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 Development 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 information 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 acquisition 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 Acquisition 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 determination of a potential baseline breach using the format provided in the DAES

report.

Earned Value Management System (EVMS) reports. See ANS/EIA 748, 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 acquisition 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 acquisition 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 Acquisition 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 Requirements 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 developing 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 teamoriented 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 identifying, 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, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel and

Facilities (DOTMLPF) analysis and describes why non-materiel changes

alone are not adequate to fully provide the capability. The ICD supports the

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 increment of militarily useful, logistically supportable and technically mature

capability. The CDD supports program initiation at Milestone B.

• Capability Production Document (CPD). A document that addresses the

production elements specific to a single increment of an acquisition

program. The CPD supports Milestone C.

• 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 recommendations, 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 construct, 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” solutions, 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-toend 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 communications and computing systems and services, software, data, security services, 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 combatant 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 integration and promote interoperability across family-of-systems and system-ofsystems 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 standards. 

• J-6 Supportability Certification. The J-6

certifies to OASD(NII) that programs,

regardless of ACAT, adequately address

IT and NSS infrastructure requirements. This includes availability

of bandwidth and spectrum

support, funding and personnel, and identifying dependencies 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 validates 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 associated 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 NetCentric Operations and Warfare (NCOW) Reference Model (RM), 2. Compliance 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 information 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 solutions, 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 pastperformance, 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 incremental 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 IA considerations 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 transforming 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 Architecture (JTA).

• The Business Modernization Management Program (BMMP) and certification 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 Government 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 government’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 contractual requirements:

Statement of Work (SOW) details the work the contractor will perform and,

when necessary, specifies how the work is to be performed.

Statement of Objective (SOO) Performance-based broad objectives of the

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 manufacturing 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 requirements 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 operations, including weapon system development and acquisition. It is essential to

convert each program’s event-driven acquisition 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 Guidance (SPG) and Joint Programming Guidance (JPG)—established in “onyears” (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 Decision Memoranda (PDM), issued by OSD, are the keystone documents completed 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 alternatives. 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, “execution” 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 Authorization 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 longterm 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 feasibility 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 development 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 Technology 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) finances 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 development, 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, operations, 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 engineers 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 controlling the system design. It is normally established by the government at

System Functional Review (SFR).

• Allocated Baseline defines the performance requirements for each configuration 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 responsibilities. 

• 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 preliminary 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 readiness 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 accordance 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 inService 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 deficiencies 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). A copy 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. A final 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 configurations 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 representative 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 protection 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 modifications/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 procuring 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 manufacturing 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 manufacturing 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 affordable 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 performance, 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 obsolescence, 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, performance, and support parameters, and support continuous improvement. 

Key Acquisition Documents that reflect support inputs include the Initial Capabilities Document (ICD), Analysis of Alternatives Plan, Capability Development

Document (CDD), Capability Production Document (CPD), Test and Evaluation 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 FRP

Acquisition Decision Memorandum5 X X X X X X

Acquisition Program Baseline5 X X X

Acquisition Strategy5 (see Figure 2) X X X

Affordability Assessment X X 

Analysis of Alternatives3&5 (AOA) X X X X

AOA Plan X 

Benefit Analysis & Determination1&8 (bundled acquisitions) X

Beyond LRIP Report2 X

Capabilities Development Document (CDD)5 X

Capabilities Production Document (CPD) X 

Certification of Compliance with Clinger-Cohen7 X X X X

Certification of Compliance with BEA7 (FM MAIS only) X X X X

Clinger-Cohen Act Compliance5&7 (MS-A, MAIS only) X X X X

Competition Analysis1&8 (depot-level maintenance rule) X 

Compliance with Strategic Plan X

Component Cost Analysis5&9 (MAIS; optional MDAP) X X

Consideration of Technology Issues X X X

Cooperative Opportunities1 X X

Core Logistics/Source of Repair Analysis1&8 X

Cost Analysis Requirements Description5&9 (MDAP & MAIS) X X X

Economic Analysis (MAIS)7 (may be combined w/AoA at MS-A) X X X

Exit Criteria5 X X X X X

Industrial Capabilities1 (n/a MAIS) X X

Independent Cost & Manpower Estimate7 (MDAPs; n/a MAIS) X X X

Independent Technology Assessment (ACAT ID only) (DDR&E Option) X X

Information Support Plan1&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 Waiver2 (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 Plan1 X X

PgmEnviron, Safety & Ocup Health5 (w/NEPA schedule) X X X

Registration of Msn Critical & Msn Essential Info Sys5&7 X X X

Spectrum Certification Compliance8 X X

System Threat Assessment5&6 X X

Systems Engineering Plan X X X X

Technology Development Strategy X X X

Technology Readiness Assessment5 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 NonDevelopmental 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/DS2

JCB/JROC

Validation/

approval

Sponsor

Validation/

Approval

FCB

Review

J-2

J-4

J-6

Review

Independent Final

document 

to database

Sponsor1

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 System Demonstration

SystemIntegrationSystemDemonstrationFull-Rate Prod & Deployment

Production & 

Deployment

FRP

Decision

Review

PHASE

Figure 7. Contract Type by Phase of the Acquisition Process

A B C

CPFF • FFP FPI(F) • FFP CPFF • CPIF • CPAF FPI(F) • FFP

CONTRACT TYPE C O N T R A C T T Y P E

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 needs to be done

• Who does it

• Information exchanges required to get it done

Systems that support the activities and 

information exchanges

• Basic technology supportability

• New technical capabilities

Operational capability requirements

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 University publications Web site at: http://akss.dau.

mil/ifc/download_pdf.htm. To access the Webenabled version of this chart, go to

http://akss.dau.mil/ifc.

Copies can be purchased from the U.S. Government Printing Office bookstore at http://book

store.gpo.gov. 

Military and government employees can obtain a

single copy from the DAU Publications Distribution 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 Distribution Center:

Defense Acquisition University

Attention: OP-CL Publications/Distribution

9820 Belvoir Road, Suite G-3

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5565