warranties
◆
Component Breakout
—Leasing
—Equipment Valuation
◆
Program Description
◆
Accounting Review
◆
Contract Implications
• Best Practices
• Relief, Exemption, or Waiver
• Additional Acq Strategy Topics
Figure 2. Acquisition Strategy Considerations
(
Defense Acquisition Guidebook
, Chapter 2)
Acquisition
Executive
KM/DS
2
JCB/JROC
Validation/
approval
Sponsor
Validation/
Approval
FCB
Review
J-2
J-4
J-6
Review
Independent
Final
document
to database
Sponsor
1
Joint Staff
All other programs
Figure 3. JCIDS Document Flow
JCIDS
Analysis
ICD
CDD
CPD
Gatekeeper
(DptyJ-8)
JPD
Decision
ACAT II & below without significant joint
impact, but require joint staff certification
Joint
Integration
JROC
Interest
All ACAT I/IA programs &
ACAT II and below where
capabilities have significant
impact on joint warfighting
1. Sponsor—The DoD component responsible for all common
documentation, periodic reporting, and funding actions required to support
the requirements and acquisition process.
2. KM/DS—Knowledge Management/Decision Support Tool
(virtual SIPRNET library for review, approval, & reference)
Figure 4. JCIDS Analysis
• Functional Area Analysis (FAA)
—Identify operational task, conditions, and standards needed to
accomplish military objectives
Result: Tasks to be accomplished
• Functional Needs Analysis (FNA)
—Assess ability of current and programmed capabilities to accomplish
the tasks
Result: List of capability gaps
• Functional Solutions Analysis (FSA)
—Operational based assessment of DOTMLPF approaches to solving
capability gaps
Result: Potential integrated DOTMLPF approaches to capability gaps
• Post Independent Analysis
—Independent analysis of approaches to determine best fit
Result: Initial Capabilities Document
Figure 6. Characteristics of Contract Types
Cost Fixed Price
Promise Best effort Shall deliver
Risk to contractor Low High
Risk to gov’t High Low
Cash flow As incurred On delivery
Financing None Progress/performance payments
Administration Max gov’t control Min gov’t surveillance
Fee/profit CPFF max 15/10 % No limit
LRIP
Operations
& Support
Sustainment
Disposal
Technology
Development
System Development
& Demonstration
Design
Readiness
Review
Concept
Decision
Full-Rate Prod
& Deployment
System
Integration
System
Demonstration
System
Demonstration
Production &
Deployment
FRP
Decision
Review
PHASE
Figure 7. Contract Type by Phase of the Acquisition Process
BA C
CPFF • FFP FPI(F) • FFPCPFF • CPIF • CPAF FPI(F) • FFP
CONTRACT TYPE
CPFF—Cost Plus Fixed Fee CPIF—Cost Plus Incentive Fee CPAF—Cost Plus Award Fee
FFP—Firm Fixed Price FFI(F)—Fixed Price Incentive Firm
Concept
Refinement
• What
n
e
eds to
be do
n
e
• Who
do
e
s it
• Info
r
matio
n
e
x
changes
r
e
quired to
g
e
t
i
t
d
o
n
e
Systems that
s
u
p
po
r
t the
a
c
t
ivities and
i
n
fo
r
matio
n
e
x
changes
• Basic
t
e
chno
l
o
g
y
s
u
ppo
r
tability
• New
t
e
chnical
c
a
pabilities
Operatio
n
al
c
a
p
ability
r
e
quirements
Operational
View
Identifies Participant
Relationships and
Information Needs
Technical criteria governing interoperable implementation/
procurement of the selected system capabilities
Specific capabilities required to satisfy information exchanges
Prescribes Standards and
Conventions
Technical
Standards
View
Relates Capabilities and
Characteristics to Operational
Requirements
Systems
View
Figure 5.
Linkages Between
Architectural Views
This chart is not a substitute for any offical DoD publication.
Recommendations to improve this chart are encouraged and may be sent to
wallchart@dau.mil
. Version 5.2—August 2005
How to Obtain Copies
Download from the Defense Acquisition Univer-
sity publications Web site at:
http://akss.dau.
mil/ifc/download_pdf.htm.
To access the Web-
enabled version of this chart, go to
http://akss.dau.mil/ifc.
Copies can be purchased from the U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office bookstore at
http://book
store.gpo.gov
.
Military and government employees can obtain a
single
copy from the DAU Publications Distribu-
tion Center, located in Room 7, Bldg 231, at the
Defense Acquisition University Campus, Fort
Belvoir, VA.
E-mail:
daupubs@dau.mil
Phone: (703) 805-2743 or DSN 655-2743
FAX: (703) 805-3726
A copy can also be obtained by sending a written
request for “Version 5.2” of the DAU Acquisition
Framework Chart to the DAU Publications Distrib-
ution Center:
Defense Acquisition University
Attention: OP-CL Publications/Distribution
9820 Belvoir Road, Suite G-3
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5565
Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
