3. MANAGEMENT OF THE ACQUISITION PROCESS. The person 

responsible for ensuring the acquisition management system activities result in fulfilling the warfighter’s need is the program manager (PM). The PM is also the single point of accountability for 

accomplishing program objectives for total life cycle systems management, including sustainment. 

The PM is responsible for the entire system life cycle (design to disposal) (Total Life Cycle System 

Management [TLCSM] is required by DoDD 5000.01), and must consider supportability, life cycle 

costs, 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 

DAG), 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 standalone document or as 

part of a multipurpose document (e.g., Air Force Life Cycle 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 acquisition is the preferred DoD strategy for rapid acquisition of mature technology for 

the user. An evolutionary approach delivers capability in increments, anticipating the need for 

future capability improvements.

Organizing and Staffing. The establishment, organization, and staffing of the 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 APB, 

exit criteria, program schedules, program budgets, specifications, plans, and test criteria. Examples 

of feedback mechanisms for program control, oversight, and risk management include the Joint 

Requirements Oversight Council, overarching integrated product team, Defense Acquisition Board, 

Information Technology Acquisition Board, integrated baseline review, 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 team-oriented behavioral environment are critical.

4. PHASE DESCRIPTIONS AND SPACE POLICY IMPLICATIONS. Development Planning Overview. Typically initiated by a capability shortfall, or simply a Development 

Planning (DP) request from MAJCOM, DP is a collaborative process bridging warfighter-identified 

capability needs to planning for acquisition of materiel solutions. It supports trade space evaluation of emerging capability needs, includes Systems of Systems (SoS) assessments, identifies and 

assesses technology maturity and risk drivers, and incorporates comprehensive life-cycle planning; 

all contributing to a high confidence acquisition program launch. DP begins with the Pre-Materiel 

Development Decision (pre-MDD) Phase where thousands of options are reduced to a final solution 

by the end at MS B (the last DP Phase) as depicted in Figure 3. At Space and Missile Systems Center 

(SMC), the DP mission is to “Deliver affordable and resilient solutions for future National Security 

Space capabilities.” 

Pre-Materiel Development Decision Activities. This DP Phase uses focused SoS analysis and development of 

advanced systems concepts to support capability needs identified by the JCIDS. In this phase, early 

systems engineering produces Concept Characterization and Technical Descriptions (CCTDs) that 

capture the analytical basis of prospective materiel solutions (concepts), associated technologies 

and programmatic decisions. With the goal of achieving a timely and successful MDD, concepts are 

matured through three overarching phases of activity: Trade Space Characterization; Candidate Solution Sets Characterization; and Implementation Analysis. Each is depicted in Figure 4 and described in 

the paragraphs that follow. 

During Trade Space Characterization, capability needs are decomposed to determine requirements, ground rules and assumptions. Concepts are defined and candidates are evaluated. An 

initial Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is developed, applicable technologies are researched, and 

initial assessments are made for critical technology elements, technology readiness, manufacturing 

readiness, user considerations, risk, cost estimates, intelligence and logistics support. Candidate 

concepts are evaluated to determine the evaluation methodology, score and rank candidate concepts, develop a Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) OV-1 and create a Level 

2 WBS. 

During Candidate Solution Sets Characterization, focus is placed on concepts with a reasonable 

chance of timely maturation. Concern is given to areas that have historically led to significant program issues when not given sufficient or timely consideration, such as key interfaces, intelligence 

inputs, configuration management at the SoS level, support infrastructure and human operations. 

Ground rules and assumptions are re-examined, cost estimates are updated, DoDAF views (OV-2, 

1. INTRODUCTION. The Space and Missile Systems Center Satellite Acquisition Process chart serves 

as a pictorial roadmap of key activities in the satellite acquisition processes. The chart illustrates the interaction of the 

three-key processes that must work in concert to deliver the capabilities required by the warfighters: the requirements 

process (Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System [JCIDS]); the acquisition process (Defense Acquisition 

System); and program and budget development (Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution [PPBE] process). 

These three major decision support systems are illustrated in the top left front of this chart. This chart is based on policies and guidance from the following federal, Department of Defense (DoD), and Air Force documents and web sites: 

•	DoD Directive 5000.01. The Defense Acquisition System, May 12, 2003

•	DoD Instruction 5000.02. Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, Dec. 8, 2008

•	Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG). https://dag.dau.mil

•	CJCS Instruction 3170.01H. Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, Jan. 10, 2012

•	JCIDS Manual. Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, Jan. 19, 2012

•	Air Force Instruction 63-101. Acquisition and Sustainment Life Cycle Management, with Change 4, Aug. 3, 2011

•	Air Force Instruction 63-1201. Life Cycle Systems Engineering, Sept. 12, 2011

•	Air Force Instruction 10-601. Operational Capability Requirements Development, July 12, 2010

•	Space and Missile Systems Center. Acquisition Strategy Development Process Guide, March 5, 2012

•	The following Internet sites provide additional information:

•	Acquisition Community Connection (ACC). https://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.

•	Space Acquisition Community of Practice (CoP). https://acc.dau.mil/space. CoP provides access to learning assets specifically 

related to space acquisition.

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

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

•	Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 09-027 - Implementation of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009

•	DTM 09-025 - Space Systems Acquisition Policy, with Change 2, Dec. 9, 2011

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

2. ACQUISITION PROCESS. The acquisition process is structured by DoDI 5000.02 into discrete 

phases separated by major decision points (called milestones or decision reviews) with a number of key activities to 

provide the basis for comprehensive management and informed decision making. The number of phases and decision 

points are tailored to meet the specific needs of individual programs. Space systems acquisition follows the guidelines 

of DoDI 5000.02 modified by DTM 09-025 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 5000.01: 1.) Flexibility—tailoring program strategies and oversight; 2.) Responsiveness—rapid integration of advanced technologies through evolutionary acquisition; 3.) Innovation—adoption of 

practices that reduce cost and cycle time; 4.) Discipline—use of program baseline parameters as control objectives; 

and 5.) Effective management—decentralization to the extent practicable.

DoD components first try to satisfy capability needs through non-materiel solutions such as changes in doctrine 

or tactics. If existing U.S. military systems or other on-hand materiel cannot be economically used or modified to 

meet the warfighter’s need, a materiel solution may be pursued according to the 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 DoDI 5000.02, enclosure 4. The Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) 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 (APB) or initial capabilities document). Figure 1 is a simplified chart of information required at milestones 

and other decision reviews.

Other periodic reports:

Defense Acquisition Executive Summary (DAES) Report. ACAT I and IAM programs. Quarterly. Also upon Program Objectives 

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

Selected Acquisition Report (SAR). ACAT I only. Submitted at program initiation for ships, MS B, and annually thereafter. 

Quarterly SARs may be required on an exception basis (see DAG, Chapter 10).

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

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

Earned Value Management System (EVMS) Reports. See DoDI 5000.02, Table 5, ANSI/EIA 748 and the DAG.

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

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

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

OV-3, OV-4, OV-5, SV-1, SV-3, SV-4, SV-7, SV-9) are created, a Level 3 WBS is started, preliminary 

trade studies (between concepts) are conducted, and Modeling and Simulation (M&S) is used to 

characterize concept capabilities. Relevant data is captured in CCTDs. 

During Implementation Analysis, acquisition resources, schedules and costs are defined for each 

candidate solution. Programmatic analyses are performed, sufficiency of life cycle cost estimates are 

assessed, and manpower costs are projected based on anticipated fielded maintenance, support and 

operational capabilities. Prior to the release of the baseline CCTDs, a sufficiency review is held for 

the overall programmatic assessment that includes cost, schedule, estimated performance, technology readiness, manufacturing readiness, integration readiness and risk; as captured in the CCTDs. 

Those concepts that are mature receive an initial Military Utility Assessment (MUA) which is later 

refined and included in the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA).

For MDD requirements refer to Figure 1. MDD criteris is as follows:

1.The candidate materiel solution approaches have the potential to effectively address the capability 

gap(s), operational attributes, and associated dependencies.

•	Common understanding of the root cause of the gap between the operational, analytical, and 

acquisition communities

•	Problem is defined with adequate specificity while maintaining solution independence

•	Associated dependencies, to include other gaps, legacy systems, SoS baseline considerations and 

DOT_LPF (Doctrine, Organization, Training, Leadership and Education, Personnel, Facilities) 

implications

•	Candidate materiel solution approaches have the potential to effectively address the gap

•	The urgency/priority of the gap, including the operational community’s requirements on schedule for deployment

2.There exists a range of technically feasible solutions generated from across the entire solution 

space, as demonstrated through early prototypes, models, or data.

•	Initial set of solutions have been drawn from the entire solution space

•	A broad range of solutions is proposed for consideration to ensure the highest likelihood of success

•	Evidence that demonstrates technical feasibility of proposed alternative solutions is presented, 

including prototypes, models, or data

•	Technical feasibility considers technical issues of new developments, updates to existing systems, and the changes needed given the dependencies of the proposed system

3.Consideration has been given to near-term opportunities to provide a more rapid interim response 

to the capability need.–

•	Provide evidence that consideration was given to interim, more rapid solution to mitigate the 

impact of the capability gap while a system acquisition is underway

•	Ensure that incremental acquisition has been considered to quickly deliver the solution to the 

warfighter and deliver added capability with follow-on increments

4.The plan to staff and fund analytic, engineering, and programmatic activities supports the proposed milestone entry requirements.

•	Current DoDI 5000.02 policies mandate full funding of the AoA at the MDD

•	Proposed Development Planning policy directs ASD(R&E) participation in oversight of the AoA 

to support greater analysis of technical risk of proposed solutions

•	Recent changes to DoDI 5000.02 require greater pre-MS A engineering and programmatic planning for the Technology Development Phase in support of MS A requirements

•	Requires evidence of planning, funding, and staffing to adequately perform additional analysis 

and planning in the Materiel Solution Analysis Phase

Materiel Solution Analysis Phase. The Materiel Solution Analysis Phase begins with the MDD review, 

the formal entry point into the acquisition process; however, note that the MDA's decision to begin 

Materiel Solution Analysis does not mean that a new acquisition program has been initiated. Guided 

by the Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) and the AoA Study Guidance, this phase assesses critical 

technology elements (CTEs) associated with each proposed materiel solution, including technology 

maturity, integration risk, manufacturing feasibility, and, where necessary, technology maturation 

and demonstration needs.

In this phase, the AoA is generated based on the AoA study plan and AoA study guidance that 

were prepared by the OSD Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), and 

approved prior to MDD. The purpose of the AoA is to assess the potential materiel solutions to 

satisfy the capability need documented in the approved ICD. An AoA study plan is prepared to 

assess preliminary materiel solutions, identify key technologies, and estimate life cycle costs. The 

AoA focuses on identification and analysis of alternatives, measures of effectiveness, cost, schedule, 

concepts of operations, and overall risk. To achieve the best possible system solution, emphasis is 

placed on innovation and competition. Existing commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) functionality and 

solutions drawn from a diversified range of large and small businesses is to be considered.

A strategy is developed for technology maturation and transition planning. The resulting product 

is the Technology Development Strategy (TDS) which captures the roadmap to mature a specific 

technology for warfighter application. The TDS reflects the current state of a technology maturation 

effort (relative to its transition to an acquisition program) and drives the activities of the Technology Development Phase. It documents the coordinated Air Force strategy on how to best transition 

a technology with respect to its follow-on acquisition program by capturing the current readiness 

level, the desired readiness level for transition, and the incremental stages necessary for it to be 

achieved.

Materiel Solution Analysis Phase Space Policy. The TDS for space systems shall detail acquisition strategy 

and contracting approach for development of pertinent technologies for each phase of the program 

life cycle. Due to the small number of articles procured, space systems commit to the acquisition 

approach early in the acquisition life cycle. The TDS is used in support of MS A. The TDS is the 

foundation from which the formal Acquisition Strategy (AS) is built (AS used in later phases). For 

MS A requirements refer to Figure 1.

Technology Development Phase. This phase determines and matures the appropriate set of technologies, 

reduces technology risk, and demonstrates CTEs using prototypes. The goal is an efficient planning 

process that leads to increased confidence in innovative technologies and the successful transition of 

those technologies into acquisition programs. Technology Development is a continuous technology 

discovery and development process reflecting close collaboration between the S&T community, the 

user, and the system developer. It assesses the viability of innovative technologies while simultaneously refining user requirements. 

The TDS developed in the previous phase is the foundation from which the formal AS is built for 

later phases. Technology maturation requires an effective means to manage, direct, and control technology development to meet the criteria required to move a technology through the stages depicted 

in Figure 5. As a technology matures and gets closer to transitioning into a program of record 

(MS B), the acquisition process requirements become more demanding and thus more acquisition 

oriented. DoDI 5000.02 requirements are used to guide development and prepare the technology for 

a more confident transition. To ensure a more seamless transition, the format for the TDS is derived 

from the Life Cycle Management Plan (LCMP) which includes the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan 

(LCSP) required at MS B. For MS B requirements refer to Figure 1.

Technology Development Phase Space Policy. PMs shall conduct a System Design Review (SDR) during Technology Development Phase to 1) Ensure system’s functional baseline is established, and 2) Ensure 

system has reasonable expectation of satisfying ICD requirement within allocated budget and schedule. The SDR 1) Completes process of defining items or elements below system level, 2) Assesses 

decomposition of system specification to system functional specifications, 3) Determines whether 

system’s functional definition is fully decomposed, and 4) Determines that program is prepared for 

preliminary design. PMs shall provide a Post-SDR report to the MDA to include 1) Assessment of 

design maturity and summary of system-level SDR results, and 2) Independent vulnerability assessment and Space Debris Assessment Report (SDAR). The SDAR will include an assessment of debris 

generation risk during launch, on-orbit operations, and end-of-life disposal, and shall assess compliance with the U.S. Government Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices, in collaboration with 

the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office. The MDA shall review the post-SDR report and the PM’s 

resolution and/or mitigation plans, and determine whether additional action is necessary to achieve 

technology development phase objectives and satisfy the capability need specified in the ICD. The 

results of the MDA’s post-SDR assessment shall be documented in an Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) and include the MDA’s determination to proceed with technology development (or 

not). The post-SDR assessment will be supported by an Independent Program Assessment (IPA).

Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase. The purpose of the EMD Phase is to develop a system 

or an increment of capability; complete full system integration; develop an affordable and executable 

manufacturing process; ensure operational supportability with particular attention to minimizing 

the logistics footprint; implement human systems integration (HSI); design for producibility; ensure 

affordability; protect CPI by implementing appropriate techniques such as anti-tamper; and demonstrate system integration, interoperability, safety, and utility. The CDD, AS, SEP, and Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) shall guide this effort. Entrance into this phase depends on technology 

maturity (including software), approved requirements, and full funding. Unless some other factor is 

overriding in its impact, the maturity of the technology shall determine the path to be followed.

Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase Space Policy. The Initial Production Decision is at MS C, so it 

is appropriate that approval for procurement of long-lead items to support initial production of space 

systems occur much earlier, at MS B. In addition to DoDI 5000.02 requirements, MS B shall normally 

include authorization for procurement of long-lead items necessary for authorized number of initial 

production articles. 

Production and Deployment Phase. The purpose of the Production and Deployment Phase is to achieve an 

operational capability that satisfies mission needs. Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) shall 

determine the effectiveness and suitability of the system. The MDA shall make the decision to commit the DoD to production at MS C and shall document the decision in an ADM. 

Production and Deployment Phase Space Policy. For space systems the MDA will conduct a Follow-On 

Production Decision Review in lieu of a Full Rate Production Decision Review (FRPDR). If only one 

space system is being acquired a follow-on production decision is not necessary.

In lieu of the DoDI 5000.02 requirements to have acceptable performance in Developmental Test 

and Evaluation (DT&E) and operational assessment; and no significant manufacturing risks, space 

systems shall be required to have acceptable performance in developmental test activities and 

acceptable manufacturing risks.

The design of the EMD Phase is not consistent with the needs of space systems acquisitions. The 

location of MS C needs adjusting to authorize space systems to enter the Production and Deployment Phase. Space systems commit to “Low Rate Production” at the Critical Design Review (CDR). 

For that reason, MS C for space systems shall be described as the initial production review and shall 

be conducted as soon as feasible after program CDR. At MS C, the MDA authorizes acquisitionrelated activities associated with fabrication, integrated T&E, to include DT&E and OT&E, deployment (e.g. launch), and support of new space system. The MDA shall review post-CDR report, 

determine whether additional action is necessary to satisfy EMD Phase exit criteria, address and 

resolve orbital debris compliance issues, and approve entry into Production and Deployment Phase 

for initial number of production articles.

The MDA will approve subsequent article production at a Follow-On Production Decision. The 

MDA may direct an In-Progress Review (IPR) after MS C, but prior to Follow-On Production Decision Review, to assess progress and determine if any additional actions are necessary to support a 

Follow-On Production Decision.

Moving CDR to just before MS C and having the MDA review the post-CDR report at MS C is a 

major difference from the DoDI 5000.02 process for non-space programs. 

For space programs there will be no significant production and testing of 

“production representative articles” after CDR and prior to MS C. Those 

activities will take place after MS C during what is commonly called “LRIP” 

for non-space systems.

The FRPDR does not properly describe the efforts associated with the 

procurement of additional space system articles. Space systems do not achieve 

a “full rate production” as implied by the “Full Rate Production Decision” 

Review in DoDI 5000.02. For that reason, a “Follow-on Production Decision” 

Review shall take the place of the FRPDR. The MDA shall conduct a FollowOn Production Decision Review in lieu of a full-rate production and deployment decision to authorize procurement of additional space system articles 

beyond those authorized at MS C. Statutory and regulatory information 

requirements outlined DoDI 5000.02 for full-rate production and deployment 

reviews shall also apply to the follow-on decision review for space systems. An 

OSD independent cost estimate is required for a follow-on production decision.

Operations and Support Phase. The purpose of the Operations and Support Phase 

is to execute a support program that meets materiel readiness and operational support performance requirements, and sustains the system in the 

most cost-effective manner over its total life cycle. Planning for this phase 

shall begin prior to program initiation and shall be documented in the LCSP. 

Operations and Support has two major efforts, Life-Cycle Sustainment and 

Disposal. 

Operations and Support Phase Space Policy. In addition to DoDI 5000.02 requirements, space systems shall be required to have acceptable performance 

in integrated T&E, to include DT&E, OT&E, and user acceptance of the 

system. A follow-on production decision review may not be required as 

an entrance criteria if, for example, only one space system article is being 

acquired.

Other Space Policy

Independent Program Assessment (IPA): An independent, comprehensive, and 

systematic review, preferably led by one of more qualified U.S. Government 

employees, of major space system managerial and technical progress. IPAs are designed to identify 

program cost, schedule, and performance risks; formulate risk mitigation plans; and provide feedback both to the PM and the MDA. An IPA will be conducted 1) Before each milestone, 2) Prior to 

post-SDR assessment, and 3) Whenever directed by the MDA. The IPAT’s findings and recommendations are either presented to the OIPT prior to the DAB, the MDA at the DAB, or both. In preparation for the IPA, the PM should produce a consolidated set of program documentation to facilitate 

the IPAT review. 

The Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) as defined in DoDI 5000.02 does not include sufficient information 

to effectively manage the engineering of space systems. The space systems SEP requires additional 

details in two areas.

1.Emphasize the space system’s integration with other existing and approved future architectures 

and capabilities.

2.Include mission assurance (MA) planning. MA is a description of those activities undertaken to 

ensure that space systems operate properly once launched into orbit, since retrieval for repair is 

impractical.

The description of the Material Development Decision (MDD) does not fully address its application 

to evolving on-going space systems acquisition programs. It is necessary to specify that all followon increments for space systems shall be preceded by a MDD. All follow-on increments shall be 

preceded by a MDD to 1) Assess prior increment’s progress, 2) Consider additional requirements for 

that increment, and 3) Determine proper phase of entry for next increment.

5. JOINT CAPABILITIES INTEGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT 

SYSTEM (JCIDS). The procedures established in the JCIDS support the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council in identifying, assessing, and 

prioritizing joint military capability needs. These needs are reflected in a series of documents that 

support the acquisition process (see Figure 6):

•	Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) (includes the Information Systems (IS variant)). 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 MDD and MS 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. A draft CDD supports MS A, and the validated CDD supports the Pre-EMD review and 

program initiation at MS B.

•	Capability Production Document (CPD). A document that addresses the production elements specific to a 

single increment of an acquisition program. The CPD supports MS C.

•	Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA). CBA is the analysis part of JCIDS 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. 

DOTMLPF Change Recommendation (DCR). A document focusing on changes that are primarily non-materiel in nature, 

although there may be some associated materiel changes (additional numbers of existing commercial or nondevelopmental) required. DCRs are normally referred to as “non-materiel” solutions, while acquisition programs are referred to as “materiel” solutions.

Military Utility Assessment (MUA). Replaces the ICD for Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations (JCTD) 

or other approved prototype projects, and guides development of CDD and CPD for these efforts.

Interoperability. The policies for interoperability are found in CJCSI 3170.01 series, JCIDS, and CJCSI 

6212.01 series, Interoerability of Information Technology (IT) and National Security Systems (NSS). The 

following are key aspects of this policy:

•	Global Information Grid (GIG). The globally interconnected, set of information 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 (including 

applications), data, security services, and other associated services necessary to achieve information superiority.

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

•	Architecture Viewpoints and DoDAF-Described Models. An architecture viewpoint is a selected set of architectural data that has been organized to facilitate visualization in an understandable way. An Architectural Description can be visualized in a number of formats, such as dashboard, fusion, textual, 

composite, or graphics, which present data and derived information collected in the course of the 

development of an Architectural Description. A view is only a presentation of a portion of the architectural data, in the sense that a photograph provides only one view of the object within the picture, 

not the entire representation of that object. Figure 7 provides a graphical representation of the architecture viewpoints in DoDAF V2.0. Architectural view/viewpoint requirements IAW DoDAF Ver. 

2.0 for JCIDS documents will be specified in the next update of the CJCSI 6212.01 series.

•	Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter (NR KPP) Certification. The Joint Staff reviews and grants NR KPP 

certification (via a certification memo) on sponsor approved JCIDS documents. The Joint Staff 

certifies the NR KPP, using the DoDAF architecture data or the optional NR KPP Architecture Data 

Assessment Template, and spectrum requirements compliance. The Joint Staff reviews and comments on the ISP NR KPP, DoDAF architecture data, or the optional NR KPP Architecture Data 

Assessment Template, and spectrum requirements compliance. The architecture data identified 

in table B-1, CJCSI 6212.01F, is required to support the various JCIDS documents for systems that 

have joint interfaces or joint information exchanges. BCL documents comply with the BEA.

•	Joint Interoperability Test Certification. Provided by the Joint Interoperability Test Command upon 

completion of testing, valid for four years from the date of the certification or when subsequent 

program modifications change components of the NR KPP or supportability aspects of the system 

(when materiel changes [e.g., hardware or software modifications, including firmware] and similar changes to interfacing systems affect interoperability; upon revocation of joint interoperability 

test certifications; non-materiel changes [i.e., DOTLPF] occur that may affect interoperability).

•	Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter (NR-KPP). The NR KPP documents sponsor identified and JROC 

validated verifiable performance measures and metrics for interoperability engineering, design, 

and testing. To meet NR KPP attributes, IT must be able to support military operations, to be 

entered and managed on the network, and to effectively exchange information. The NR KPP 

development process will help verify operationally effective provider to consumer, end-to-end 

information exchanges according to the sponsor's stated capability requirements and applicable 

reference models and reference architectures. It informs the solution architecture according to the 

DoD Information Enterprise Architecture (lEA). 

6. 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. Softwarespecific considerations are:

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

•	Careful consideration of COTS capabilities and 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 past-performance, and mature 

development capabilities and processes.

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

Strategy.

•	Early planning for transition to software support.

•	Designing extensible and modular software so as to better support incremental life cycle product 

upgrades.

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

interoperability.

•	Assessing information operations risks (see DoDD 3600.01) using techniques such as Program 

Support Reviews.

•	Emphasis on software security and assurance considerations throughout the life cycle, including certification of foreign nationals who work on key defense system software. Other detailed 

mandatory IA considerations required by life cycle phase include development of an IA strategy. 

Details of the DoD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP), 

required to authorize operation of DoD information systems IAW statutory, federal, and DoD 

requirements can be found in DoDI 8510.01

Other IT & NSS Management Considerations. Defense systems must be inherently joint and network-centric; 

as such, IT is an inherent enabler of net-centricity. Additionally, a number of legal and regulatory 

considerations apply to IT and NSS systems. These considerations include:

•	The GIG (mentioned earlier) (DoDD 8100.01) is the organizing and transforming construct for 

managing IT throughout the DoD. 

•	The GTG contains a program questionnaire and compliance matrices/declaration tables that point 

to applicable GIG Enterprise Service Profiles (GESPS) for use in the interoperability and supportability certification process.

•	Enterprise and domain-specific architectures are key to achieving scalable and interoperable IT 

systems. Use of the DoDAF, which requires programs to document their architectures in a series of 

specially tailored “viewpoints” that are produced at varying levels of detail at various points in a 

program’s life cycle is mandatory.

•	Collections of standards that the DoD has selected as key to facilitating system interoperability have 

been collected into an online tool, the DoD IT Standards Registry (DISR). https://disronline.disa.mil

•	The Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) applies to all federal IT and NSS acquisitions. CIO confirmation of 

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

•	Management of Defense Business Systems. A defense business system is an information system, 

other than a NSS, operated by, for, or on behalf of the DoD, including financial systems, mixed 

systems, financial data feeder systems, and IT and IA infrastructure. Review and certification 

of defense business systems modernizations with total modernization or development funding 

exceeding $1 million is overseen by the Defense Business Systems Management Committee and is 

described by enclosure 11 to DoDI 5000.02. 

7. EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT (EVM). A program management 

tool that integrates the work scope, schedule, and cost parameters of a program in a manner providing objective performance measurement and management. As work is performed, the corresponding 

budget value is “earned.” EVM directly supports nine management processes: organizing, scheduling, work authorization, accounting, indirect management, management analysis, change incorporation, material management, and subcontract management. 

Processes Associated with EVM 

•	ANSI/EIA-748 EVMS Standard. Thirty-two management guidelines published in the American National 

Standards Institute/Electronic Industries Alliance Standard 748, Earned Value Management Systems (ANSI/EIA-748). The DoD formally adopted the guidelines in ANSI/EIA-748 in August 1999 

for application to defense acquisition programs. 

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

mutual understanding of inherent risks.

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

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

•	EVMS Surveillance. A recurring process by an independent party, normally DCMA, assessing the 

continuing compliance of the contractor’s EVMS with ANSI/EIA-748 and the contractor’s written 

system documentation.

EVM Independent Variables

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

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

•	Budgeted Cost for Work Performed (BCWP or Earned Value). The value of completed work expressed in terms 

of the budget assigned to that work. 

•	Budgeted Cost for Work Scheduled (BCWS or Planned Value). The time-phased budget plan for work currently 

scheduled. 

•	EVM Reporting—A common WBS that follows the DoD WBS Handbook (MIL-HDBK-881) is required 

for all EVM-related reporting.

•	Contract Performance Report (CPR). A report, prepared by the contractor, containing contract cost and 

schedule performance information to identify problems early and forecast future performance. 

(DI-MGMT-81466A)

•	Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). A time-based schedule containing the networked, detailed tasks necessary to ensure successful program execution. (DI-MGMT-81650)

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

8. CONTRACTING.

Acquisition Plan. A formal written document reflecting the specific actions necessary to execute the 

approach established in the approved acquisition strategy and guiding contractual implementation. 

(FAR Subpart 7.1 and DFARS Subpart 207.1) There is no DoD-level rule that precludes the PM from 

preparing a single document to satisfy both the requirement for an Acquisition Plan and an Acquisition Strategy (see DAG, part 2.4).

Source Selection Plan (SSP). Explains the source selection process for a particular acquisition. Typically, 

the SSP consists of two parts. The first part describes the organization and responsibilities of the 

source selection team. The second part identifies the evaluation criteria and detailed procedures for 

proposal evaluation. 

A Draft Request for Proposals (RFP) and Presolicitation Conferences. Used to ensure that the requirements are 

understood by industry. Open and honest feedback is essential.

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

Requests for Information (RFI). May be used when the government does not 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 8 for the 

characteristics of the most common contract types. Figure 9 illustrates the most likely contract type 

for each phase of the acquisition process.

Performance-Based Acquisition (PBA). An acquisition structured around the results to be achieved as 

opposed to the manner by which the work is to be performed.

Statement of Work; Statement of Objectives; Performance Work Statement; System Specification; Contract Data Requirement List. Documents contained in the solicitation to industry (RFP) that define contractual requirements:

•	Statement of Work (SOW) details the work the contractor will perform and, when necessary, specifies 

how the work is to be performed.

•	Statement of Objective (SOO). Performance-based broad objectives of the product/service. The SOO 

contains top-level objectives of the program and is usually 1 to 2 pages. The contractor is tasked 

in the RFP to provide a Performance Work Statement (PWS) or a SOW in response to the SOO.

•	Performance Work Statement (PWS) A statement of work for performance-based acquisitions that 

describes the required results in clear, specific, and objective terms with measurable outcomes.

•	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 specified for a specific 

acquisition.

Cost-Reimbursement Contracts. A category of contracts in which 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 Contracts: A category of contracts (e.g., Firm-Fixed-Price, Fixed-Price Incentive-Firm Target) in which the government pays a price that is subject to specified terms and conditions 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.

9. COST ESTIMATING AND FUNDING.

Government Budget Plan. The generic title for an internal government document that plans the longrange 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. The first phase of PPBE, planning, produces the Defense Planning and Programming Guidance (DPPG). The DPPG is based on guidance from the National Security Strategy, the National 

Defense Strategy, and the National Military Strategy, along with other top-level guidance appropriate for each annual program budget cycle. The DPPG guides the Programming Phase of PPBE. 

Programming. The second phase of PPBE, Programming, produces a 5-year POM from each military 

department, defense agency, and other selected DoD components. The POM is submitted to the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) IAW a schedule published by OSD early each calendar year. 

A POM review is conducted at OSD and decisions are made by the Deputy Secretary of Defense as 

to funding priorities over the 5-year timeframe. 

Budgeting. The third phase of PPBE, Budgeting, runs concurrent with Programming and produces the 

DoD portion of the president's annual budget for submission to Congress. A Budget Estimate Submission (BES) is submitted by each department/agency that submits a POM. The BES is submitted 

concurrent with the POM and reflects a budget for the first year of the POM. The BES is reviewed 

by analysts from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). Funding changes as a result of the review are documented in decision memoranda approved by the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Execution Review. Concurrent with the preparation of the POM/BES, “execution” reviews take place in 

which 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, DoD has an opportunity to work with Congress and defend the 

president’s budget.

Future Years Defense Program. A massive DoD database and internal accounting system that summarizes 

forces and resources associated with programs approved by the Secretary of Defense. 

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 missiondirected 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 EMD but not yet approved for 

low-rate initial production at MS C. These funds are normally applied during the EMD 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 at dollar threshold determined by Congress, 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 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. 

10. TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES.

Systems Engineering. Systems Engineering transforms needed operational capabilities into an integrated 

system design through concurrent consideration of all life cycle needs. Systems Engineering is a 

structured, disciplined, and documented technical effort that simultaneously designs and develops 

systems products and processes to satisfy the needs of the customer. In the DoD, Systems Engineering activities are based around eight technical management processes (technical planning, requirements management, interface management, risk management, configuration management, technical 

data management, technical assessment, and decision analysis). These eight technical management 

processes receive input from different systems acquisition specialty disciplines including environment, safety and occupational health (ESOH), reliability, maintainability, etc.

Important Design Considerations. A number of key areas, some of which are mandated by statute, are 

called out for special consideration and emphasis during the design solution process. They form the 

basis for trade-offs in seeking an optimal, life cycle balanced technical solution. These design considerations are described in Chapter 4 of the DAG.

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 the 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 the system verification review (SVR).

•	Product Baseline is established by the detailed design documentation for the system. It includes the 

process and materials baseline. Government control of the initial product baseline occurs after 

Critical Design Review (CDR) and final product baseline is approved and validated at the 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) 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) is a time-based planning tool that uses 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.

•	Assessment of Operational Test Readiness (AOTR). An independent assessment by the office of the 

USD(AT&L) of operational test readiness for all ACAT ID programs and special interest programs.

•	Alternative Systems Review (ASR). 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 subsystem formal review of requirements and interface specifications for computer software configuration items.

•	Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Draft Space Debris Assessment Report. Due 30 days prior to program PDR 

for the spacecraft or equivalent program/project milestone. This draft is submitted to the PM, who 

will make distribution to the Chief Engineer and Safety Office, and any other offices as needed.

•	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.

•	Critical Design Review (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.

•	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.

•	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.

Test and Evaluation (T&E) is a verification and validation 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 FRPDR (or, before proceeding beyond 

LRIP—hence the name of the report). A copy is provided to the USD(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 verification 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 MS B.

•	Follow-On Operational Test & Evaluation (FOT&E). OT&E needed during and after the production phase to 

refine estimates from the IOT&E, to evaluate system changes, and to re-evaluate 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 

FRP 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 (LFT&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.

•	LFT&E Report. Completed by DOT&E for covered systems that have been subjected to a full-up live 

fire test prior to FRPDR. Usually included in DOT&E report of IOT&E (BLRIP report) when sent to 

Congress.

•	Modification T&E. Testing done after FRPDR 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 during integrated system integration is often called an early operational 

assessment (EOA). 

•	Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E). The field test, under realistic conditions, of any item (or key component) of weapons, equipment, or munitions for the purpose of determining and validating the 

effectiveness and suitability of the weapons, equipment, or munitions for use in combat by typical 

military users.

•	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). Documents the overall structure and objectives of the T&E 

program. It provides a framework within which to generate detailed T&E plans and documents 

schedule and resource implications associated with the T&E program. The TEMP identifies the 

necessary DT&E, OT&E, and LFT&E activities. It should be closely aligned with the SEP.

•	Test and Evaluation Strategy (TES). An early test and evaluation planning document that describes the 

overall approach for integrating DT&E, OT&E, and LFT&E and addresses test resource planning. 

Over time, the scope of this document will expand and evolve into the TEMP.

•	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 AS 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, productionrepresentative 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 that will provide 

value to the end-item customer.

•	Engineering and Manufacturing Readiness Levels. A means of communicating the degree to which a technology is producible, reliable, and affordable. Their use is consistent with efforts to include the 

consideration of engineering, manufacturing, and sustainment issues early in a program.

11. 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.

•	Business Case Analysis (BCA) - A PBL BCA provides a best-value analysis, considering not only cost, 

but other quantifiable and non-quantifiable factors supporting an investment decision. This can 

include, but is not limited to, performance, producibility, reliability, maintainability, and supportability enhancements. 

•	Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) - DoDD 5000.01 requires programs to “implement performance-based 

logistics strategies that optimize total system availability while minimizing cost and logistics footprint”. These strategies are articulated in the LCSP, documenting the plan for implementing these 

strategies throughout the life of the program. The LCSP is an evolutionary document that provides 

the strategic framework for optimal sustainment at minimal LCC. It evolves into an execution plan 

for how sustainment is applied, measured, managed, assessed, and reported after system fielding. 

By MS C, the LCSP describes details on how the program will field and sustain the product support package necessary to meet readiness and performance objectives, lower total ownership cost, 

reduce risks, and avoid harm to the environment and human health.

•	Performance-Based Life Cycle Product Support (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 AS, and addresses life cycle sustainment and continuous improvement of product affordability, reliability, and supportability, all while sustaining 

readiness. It ensures that system support and life cycle affordability considerations are addressed 

and documented. 

•	Product Support Manager (PSM) - The day-to-day oversight and management of the product support 

functions are delegated to a product support manager who leads the development and implementation of the performance-based product support strategy and ensures achievement of desired 

support outcomes. The PSM, while remaining accountable for system performance, can delegate 

responsibility for delivering specific outcomes. In doing so, the PM and PSM may employ any 

number of sub system PSMs or product support integrators to integrate support from all support sources to achieve the performance outcomes specified in a PBA. The PSM is responsible 

for accomplishing the overall integration of product support either directly through government 

activities or via a contract when commercial organizations are involved.

•	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 the 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 & Management

•	Test/Support Equipment 

•	Technical Data Management/IETM

•	Manpower & Personnel

•	Training & Training Support

•	Facilities & Infrastructure

•	Packaging, Handling, Storage & Transportation (PHS&T)

•	Design Interface

•	Computer Resources & Software Support

•	Product Support Management

•	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 ICD, AoA, CDD, CPD, TEMP, APB, 

and the contract.

Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics Life Cycle Management System

1. Purpose

2. Capability Need

2.1 Requirement Summary

2.2 Operational Mission & CONOPS

2.3 Threat Assessment

2.4 Net-Centric Data Strategy (TDS only)

2.5 Operational View (OV) – 1

2.6 Reference Design Concept (MS B)

3. Acquisition Approach

3.1 Cost, schedule, performance drives for current 

increment & plan to transition to later increments

3.2 Unique program circumstances

3.3 Indicate: Replacement or mod to existing 

system; or new Capability 

3.4 Indicate if new start

3.5 Indicate if joint program

3.6 Feasible technical approaches (TDS only)

3.7 Total planned production & LRIP quantities 

(MS B & C only)

4. Tailoring

4.1 Proposed tailoring and why

4.2 Requests for policy waivers

5. Program Schedule

5.1 Graphic illustration of key events

5.2 Basis for delivery or performance-period 

requirements; justify urgency; justify if not 

full and open competition

5.3 Analysis justifying schedule

5.4 Activities planned for next phase

5.5 Interdependencies

5.6 Relationships between increments; criteria for 

moving forward

6. Risk and Risk Management

6.1 Risk management approach

6.2 Interdependency issues

6.3 Key program technologies & TRL

6.4 For TDS: alternative technologies and prototyping activities

6.5 Principal programmatic risks

6.6 Risks deferred to future increments

6.7 Manufacturing risks (FRPDR only)

7. Business Strategy

7.1. Competition Strategy

7.2 Market Research

7.3 Advance Procurement

7.4 Sustainment Strategy

7.5 Major Contracts Planned

7.6. Technical Data Rights Strategy

7.7 Contract Management

8. Cost and Funding

8.1 Investment Program Funding and Quanities

8.2 Cost

9. Resource Management

9.1 Program Office Staffing and Organization

9.2 Primary stakeholders

9.3 Requirements community involvement

10. International Involvement

10.1 Limitations on foreign contractors

10.2 International Cooperation

10.3 Foreign Military Sales

11. Industrial Capability and Manufacturing 

 Readiness

11.1 Industrial Capability

11.2 Industrial and Manufacturing Readiness

11.3 Sustaining Industrial Capabilities

11.4 Planned or Completed MOAs

12. Life-Cycle Signature Support

12.1 Table of life-cycle signature support 

 requirements (TDS only)

12.2 Life-cycle signature funding requirements

 (refer to part 8)

13. Military Equipment Valuation (MEV)

13.1 Level 2 WBS for MEV accountability

13.2 End items $100K or more

13.3 GFP included in end items

13.4 Other deliverables (manuals, tech data, etc.)

 13.5 Other types of deliverables that cannot be 

 directly attributed to a specific end item 

 (spares, support equipment, special tools 

 & test equip, etc.)

Note: In addition to the TDS/AS there are five plans required: Acquisition Plan (FAR/DFARS), Program Protection Plan (PPP) and Test and 

 Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) (DoDI 5000.02), Information Support Plan (ISP) (CJCSI 6212.01_), and Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) 

 (DoDI 5000.02).

Figure 2. Acquisition Strategy

(Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Chapter 2)

Figure 1. Requirements for Milestone/Decision Reviews 

(See enclosure 4, DoDI 5000.02)

1. Part of TDS or Acquisition Strategy

2. OSD T&E Oversight Programs

3. MDAP: A,B,C; MAIS: A, B, FRP

4. MS B or C if Program Initiation

5. Program Initiation for Ships

6. Validated by DIA for ACAT ID; AIS use DIA validated 

capstone info/ops Threat Assessment Decision

7. MS C if equivalent to FRP

8. MS C if no MS B

9. MAIS whenever an economic analysis is required

10. May be CAIG Assessment at MS A

11. ACAT ID––Assessment of PM’s TRA by ASD(R&E)

12. Summarized in TDS; details in ISP

13. SAR at program initiation; annually thereafter

14. Validated by Component; AIS use DIA validated 

capstone info/ops Threat Assessment Decision

15. Draft

16. Preliminary TRA at Pre-EMD Review; final at MS B

17. Affordability constraints at MDD. Affordability 

assessment at Pre-EMD Review, MS B, C and FRPDR. 

Affordability targets at A, B and C.

18. If PDR after MS B, MDA must conduct a Post-PDR 

Assessment

Requirement MDD A Pre-EMD R B Post-CDR A C FRP

Acquisition Decision Memorandum5 X X X X X X

Acquisition Information Assurance Strategy (all IT incl NSS) X X X X

Acquisition Program Baseline5 X15 X X X

Acquisition Strategy5 X X X X

Affordability Assessment/Constraints/Targets17 X X X X X X

Alternate LIve Fire T&E Plan (pgms w/waiver from full-up LFT&E)2 X15 X

Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)3&5 X X X X

AoA Study Guidance (DCAPE approved for MDAPs) X 

AoA Study Plan (DCAPE Approved for MDAPs) X

Benefit Analysis & Determination1&8 (bundled acquisitions) X

Beyond LRIP Report

2 (include MDAPs that are also MAIS) X

Capability Development Document (CDD) X X

Capability Production Document (CPD) X 

Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) Compliance5 X X X X

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

Component CIO Confirmation of CCA Compliance (non-MAIS IT)5

 X X X X

Component Cost Estimate 5&9 (MAIS & MDAP) X X X X X

Consideration of Technology Issues (MDAP & MAIS) X X X 

Cooperative Opportunities1 X X X

Core Logistics/Source of Repair Analysis1&8 X X 

Corrosion Prevention Control Plan X X 

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

Data Management Strategy1 (MDAP, MAIS & ACAT II) X X X X

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

Exit Criteria5 X X15 X X X

Independent Cost Estimate (ICE)5&10 (MDAPs only) X X X X X

Independent Logistics Assessment (ILA) (ACAT I & II) X X X X

Independent Technology Readiness Assessment11 X X 

Industrial Base Capabilities1 (MDAPs only) X X 

Information Support Plan5 X X X X 

Initial Capabilities Document (ICD)4&5 X 

Initial Operational Test & Evaluation Completed (ACAT I & II) X

Item Unique Identification (IUID) Plan (part of SEP) X X X 

Joint Interoperability Test Certification (IT & NSS) X

Life-Cycle Signature Support Plan5 X X15 X X 

Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan1 X15 X X X

Live Fire T&E Report

2 (covered systems) (n/a MAIS) X

Live Fire T&E Waiver2 (covered systems) (n/a MAIS) X 

LRIP Quantities MDAP & ACAT II (n/a AIS)1

 X 

Manpower Estimate (MDAPS only)5 X15 X X X

Market Research1 X X 

Milestone Decision Authority Program Certification (MDAPs only)4 X X 

Military Equipment Validation1 X X

Net-Centric Data Strategy5&12 X X X 

Operational Test Agency Report of OT&E Results X X X

Post-Critical Design Review (CDR) Report X 

Post Implementation Review X

Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Report

18 X 

Program Manager’s Report of DT&E Results X X

Program Protection Plan (PPP)1 X X X X 

Programmatic Environ, Safety & Occup Health Evaluation (PESHE)5 X X X

Replaced System Sustainment Plan5 (MDAPs only) X 

Request for Proprosal (RFP) (ACAT ID) X X X X X

Selected Acquisition Report (SAR)4&13 

Should-Cost Estimate X X X X

Spectrum Supportability Determination8 X X 

System Threat Assessment (STA) (ACAT II)5&14 X X 

System Threat Assessment Report (STAR) (ACAT I)5&6 X X X 

Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) X X15 X X 

Technology Development Strategy (MDAP & MAIS) X 

Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA)5&16 X X 

Test & Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) X15 X X X

Test & Evaluation Strategy (TES) X 

Milestone/Decision Point

Figure 3. Key DP Activities

Solution

Identification

Key

Activities

# of options reduced

from 1000 + MS A to 

final solution by MS B

Flow Diagrams

Describing Major

Activities and their

relationships

Technology Forecast

Long Term Threat

Analysis

Projected Improvements

Possible Growth Paths

Impact on Current Systems

Potential Advisaries

Improvements in

Current Systems

Future Warfighting Strategy Concept Cost

Performance

Schedule

Constraints

Likely Technology Applications

DoD Influence

Marketplace Influence

Solution Sets

Figure 4. Concept Development

Figure 5. Technology Development Stages

Discovery Proof of

Concept Formulation 

MS

B

MS

A

Refinement

Breadboard

Development

Brassboard

Prototype

Relevant

Environment Acquisition

Executive

KM/DS (ICD, CDD & CPD)

Review & reference

repository

Sponsor Joint Staff

All others

Identification of

capability

requirements &

gaps

ICD

CDD

CPD

DCR

Gatekeeper

(J-8 DDR)

JSD

decision

ACAT II & below with

impact on 

interoperability

ACAT I/IA programs 

& Joint DCRs

JROC

Interest

Sponsor. The organization submitting a JCIDS document.

KM/DS. Knowledge Management/Decision Support Tool 

(SIPRNET library for review and reference).

DDR. Deputy Director for Requirements.

JSD. Joint Staffing Designator

JCB. Joint Capability Board

FCB. Functional Capability Board

JCB

Interest

Responsibility

Designated Lead

for Joint DCR

Joint Staff Review

• J-2, intelligence certification

• J-4, sustainment & energy 

KPPs

• J-8, interoperability

certification; NR KPP;

weapon safety endorsement

• J-7, DOTmLPF-P 

considerations

• Force Support FCB, Training

KPP

• Protection FCB, Force 

Protection & Survivability

KPPs

FCB review &

prioritization

KM/DS staffing

& comment

JCB

Review

FCB review &

prioritization

KM/DS staffing

& comment

Joint

Integration

ACAT II & below that 

require endorsements & 

certifications

FCB review &

prioritization

KM/DS staffing

& comment

ACAT II & below that do 

not require endorsements 

& certifications

FCB review &

Joint prioritization

Information KM/DS staffing

& comment

Independent FCB

prioritization

Sponsor

Validates

JROC

Validates

JCB

Validates

Final document stored

Figure 6. JCIDS Document Flow

Capability Viewpoint Articulate the capability requirement, delivery timing, and deployed 

capability

Operational Viewpoint Articulate operational scenarios, processes, activities & requirements

Services Viewpoint Articulate the performers, activities, services, and their exchanges 

providing for, or supporting, DoD functions

Systems Viewpoint Articulate the legacy systems or independent systems, their composition 

interconnectivity, and context providing for, or supporting, DoD 

functions

Standards Viewpoint Articulate applicable Operational, Business, Technical, and Industry policy, standards, guidance, constraints, and forecasts

Data and Information Viewpoint Articulate the data relationships and alignment structures in the architecture content

All Viewpoint Overarching aspects of architecture context that relate to all views

Project Viewpoint Describes the relationships between operational and capability requirements and the various projects being implemented; Details dependencies between capability management and the Defense 

Acquisition System process.

Figure 7. Architecture Viewpoints in DoDAF Ver. 2.0

Figure 9. Contract Type by Phase of the Acquisition Process LRIP

Operations 

& Support

Sustainment Disposal 

Technology

Development

Engr. & Manuf.

Development

Materiel P-CDRA

Dev. 

Decision Studies

IntegratedSys DesignSys Capability Full-Rate Prod & Deployment

&

Manuf Process Demo

Production & 

Deployment

FRP

Decision

Review

PHASE

A B C

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

FFP • FPI(F) FPI(F) • FFP

CONTRACT TYPE

CPFF—Cost Plus Fixed Fee CPIF—Cost Plus Incentive Fee CPAF—Cost Plus Award Fee

FFP—Firm Fixed Price FPI(F) – Fixed Price Incentive Firm Target

Materiel 

Solution

Analysis

Figure 8. Characteristics of Contract Categories

 Cost-Reimbursement 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 

1—IDENTIFY

PROJECT

4—DEFINE CONCEPTS (REQUIREMENTS/CHARACTERISTICS EXPLORATION & SYNTHESIS)

2—DEVELOP

PLAN OF ATTACK

3—FORM CMT

TRADESPACE

CHARACTERIZATION

IMPLEMENTATION

ANALYSES

CANDIDATE SOLUTION SETS

CHARACTERIZATION

13A—BASELINE CCTDs INPUT

TO AoA STUDY GUIDANCE

(XR, EN*, SPONSOR)

12—SUFFICIENCY REVIEW (XR, SPONSOR, CENTER EN*, SAF/AQR, ACQ ORG DIRECTOR*)

11—BASELINE CONCEPTS REVIEW

(XR, SPONSOR, EN*, ACE)

10— PROGRAMMATIC ANALYSES

9— RQMTS VERIFICATION (EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS, MILITARY UTILITY

ASSESSMENT, COST ANALYSIS, ETC.)

8— CONCEPT CHARACTERIZATION

REVIEW (INTERNAL TO XR)

7—CONCEPT CHARACTERIZATION

6—CANDIDATE SOLUTION SETS REVIEW

(INTERNAL TO XR)

5—CANDIDATE CONCEPTS EVALUATION

(TRADE STUDIES & EXPLORATORY ANALYSES)

13B—POM 

INPUTS TO 

SPONSOR

Notional Timeline ~ 15 Months

* As Appropriate